HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2016.02.16BURLINGAME
City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CIry HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council
Tuesday, February 16, 2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers
CLOSED SESSION - 5:45 p.m. - Conference Room A
a. Aooroval of the Clo ed Session Aoenda
b. Closed Session Com munitv Forum: Members of the Public Mav Addre ss the Council
c
d
on anv llem on the Closed Sess ion Aoenda at this Time
Adiournment into Closed Session
Note: Public comment is permitled on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the
non-agenda public comment provided tor in item 7.
Speakers are asked to tilt out a "request to speak' card located on the table by the door and
hanct itto staff, although the provision ol a name, address or other idenwing information is
optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adiust the time limit in
light ot the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous unress separately noted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
Printed on 3/16n016
STUDY SESSION - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A
a. Review of Workers' Compensation Prooram
Conference with Labor Neootiator Pursuant to Government Code 54957.6(a) Citv
Neootiators: Leslie Loomis. Lisa Goldman. Carol Auoustine. Glenn Berkheimer (IEDA).
Emolovee Oroanization: Teamsters
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Feb.uaryl6,20l6
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON.AGENDA
Members of the pubtic may speak about any item not on tha agenda. Members of the public wishing lo
suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so duing this public comment period. The Ralph M.
Brown Act (t e Srate local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Cly Council from acting on any matter
that is not on the agenda.
AlTachmenls:Februarv 1.2016 Meetino Minutes
b Ouarterlv lnvestment R eoort. Period Endino Dece mber 31 . 201 5
Attachments:Staff Reoorl
lnvestment Portfolio Holdinos
c.
d. ADoointment of Tim Rvan from the Burli me School District to the General Plan
c ommun itv Advi son Commitlee
Attachments: Staff Reoort
f. Ado ot ion of an Ordinance lo AuthoriTe lm emenlationo of a Commun itv L h o rce
Aqoreoation Prooram
Attachments: Staff Reoort
Ordinance
Pintod on 3/1 0/201 I
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent catendar items are usually apprcved in a single motion, unless pulled for separats dlscuss/bn.
Any member of the pubtic wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker
stip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar.
a. Approval of Ciw Council Meetino Minutes of Februarv 1 . 2016
Adoption of Resolutions Confirmino the Aooointment of Finance Director/Treasurer
and Desiqnatino Certain Emplovees as Official Sionatories on CiW Bankino and
lnvestment Accounts
a achments: Slatf Reoort
Resolution-BofA
Resolution - LAIF
e. Aporoval ofTree Reolacement Plan for Broadwav
Attachmenas: Staff Reoort
Letter Sent to Businesses and Homeowners
Descriotions of the Prooosed Trees
Email Received
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final February 16,2016
a AdoDtion of a Mitioated Neoative Declaration for a Pro oosed Public Park at 430-450
'10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
.I1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Members repoft on committees and activities and make announcements.
12. FUTUREAGENOAITEMS
13, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any aftendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the CiA Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available fot
public review al the CW Clerk's office, CW Ha , 501 Pimrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the CUs website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes arc available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday, March 7,
2016
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG . GO TO
"crw couNclL vlDEos"
Any wrttings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this
agenda witl be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501
Pdmrose Road duing nomal business hours.
Prinrsd on 3/16n016
Airport Boulevard
Afiachme t: Slaff Reoorl
Notice ot lntent to Adoot a Mitioated Declaration (Nol) - Dec€mber 4. 2015
Biolooical Resource Analvsis
Comment Letters - December 4. 2015 NOI
ResDonses to Comment Letters
Revised ISruND
Comment Letters - Februarv 20. 2013
Agenda I tem 8a
tr[eeting Datue: 2 /76/76
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of February l, 2016
I. CALLTOORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
Burlingame Recreation Coordinator Nicole Rath introduced the Youth Advisory Committee ('YAC").
Burlingame High School ("BHS") student, Lexi Monych discussed the role of YAC. She explained that
YAC is composed of a group of 13 students from Burlingame that communicate the issues and interests of
the youth to the Council and Parks and Recreation Department. BHS student Maia Herman outlined the
recent accomplishments of YAC. She stated that YAC participated in the YAC social which was an
exchange of ideas and events with other students in the Bay Area. As well, she stated that YAC made
donations to Thanksgiving food drives, assisted the Parks and Recreation Department with the Christmas
Tree Lighting and wrapped over a 1,000 presents during the holiday season. BHS student, Emily Williams
shared with the Council three upcoming events: (l) The Princess Project - collecting prom dresses for those
in need; (2) February 11, 2016 Valentine's Day Dance for seniors; and (3) YAC is finalizing details for their
Mission ImPastaBle event on April 20,2016.
I
Burlingame City Council February l, 2016
Unapproved Minutes
2. PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCETOTHEFLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Supervisor Dave Pine.
3. ROLLCALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERSABSENT: None
4. REPORTOUTFROMCLOSEDSESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMINGEVENTS
Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. PRESENTATION OF TIIE YOUTII ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Agenda I tem 8a
Meeting DaEe:. 2/76/16
Councilmember Brownrigg asked what YAC thought about a skate park. YAC representative Maia Herman
thought it would be a great idea and would promote exercise and health.
b. SNIC NIOSOUITO D ISTRICT'S lOOTH ANNIVERS ARY
San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control Board Representative Joe Galligan shared a brief history of
the district's 100 years of existence. He explained that mosquito and vector control boards were created by
the state legislature after data from a University of Califomia Berkley professor showed that these districts
could help safeguard the health and comfort ofcitizens through a planned program to monitor and reduce
mosquitoes and other vectors. After the state passed legislation the first district was set up in San Mateo
County.
Megan Caldwell, the Public Health Education and Outreach Officer for San Mateo County Mosquito &
Vector Control District discussed the district's role in vector board disease surveillance and prevention. Ms.
Caldwell discussed the Zika Virus stating that the United States does not currently have mosquitos
transferring the Zika Virus. However, she stated that the mosquito that transfers the virus does exist in San
Mateo County. Accordingly, the district will be monitoring the situation.
Ms. Caldwell also discussed citizens' concems offlooding at the old drive-in theater. She stated that
currently the sump-pump at the site is not operational. Accordingly, the district is working on ensuring that
the sump-pump is operational before the weather warns. As well, she asked that residents continue looking
for sources of standing water so issues could be addressed as they arise.
Burlingame resident Mike Kesselman spoke on the subject of the study session concerning the Post
Office/Lot E potential development. He encouraged the Council to work with a nonprofit organization, such
as a museum, that would be a benefit to the community.
8. CONSENTCALENDAR
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e of the Consent Calendar;
seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUfES oEJANIjABY l9,2zu
CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meetings ofJanuary 19, 2016.
b. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman requested Council to open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Planning
Commission.
,}
Burlingame City Council February l, 2016
Umpproved Minutes
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the
Consent Calendar. Councilmernber Brownrigg pulled item 8c.
Agenda I tem 8a
Meeting Dat'e: 2/L6/L6
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE
Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 6-2016; seconded by Councilmember Colson.
The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-l (Councilmanber Brownrigg voted against).
Sustainability Coordinator Michael requested Council adopt Resolution Numb er 7 -2016 and Resolution
Number 8-2016.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE UPDATED SANITARY SEWER
SYSTEM NIANAGEIIIENT PLAN
Sustainability Coordinator Sigalle Michael presented her staffreport requesting Council adopt Resolution
Number l0-2016 and introducing an ordinance to authorize the implernentation of a Community Choice
Aggregation program. Ms. Michael explained that Community Choice Aggregation, more commonly
referred to as Community Choice Energy ("CCE") is a program that allows municipalities to pool their
energy demand to purchase electricity with a high renewable source content separately from the local
investor owned utility. She continued by stating that in San Mateo County the CCE program is called
Peninsula Clean Energy ("PCE").
Ms. Michael stated that PCE would purchase electricity from renewable energy sources and PG&E would
deliver the energy, maintain the lines and bill customers. She explained that CCEs exist in both Sonoma and
Marin County and are successful.
Ms. Michael went on to discuss the benefits and risks of a Community Choice Energy program. Some of the
benefits she listed were: (1) local community control; (2) competitive, stable, and cheaper rates; and (3)
cleaner power supply. Some of the risks she listed were: ( 1) opt-out rate uncertain; (2) program size
uncertain; and (3) future Community Choice Energy legislation and regulatory changes.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
3
February l, 2016
BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF TIIE
PROTECTED-SIZE TREE LOCATED AT 2325 POPPY DRIVE
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Numb er 6-2016.
d. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS CONSENTING TO INCLUDSION OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME PROPERTIES IN THE CALIFORNIA HOME FINANCE AUTHORJTY
PACE PROGRAMS AND ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA HOME FINANCE
AUTHORITY
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 9-2016.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.
AGRXEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY IN
SAN MATEO COUNTY: AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AUTIIORIZE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY CIIOICE AGGREGATION PROGRAM
Ageada Iteo 8a
l{eeting DaEe: 2/L6/16
She explained to the Council that the County prepared a Joint Powers Authority agreement in compliance
with the Public Utilities Code. The City would need to sign the JPA agreemart in order to become a
member-city of the Peninsula Clean Energy program.
Sigalle Michael restated that customers would not see a difference in service as PG&E would continue to
provide billing customer service, and line maintenance. However, there would be a new section on each
customer's PG&E bill that would apply to the PCE electric generation charges.
Lastly, she explained as the default electricity provider, PCE, would need to send out at least 4 opt-out
notices to all citizens. Accordingly, if the City joined, residents would be given several opportunities to opt
out of the PCE and rejoin PG&E. She explained that this program was slated to launch in October, 2016.
For more information on Peninsula Clean Energy she provided the website:
www.PeninsulaCleanEnersv.com
Mayor Keighran asked whether there would be financial penalties if the City became dissatisfied with the
pricing and decided to withdraw from the JPA agreement. City Attomey Kane stated that after the program
is launched the JPA will be incurring costs. Therefore an exit cost would be dependent on when a member
wanted to leave and what costs the JPA had accrued.
Mayor Keighran asked ifa customer opted out ofthe PCE, if they could later rejoin. Supervisor Dave Pine
stated that ifa customer opted out, they would have to stay with PG&E for a year before they could rejoin.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the budget for the JPA staff. Supervisor Pine stated that they are
working on a pro forma and he would be happy to share it with the Council. He stated that Marin currently
has a staff of about 40 people but that they are also involved in several additional projects. However, he
stated that Sonoma County's JPA has a staffof about 20 people which is closer to what he envisioned for
San Mateo County. Accordingly, he stated that the administrative staff cost will be very low.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was concemed about the budget because if PG&E decided to lower
their rates to compete with PCE, he didn't want the cost of the administrative staff to be an issue.
Councilmember Beach asked if it was correct that entrance into the JPA did not involve startup costs to
Burlingame and that participating customers would sustain the salaries of the staff. Supervisor Pine replied
in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if operating surpluses could be invested in renewable green
energy. Supervisor Pine replied in the affirmative giving the example of Marin County using their surplus to
create 165 megawatts of green energy.
Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if there were examples of municipalities leaving the program and what the cost was
to leave the program. Secondly, he asked why the City or County didn't just enter into a JPA with either
Marin or Sonoma County. Supervisor Pine stated that there were no examples of municipalities leaving the
pro$am and that in fact cities outside of Marin County are entering into Marin's JPA. As for the Vice
Mayor's second question, Supervisor Pine stated they decided against joining up with Marin or Sonoma
County for two reasons: ( I ) the desire to maintain local control; and (2) the fact that San Mateo County is
significantly bigger than either Marin or Sonoma County.
Councilmernber Colson pointed out that in the agreement the County is able to seek reimbursement of setting
this program up by passing the costs on to the customerVratepayers. Supervisor Pine replied that this is the
intention but that it would be done over time. Councilmember Colson stated her concem that while the PCE
4
Burlingame City Council February 1, 2016
Unapproved Minutes
Councilmernber Brownrigg asked about the rate increases and if customers would be directed to the City if
they had issues with the increase. Supervisor Pine stated that their intention was to only allow annual rate
increases. As well, he explained that the JPA would have a call center to respond to customer questions and
that questions/notices would not flow through the municipality.
Councilmember Colson stated that there was a lot of concem from all the cities that PCE have a financially
viable structure. She stated that a component of that were the reserves and the types and amounts of reserves
that would be set in place. She stated that most ofthe emphasis was on rate stabilization reserves. Therefore
with rate stabilization reserves, the JPA would be able to monitor rates and decide what to do before
increasing rates. Supervisor Pine responded that this was correct.
Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if the PCE raised the rates above PG&E's rates would customers have to wait a year
to opt out. Supervisor Pine stated they could opt out at any point. Accordingly, Vice Mayor Ortiz stated this
was a good incentive to keep rates competitive.
Councilmernber Colson asked if entering into the JPA would help the City reach its clean energy targets.
Sigalle Michael replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing.
Burlingame residents Mike McCord and Jeff Londer spoke in favor of Peninsula Clean Energy.
Mayor Keighran closed the public hearing.
Councilmernber Brownrigg made a motion directing staffto bring the proposed ordinance back at the next
meeting and made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 10-2016; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The
motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
IO. STAFFREPORTSANDCO MMUNICATIONS
Finance Director Augustine presented her staffreport requesting Council adopt Resolution Number I l-2016.
Burlingame City Council
Unapp.ovcd Minutes
5
February l,2016
Agenda Iten 8a
t{eeting Datet 2/L6/L6
should ensure a high percentage of renewable energy is used that the PCE ensure a competitive rate with
PG&E. Supervisor Pine stated PCE would not be able to guarantee that their rate rernained lower than
PG&E, as they are seeking a high percentage ofclean energy.
Councilmember Beach asked if PG&E and PCE would publish their rates annually so that customers could
compare the rates. Supervisor Pine responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. Councilmernber Brownrigg made a
motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion
passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS OF IMPACT FEES COLLECTED
AS OFJUNE 30.2015. PURSUANT TO THE MITIGATION FEE ACT. GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 66000 et seq.
Agtenda I ten 8a
Meeting Datce: 2/L6/76
She explained that the City has 4 impact fees: (1) Public Facilities Impact Fees; (2) North Burlingame and
Rollins Road Fees; (3) Bayfront Development Fees; and (4) Burlingame Avenue Parking In-Lieu Fees.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that with roughly $250,000 in the Parking In-Lieu Fee if a parking facility
moved forward this money could be used to make a second level subject to Council action.
Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 11-2016; seconded by Councilmember
Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b. ADOPTION OF A R ESOLUTION APPROVING CIIANGES TO TIIE COMPENSATION
AND BENEFIT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DE TMENT IIEAD AND
UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFI CATIONS. AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY NIANAGER
TO EECUT E THE PLAN ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
HR Director Loomis requested Council adopt Resolution Number 12-2016. She explained that the
compensation and benefit plan for department heads and unrepresented classifications would match the
changes granted to AISCME.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution 12-2016; seconded by Councilmernber
Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
II. COUNCIL COMM ITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Respectfu lly submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
6
February l,2016
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf ofthe City.
12. FUTUREAGENDAITEMS
There were no items requested.
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Decernber I 0, 201 5 Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Novernber 17 ,2015 Library Trustee Minutes
14. ADJOTJRNMENT
Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. in memory of David Carr.
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8b
MEETING DATE: February 16,20'16
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 16, 2016
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director - 16501 558-7222
Subject: Quarterly lnvestment Report, Period Ending December 31, 2015
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the City's investment report through
December 31 , 2015.
BACKGROUNO
This report represents the City's investment portfolio as of Decembet 31, 2015. The report
includes all invested City funds with the exception of bond proceeds. All investments are in
compliance with the City's adopted Statement of lnvestment Policy.
DISCUSSION
The City's investments are guided by the Statement of lnvestment Policy, which is reviewed and
approved by the city council annually. The policy was last approved by the city council on
August 17, 20.1 5. The policy directs that investment objectives, in order by priority, are safety,
liquidity, and return. This conservative approach ensures assets are available for use while also
allowing the City to earn additional resources on idle funds. The City utilizes a core portfolio of
investments managed by the city's investment advisor, PFM Asset Management, and also
maintains funds invested in the State's Local Agency lnvestment Fund (LAIF) and the San Mateo
County Pool, to achieve its investment goals.
CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
While Treasury yields across the curve ended the quarter higher, the path towards higher rates
varied by maturity. Short-maturity yields (3 years and under) rose steadily throughout the quarter
as expectations for a December FOMC rate hike increased with an inflow of modestly strong
economic data. After increasing during the first half of the quarter, longer maturities leveled off as
market participants priced in moderate growth expectations and assessed the likely impact of
persistently low commodity prices on long{erm inflation.
1
RECOMMENOATION
U.S. Treasury Yeld Curves
2 00%
1 80%
1 50%
1.{095
1X%
! 'l 00%
0 80%
0 60%
0,10%
020%
0 00%
4.zffi
3tvl 6t'l
12j31111 9t30t15 12J31t15
6 ironrh 0.12% O.07% 0.48% +0.41%
1 Ye.r O 2lo 0 31 % 0 60% +0.29%
2Y..r 0.67% 0.03% 105% +0.42%
3 Ye.r t.'15% 0 96% '1.40% +0.44Y,a
5Y..r 1.65% 1.36% 1.76% +0 40%
February 16, 2016
4d' Quarter
Change-December31
2014
-Septerter
30 20i5
-De€ember
31 20'15
3Y 5Y
Ahead of the December FOMC meeting, market expectations were for an initial federal funds hike
and assurances that future increases would be gradual. Market reaction after the FOMC's
announcement to raise the target range for the federal funds rate was relatively subdued,
evidence that the action was in line with these expectations, a goal of the FOMC'S efforts to
provide transparency to investors.
U.S. GDP growth slowed to an estimated 0.7% in the fourth quarter as consumers cut back on
spending and businesses reduced investment. For all of 2015, GDP expanded by 2-4o/o for a
second year in a row, led by the biggest gain in consumer spending in a decade.
PORTFOLIO INFORMATION
The City's cash, excluding bond proceeds, is pooled for investment purposes. As of December
31, 2015, invested funds totaled $1 17,689,41 1 (including the cash balance in the City's custody
account). These investments are assets of the City of Burlingame, which includes the General
Fund, the enterprise funds (such as Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste), as well as various non-
major funds. Note that the City's account with the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust
Fund (CERBT), used to pre-fund the City's retiree medical obligations, is not included in this
report.
During the fourth quarter of 2015, a number of strategic trades were executed with the help of the
City's investment advisor to add value to the portfolio. The duration (a measure of sensitivity to
changes in interest rates) was shorter than the benchmark's duralion for much of the quarter as
interest rates rose. At the end of December, duration was extended to take advantage of the
higher interest rates. The portfolio's duration as of December 31, 2015 was 2.64 years (matching
the benchmark's duration ot 2.64). Factoring in additional investments such as the San Mateo
County Pool and LAIF, the average effective duration was 1.47. During the quarter, six securities
from the secondary portfolio were called and were invested in U.S. Treasury and federal agency
notes in the main portfolio. A number of strategic trades were also conducted in the main portfolio
to swap between sectors or extend duration. Due to the low spread on federal agency notes, U.S.
1Y 2Y
Maturity
2
lnvest nent Report December 31, 2015
3 ilonth 0.04% 402% O17% +0.19%
lnvestment Repo4 December 31 , 201 5 February 16, 2016
Treasuries were favored during the quarter, and the portfolio's allocation to this sector was
increased by 10ok. Please see below for a summary of all the transactions for the quarter ended
December 31 , 2015.
59 1.33Yo 960,000Purchase912828W9
U.S. Treasury
Notes
0 1,000,000313380NToFHLB Notes10t5t15
0 2,000,0003133EAA8110t13t15
0 1,000,0003133804V6FHLB Notes10114115
0 1,000,0003133804V6FHLB Notes10114115
1,000,000313380MF1FHLB Notes 010t14t15
1,000,000313380MF1FHLB Notes 010t14115
48 1.25%2,140,O0010t14115Purchase912828F39
FHLB Notes 12 0.41o/o 2,200,00010114115Sale3130A2T97
48 1.23%1,995,00010115115Purchase3137EADM8
19 0.47%1,975,000
Purchase U.S. Treasury
Notes
10t15t15
U.S. Treasury
Notes 0.88%1,965,000
10t15t15 Purchase
912828WD8
FFCB Notes 0 2,000,000Call3133EAR3811t4t15
l4 O.79o/oPurchase
U.S. Treasury
Noles5t1511t
0 2,000,000CallFNMA Notes11t7t15
58 1 .620/o 1,945,000912828W9
U.S. Treasury
Notes1119115Purchase
40 1 .44o/o 1,750,000912828D23
U.S. Treasury
Notes
12t30t15 Purchase
EO 1.76%750,000912828WC0
U.S. Treasury
Notes
12130115 Purchase
11 0.87o/o 1,000,000313371PV2FHLB Notes12130115Sale
0.45o/o 995,0003135G0VA8FNMA Notes12t30t15Sale
0.7 5o/o 400,000912828RU6
U.S. Treasury
Notes 11
12t30t15
Sale
100,000912828RX0
U.S. Treasury
Notes 12
12t30t15
Sale
45 1.680/o 250,0003137EADM8FHLMC Notes12t31t15
250,0000Maturity78658442112131t15
Settlement
Date
Term
(Mths)DescriptionTransaction CUSIP
3
YTM/YTC
%(Yield) Principal
10t5t15
Call
Call FFCB Notes
Call
Call
Call
Call
U.S. Treasury
Notes
FHMLC Notes
912828SS0
912828TW0 2,000,000
3136G18T5
0.750/o
Purchase
SAFRA Bank CDs
February 16, 2016
As noted in the pie chart below, the City's investment portfolio as of December 31, 2015 was
heavily weighted towards the State Local Agency lnvestment Fund (LAIF) and high-quality (AA+
rated) federal agency and U.S. Treasury securities to maintain the focus on safety and liquidity.
lnvestments By Security Type
As of December 31 , 2015
Corporate Notes
18Yo
Local Agency
-
lnvestment Fund\ (s[,
Certificates of
Deposit
2o/o
Commercial
Paper
2o/o
Federal
San Mateo
County
lnvestment Pool
1Yo
Cash
1Yo
Agencies
2104
BBB (A3 by
Credit Quality of lnvestments
As of December 31, 2015
-NR (LArF)+#EK* s7"/"
AA
U.S. Treasuries
18Yo
AAA
2o/o
NR (San Mateo
County Pool)
1o/o
NR (FD|C
lnsured)
2o/o
A-1 (Short-Term)
2o/o
Cash
1Yo
42o/o
The City's lnvestment Policy allows for a five-year time horizon wilh an emphasis on liquidity. As
of December 31, 2015, 40o/o of the City's funds were invested in very short{erm liquid
investments, 22Yo of lhe funds were invested wilh maturities between one day and tvvo years, and
39% of the investment portfolio had a maturity ranging from two to five years. This distribution
allows the City the necessary liquidity to meet operational and emergency cash needs while
maximizing returns on funds not needed in the immediate future. The City's aggregate
investments maintain a weighted average maturity of 1.59 years, and currently generate annual
interest income (yield to maturity) of O.92o/o before investment expenses. The City's funds are
4
tnvest nent Report, December 31 , 201 5
Moody's)
<1o/o
A
13Yo
lnvestment Repofi, December 31 , 201 5 February 16, 2016
invested in high credit quality investments, and continue to meet the City's goals of safety,
liquidity, and yield/return.
-Rafrngs by Standard & Poor's. Average excludes 'Not Rated' securities
As noted in previous reports, staff has ananged for a gradual drawdown of the City's holdings in
the San Mateo County Pool, as these funds are not as easily accessible as the City's other liquid
holdings, and the yield on the County Pool is lower than that earned in the City's own investment
portfolio. The accessibility of funds in the City's LAIF account will allow staff to make as-needed
withdrawal requests to meet operating and capital needs, and the City's managed portfolio will
grow as the County Pool funds are withdrawn. A total withdrawal of these funds (approximately
$5.2 million) will occur over the next two years, as withdrawals from the fund are limited to 20% of
the City's balance in the pool.
1 .2o/o
0.9%
0.3%
Yield History
October 31, 2014 - December 31 , 201 5
+Portfolio Under Management -+- 2-Year Treasury+LAIF -i+San Maleo County Pool
1.28%
1.05%
0.78%
0_37%
Oct
14
$1 1 7,689,410.97
1.59 YearsWeighted Average Maturity
Average Credit Quality*AA
Yield To Maturity
Nov
'14
Dec
14
Jan
'15
Feb
15
Apr
tc
May
15
Jun Jul 15 Aug15 15
sep
15
Oct
15
Nov
15
Dec
tc
As of December 31, 2015, the yield to maturity at cost on the main portfolio of securities was
1.28%. This resulted in interest income and realized gains that totaled $225,184. lncluding
additional investments such as LAIF and the San Mateo County Pool, the aggregate investments
averaged a yield to maturity of 0.92%.
1.5%
0.6%
City lnvestments Statistical lnformation
Market Value
0.92%
0.o%
Mar
15
Maturity Distribution
As of December 31, 2015
20Yo
February 16, 2016
8o/o
45%
4OYo
35o/o
30Yo
25o/o
20Yo
15o/o
10o/o
5o/o
0Yo
40o/o
15o/o 160/o
<1o/o
Overnight One Day-6 6-12 Months 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 34 Years 4-5 Years
Months
The following is a summary of cash and investment holdings held by each fund as of December
31, 20'15, which includes invested funds, debt service reserves, amounts held in overnight (liquid)
accounts, the City's main checking account and other operating funds:
Cash and lnvestments by Fund
AsoltZlSLlLS As of 9/30/15 Change S
General Fund
lnternalService Funds
Water Fund
Sewer Fund -
Solid Waste Fund
Parking Fund
BuildinB Fund
Landfill Fund
Subtotal, Operating Funds
Other Funds
Total Cash and lnvestments
36,sO2,2O4 5
16,575,559
74,02L,759
72,575,513
4,347,28s
4,759,782
4,909,794
674,O02
26,982,s08 s
75,872,276
12,860,569
t0,879,790
4,27L,929
4,264,637
4,830,543
609,980
9,519,696
703,283
7,L6L,790
7,69s,723
75,356
494,55t
79,L5L
64,O22
73,792,972
ls,o77,7 47]l
s L32,687,7O3 5 723,966,478 5 8,72t,22s
94,36s,298
38,322,405
80,572,326
43,394,L52
The large increase in General Fund cash and investments is due to the receipt of property taxes
from the County in December. Typically, this balance will decline until the next influx of property
taxes in April. lncreases in the Water and Sewer funds over the quarter are also a reflection of
the funds regular cash flow, with no major annual debt service (principal and interest on
outstanding revenue bonds) payments until April. The $5-1 million decrease was due to capital
expenditures throughout the quarter (largely in sewer and streets CIP projects) and $1.9 million in
in debt service payments on general governmental debt (storm drain, pension obligation, and
lease revenue bonds) made in November and December.
2%
I I
6
lnvestnent Repo4 December 31, 2015
5
l
lnvest nent Repo4 December 31 , 201 5
CONCLUSION
All City funds are invested in accordance with the approved Statement of Investment Policy with
an emphasis on safety, liquidity, and return (in that order). The City's investment strategy of
balancing the investment portfolio between sho(-term investments (to meet cash flow needs) and
longer{erm maturities (to realize a higher rate of return) is appropriate given current market
conditions.
Due to the ease of access of the City's funds in overnight accounts such as LAIF, the City has
more than sufficient funds available to meet its liquidity (expenditure) requirements for the nexl
six months.
Staff and the City's investmenl advisor will continue to closely monitor the City's investments to
ensure the mitigation of risk and ability to meet the City's investment goals while being able to
respond to changes in market conditions.
FISCAL IMPACT
Quarterly reporting of the City's lnvestment Portfolio will not result in any direct impact on City
resources
Exhibit: Portfolio Holdings as of December 31, 2015
7
February 16, 2016
ro
1
c)bt
2
o
ab(a
z
l&
{.Jltll
.1
eq;r;iio
---Nd.iJ
s;iiF5+;;A>;Daa66-6iosssssssssssSSS-n -n -H -R -e -R,,,R ."B -3,,,3,,,K -B -K,^RnjH tut,l uir{ iji- ui- Ei.i E; E: H: H: H: Eg |!. l!.1E; Ei Ei E; E; E: Es E: Er >r >2 >e EA Ei
>- cj >o >-o >-o >o >o >6 >-o >o >A >Q >a >q >9<n Ea _ir r Es s1<q <t <c! Et (q' <!. q!. qq q!.
rg ng EE es Es Es EB EE E6 E} ES EB EE E6F6 Fa t-6 F6 Fo Fo Fo FO FO FO FO FO FQ Footr 6tr aF 6F t^F 6F oF (,F at aE @L (^F (,t- 6t
=6 5b =b.b 5b f b rb =b -a =o lo ro 16 ro
I
N.,ir..
5
e
1
^i
^i
c;
j
di
^1
j
|,)
j
^1
.,;
^.i
di
.ii
il
9
=
qi
+
j
e
+
q
q
+
a
q
6
+
a
r]
+
j
..i
o
+
e
j
t
+
+{
e
d
i
+
^l
.i
.
+
;
4
.-.
c-
6-
+{
c;I
vi
;
6-
+
j
q
+
I
c;
9'
+'
+
Ui
.!.
:.
ri
j
EF ozoo66
ID
oz
t
o.ot
o
F
f
t(,
E8o()
e
EE
SE<i
=3F(J
t!
E
crl o'E9o
9o
HE
€s
ia
ln
o
ar|
c,lt
Eo(,
ru6
c't
t!
E
oIL
!,
tu
I
o(,
(,oo
o
G
oo
tr
o(,(J
Eot,l
IB
E
TE
E
E
q
U
z.
=E,zuJE
= E<6 _il
E 8.9d oE
AEE
bEE
E i"trJlJlil
..i
<t
..{
+
q
.,i
E
.r rl,.:a fI3
-3s
iE
E'l4EdE
4
A
tl
U'I
qJ
a)
of,
2
()aa
2
rlllll
j
Ne
j
i{ 6 - ^- ln :
= !.4 = !4: '4> rni i; !4> 14> ; ; Eb HoH-:ESSSEsEseFE;E; 3 3e;e;
rE =R;E {[ *E 1i 3E 3E EI ET E! ETPE qi -qE OE -qE
gi EE Hi 919I ;I ;I
Pii e6 (Jo (Jo
ES ES ES f S ES CS ES ES +S CS SS CSEn >e >e urs u A ua zA zQ ut ua u:9 !!9
lro =o Eo 9.Jo =i !:o =- =-:lo tlo:- H-ao io =o o 2o tstr 2F =o o tip tsp EPEE f,E f 5 trE f;E trE S5 f 5 trE 15 ffE trE
q.?
a
aa
Fi
d)
;
d
d
6-
+
q
;
6
+
4
a
q
+{
I;
+
.i
al
+
.t
..i
.i
6-
+
i.
+
I
q
+
I
a
ci
a
j
a
a'
j
ci
.i
.a-
+
q
.{.
j
+
a
I
N
'.i
dl
E6zo
6l
.,1
Na
j
a
^i
F;
si
(,o
.?
ui
c;
+
s!
(,
(,oF
(,
oz
(,
(,
(,
(,
(9
o
o
oz
tlEo!o
.)l,l
E
tt
E
+o
c,t\
A
ooo
o
F
F
4
b
s
E\
f-6
r6
.j
.,1
x
+
q
q
ni)ta,
E3
!ru
EE
EH
Eg<i
=8F9
o
IE
Eo'Euo
9o
HE
€.e
Fo
lrl
oal
tYt
tult
E
tu
(,o
.gE
LIJ
-coE
oTL
is
PE
;d
EAEdEto&,
o
A.
s(,
I
o
.9
..!n
()oo
o
G
o)o
c
ooo
to
E'It!Elg
E
z
z-E,zuJS
= E<6 _iE'
= B.1d aD
AEEu- iso .a€
E E"
4
q
I
I'llll,tr
j
a
(,
!,]
^l
(,
oz
!colot
=
F
ttij
UJt
1)
u
bf,
z
ar,a
zIr
, r llltr,ry
!l
q
j
ri
Uq
di
q
d;
q
^l
6l
^i
yi
+
e
qj
!,1
c]
4
.1
.i
a
q
^:3
j
j
+{
j
a
q
o-
q
.1
j
n
q
o
.j
!!j
!!
EB- - 5^ ^ IE EiHcE= E F E-E
o ao do etEs h s is 8s i s hs 5s es
eE H E HP pE I E Eil iH VEi-i;^cj U ^.i Ed
=
si;; E-i i !.i
0E gdE;E =8: I95:5 H89S EIS ES E;3 S 93 ES;S
F:r <(]> Ei> =i> A9A E=3.,r3 -A E...4 EE zB eE
Ee EEe ge EE EgE EE EE EE
t
q
=I
(,o
s
I o
F
o
oz
IE
oo.
oI
o
!o'
.l
h€
d
ii
oooo
t-
F
'i
ri
6i
ri
61
61
1..
Hs s s o€
*; .j .j .i
rx v)x !4x !4x
E3 9= 9S 9S<i <o <o <oto t6 56 toEE EE EE EE
.,]
j
.1
.i
.?
o
r'l
j
+'
+
ct
j
+
q
-i
!,:
+-
+
q
I
u,)
!!
o
-i
+
e
:.
rl,
oz
!
o
ao
C'
E
E
E
!,
EE
tto
E8ol)
E
EE
EE<i
.8F(J
o
9-
Et o'Euo
9or
HE
€c
Eo
-3s
t.=PIi(
o+.E
c,
oG
s
0,r
.A
.c!-
(J
tuti
o
IB
oo
.P
E
o(,
(J
!o
C,totro
=
=i2-i,zrr.r g
= E<
6:EE.f; H,iu 6;
d 38
r-u lpo ;gF;"63
6.
U
trrlllh
ul
ri
t
oo
d
ui
a
q
t
o
l{(,
!,.a
atu{,o
E
L!
oE
E
U
J
u!t
2.
aa
2
,fltr
o
tu
ar
6
.,
IE
IDIJ
oo
o
t\
o
o
o
F
D
a
d
F.
^l
q
.j
,-
=fi(Jf
ii=
6 CI lcl
E E EB
y q ze! A (,ta
H d Sd'+EY* ' 8,zd
^1
u,)
Fa
Ao
o
A
ot\
t-
F
a
:.
u1
q
61
di
e
j
,D-
d'
q
E
\
'5-
o-
o-
a
o-
a
EI
+
Rj
III
t
II
r-
r..
a
q
j
d;
..1
j
j
q
q
6
;
I
!e
q
Fo
-ro Zo 6 E
E*5*E sH* sB *' g
za Od d o Yi N;t93ftEC 5;B Eg Bq E
3H:H E g E* EE 9 E E E
2- 2^ V) .i u"i qd I .i 5 ..:
=E EE E 3 3E Eg g
E$:S is$ E$ =$ = S ArS
Bts 6$ gES Es g$
=*S
gsa
3E EE EgE gE iE qEE
=dT
o
E
+
o
a
P
j
-
q
c
d, ll,.:i ,
E3
tl.,
E8o9
E
EE
gE<i
=BF(,,
t
oto'Euo
9o
HE
€c
io
ln
oll
(,
.a
a,9!,6
c'r
o
UJ
E
tso
=
oLL
->9
E:9fic,
CNocd'EutoE
A
t
or
oo.:
oovl
o
t!
oo
c
oo(,
Et,glt!ct!
E
z.
=E.,urS
= E<< EF(, -q6
= HEd oD
AEEu- iso >t
E;"
E
(J
lilll,i
rl
ru
o
A
'o
E
Eo()
oqoooo
o
.!
{,
oz
rl,
oa
oo
I,i
UJJ
a)
cI,
2
aa
2li
fll
aio
F
.i.i
I
o
o
.i
o
o
s
l',1
N
+
!
o
o
.AE
oii:
I
o
o
odo
o
o
F
:
.
o
t\d
c;o
o
1o
t\t
oo
<ioooo
o
oo
F
t
Fa
Fi
q
d
.n
q
..;
4
q
z
I
z
a
d;
i
-p
6
o-
a
..-
+
I
a
6-
+
8q
d'
z
I
2z
e
P
z
I
8
.i
p
p
z
z
q
P5ci
e
z
z z
3
o
z
e
Io
F
99F}TTIE:9
a 9{ I I I ={ e S.3!! -:<o ao o o vo =o r o tro ao+XeE E=E?ETt S EfiE=E
=:=:-:fi:E:9: : :-8:H:EE bE
=H
PE PE bE H
=H
f;H qH3E;9;B :B EE =e .ts;i =N iH
EB aE eE =B EB 6E =: FB 9B EB
EE HE ET dE UE
=E
EE EE EB EE
arorif!3
t
E8O()
E
EE
UE<i
=8F(J
t!
lno'El)o
9o
f;E
€c
Eo
la
o.\.
o.o
Elut)
ru6
c'r
t
u.,
co
=
o
'lg
9tiE
orttE
d,
oo.
so
I
6
.9
L
(,o6
o
lE
oo
trfo(J(,
to
Otoc
IE
E
z.
z-E,EuJeE E<
6:.E.
E E.id o;
6 33u- ioo a€E E"U8
o.
DU
ftrillllll
5
o
..j
qe
e
a
z
z
q
q
od
o
o
l!
F
U
-t
(,
b[,
z
aa
zlr
{'lltr
o
E
F
outqq
s
<t
oqoo
iPu.og.nZ
.9-
5i
n
o
ao
o
oooo
t\
t\o
t;
!
.
ooo
utt\
t\q
F
E!
F
'i
I
e
j
o
s s{
60=Ss+ *rSs S
=.i -l: a Za <3* i* Qs os 3 s6€ -8 <8 Q8 e 3.r.i PJd -.; +.i d ;E6 trd ffa ?a e o
g* ES ES ES S S
E)- u) => u> < ;.qlo
=: dH =i
dac)o =o =o Zo 6"PrE f E TE f 5 EtsE
6i
^i
^l
=(,
o
(,(9
q
^i
:.
+
-
cie
q
+
9
h
+{+
Ij
o
q
e
+
a
j
oz
Ecoo
{,gl
.E,
a, o,.:a =
EE
tlo
tool,
E
EE
us<i
E8F(J
o
E-
Eo'8lJo
.9 or
frE
€c
Fo
ln
o
G}
tultE
a,(,
!,a
ct)
!
t!
o
=o
"E
IL
isE.=PIid
glttEdEIaod,
IEq
E
o
I
o(l,
(Jo
Ul
o
G
oo
o(J
(J
o
E'Io
o
E
dl9fiodLL
Eoio-i
rus
2 =\<;F(, .qdz i75 8,jd 6;
A EEr-r loo .a€F ;"U3
|l
o
oooo
o
ct
oodo
ooooooo
o
o
ooo
oq
oo
oo
1!
UJJ
(,
EI
2
a
tin
2
{tT
s
.!
I
F
qq
uid
o
c;
o
tE*.ac
q=
EE
oo
ei
oooo-
t\o
oooo
r{
oooc)
t\
l-
t
=
l\o
oooo
d
oooo
t\
oq
o
F
lt
D
.jiidi
6a6o6,
didir{+ci
tr t) Lr Lr LrlJoo
;===i
zzzzz
HEPEE
(, (9 LiJ
r';n
.iji^ii
F. F'<
;ul+ ;. F:, nu.r><> >b>Z 6Ho__1 H aZ/<E-oi-"i.i-"a-oo
5B-8=E?8e E+oPo--l:-io.<9: E:0-:5 r Y rEEE&rEE&* Rzh=$F6>NL
E;-u>Z>u>E ;
Ha=)<F;i*ootsa2oEo=aE,zFrEfEEEf;EHSS
o
oz
tt
oto
C'
E(,tt!,E
=:!-
EEc=Es
OE.: .9
Hgt,irO
96OPEAEE)<
J
crp;3
EO
:E
=>
gt
=8g
5oz
ln
onl
G)
ott
E!,u!l6
o)
E
ql
c
oE
I
!
e6
oA
1A
.9
Etr
d
o
E
JPoILr!
=L
IE
+,tr
o(,I
Eogl
TE
lE
=
coqfr
odILFdPE'5uJt
= E=
(,.q5
= E.qd o<
B E#
r-u ioO >E
E il"(J6hlJ'['ih
t\o
ooo
q
oo
rl@
STAFF REPORT
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 16,2016
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director - (650) 558-7222
AGENDA NO 8c
MEETING DATE: February 16,2016
Subject:Adoption of Resolutions Confirming the Appointment
Director/Treasurer and Designating Certain Employees
Signatories on City Banking and lnvestment Accounts
of
as
Finance
Official
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following resolutions
B. Resolution authorizing the City of Burlingame investment of monies in the State of California
Local Agency lnvestment Fund (LAIF)
BACKGROUNO
There is no budget impact
Exhibits:
o Resolution of the City of Burlingame for Bank of America
o Resolution of the City of Burlingame for LAIF
1
RECOMMENDATION
A. Resolution authorizing the City of Burlingame signatories for city checks, drafts, and other
orders drawn on the Bank of America; and
Ms. Fariba Ghahemani has been selected as the City's new Deputy Finance Director/Deputy
Treasurer. This staffing change (effective February 1, 20'16) requires confirmations of signatories
for the purposes of making financial transactions with the Bank of America and the State of
California Local Agency lnvestment Fund. The City has accounts for its regular banking and
investmenls as well as accounts for depositing bond proceeds. Once these resolutions are
approved by the City Council, staff can move fonivard with updating the signatories with the
appropriate financial institutions.
FISCAL IMPACT
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has a long-established relationship with the Bank of
America; and
WHEREAS, the Bank of America requires the CiV to adopt a resolution in order to allow
funds to be deposited with the Bank of America and to identify and authorize certain City officers
to sign check, drafts and other orders of said bank.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1 . The City Council authorizes that funds of the City of Burlingame may be deposited with
Bank of America subject to the terms and the signature card, rules of the Bank, including
all amendments and additions thereto, all applicable laws, regulations and practices of
the Bank in force from time to time, and all service charges now or hereafter established
or allowed by law.
3. The City Council authorizes each of the above named persons to endorse checks, drafts
and other orders for and on behalf ofthe City of Burlingame for deposit, encashment or
otherwise and further, the City Council authorizes the Bank of America to honor and pay
on account any and all checks, drafts or other orders signed andior endorsed herewith,
or, if said checks, drafts or other orders are presented unendorsed for deposit to City's
account, to supply any required endorsement.
4. The City Council agrees that any sum at any time in the account with the Bank of
America shall be subject to the right of offset for monies owed by City to Bank of
America to the extent legally permissible; further, the City Council agrees to pay the
Bank of America on demand, the amount of overdrafts on this account and any amounts
for account fees and rates according to the current schedule of fees and rates.
RESOLUTTON NO._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING GITY OF BURLINGAME
SIGNATORIES FOR CITY CHECKS, DRAFT AND OTHER ORDERS
ON BANK OF AMERICA
2. The City Council authorizes the following City officers to sign checks, drafts or other
orders for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame; the signature of one of these officers
shall be required for checks, drafts or other orders of less than $5,000.00; the signature
of two of these officers shall be required for checks, drafts or other orders of $5,000.00
or more.
a. Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
b. Carol Augustine, Finance Director/Treasurer
c. Fariba Ghahremani, Deputy Finance Director/Deputy Treasurer
d. Margaret Ono, Accounting Technician
5. The City Council authorizes the Bank of America to hold all statements and vouchers
until called for, and if not called for within thirty (30) days, to mail said statements.
Ann Keighran, Mayor
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regulady introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Burlingame City Council held on February 16, 2016, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
RESOLUTTON NO._
WHEREAS, City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby reaffirms that the deposit and
withdrawal of money into and out of the Local Agency lnvestment Fund in accordance with the
provisions of the Califomia Government Code and the City of Burlingame's lnvestment Policy, are in
the best interest of the City of Burlingame;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does resolve as follows
1. The City Council authorizes the deposit and withdrawal of funds of the City of Burlingame
into and out of the Local Agency lnvestment Fund in the California State Treasury in accordance with
the provisions of the California Govemment Code 16429.1 for the purpose of investment as stated
herein, and further, the City Council authorizes the State Treasurer's Office to verify all banking
information provided in that regard.
2. fhe City Council authorizes the following City officers or their successors in office, to
deposit or withdraw City of Burlingame funds into or out of the Local Agency lnvestment Fund:
CAROL AUGUSTINE
Finance Director
FARIBA GHAHEMANI
Deputy Finance Director
MARGARET ONO
Accounting Technician
ANN KEIGHRAN, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16'" day of
February, 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 16429.'l to 16429.4, the State has
created a Local Agency lnvestment Fund in the Treasury of the State of California for the deposit of
money of local agencies for the purposes of investment with the California State Treasurer; and
3. The City Council directs that these authorizations and designations shall remain in effect
until such time as the City notifies the Local Agency lnvestment Fund in writing of any changes.
\\i4
-<31=-/.STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: February 16,2016
To:Honorable ilayor and City Gouncil
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager - (650) 558-7243
Subject: Appointment of Tim Ryan from the Burlingame School District to the
General Plan Community Advisory Committee
Staff recommends the City Council discuss whether it wishes to appoint Burlingame School
District Director of Facilities Tim Ryan of the Burlingame School District to the City's General Plan
Community Advisory Committee.
The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive update of its General Plan. The public
outreach process for the update involves consultation with a broad range of individuals through
surveys, community workshops, and meetings of a Community Advisory Committee. All meetings
of the Community Advisory Committee are open to the public. lnformation about the General Plan
update process, including the schedule of all meetings and other activities, can be found at the
Envision Burlingame website (http://www.envisionburlinqame.oro).
On June 15,2015, the City Council appointed members of the public to the General Plan
Community Advisory Commiftee (CAC). The CAC includes 25 members and has met six times
thus far. The seventh meeting ofthe CAC is scheduled for February 24,2016. The General Plan
consultants anticipate holding up to 12 CAC meetings during the course ofthe update process.
At a meeting of the City/School District liaison committee on February 3, 2016, the District asked
that the City appoint a School District representative, Director of Facilities Tim Ryan, to the CAC
given the District's concems about any changes that may increase enrollment in the schools. ln
addition, the District noted that the City is participating in the District's Facilities Master Plan
Committee through the appointment of the Planning Commission Chair to this group. However,
the Planning Commission Chair is serving in his capacity as a private citizen rather than as a
representative of the City. City staff therefore recommends that the City request an official
appointment of a City staff member of the City Manager's choice to the District's Facilities Master
Plan Committee. Should the School District not be amenable to this arrangement, then the City
Council may wish to rethink Mr. Ryan's appointment to the CAC. The purpose of both
appointments is to ensure communication and transparency between both agencies.
1
Date: February 16,2016
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
Genenl Plan Community Advisory Commillee
There is no financial impact
February 16, 2016
FISCAL Ii'PACT
2
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e
MEETING DATE: February 16,2016
Date: February 't 6, 20'l 6
From:Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director - (650) 558-7307
Bob Disco, Parks Supervisor and City Arborist - (650) 558-7333
Subject: Approval of Tree Replacement Plan for Broadway
The ornamental Aristocrat Pear trees along Broadway in the business area have been suffering
from fire blight. This vascular disease will kill the trees over time. ln addition, the Carrotwoods in
the bulb outs at each intersection have been challenging to manage. Due to their broad canopy,
these trees are prone to damage by passing trucks, and they obscure pedestrian visibility. There
are 34 Aristocrat Pear trees and 18 Carrotwoods in the Broadway business area.
DISCUSSION
ln order to address both of these problems, City staff has been working with the Broadway
Business lmprovement District Board of Directors to determine the best approach. After much
discussion and several meetings, the Broadway BID Board and City staff agreed to the following
proposal. As each Aristrocrat Pear dies from fire blight or another cause over the next several
years, it will be replaced by the disease-resistant Redspire Pear. The Redspire Pear was chosen
because it closely resembles the current Pear on Broadway. As an example, a newly planted
Redspire Pear can be seen in lront of 1327 Broadway.
The Carrotwoods will be removed at one time in order to expedite the process and maintain
uniformity on Broadway. These trees will be replaced with Crape Myrtles. The Crape Myrtle tree
was chosen for its upright growth, which will not hinder views of businesses and pedestrians, and
its bright flowers, which will add color to Broadway.
The businesses and homeowners within 300 feet of Broadway were sent notifications of the draft
plan and encouraged to attend the February 4 Beautification Commission meeting or send letters
to give their input. ln addition, the proposed plan was sent out in the e-News, and an article
appeared in the Daily Journal. Three members of the public attended the Beautification
Commission meeting, and none disapproved of the plan. The attached email from a member of
the public, which was received too late for the Commission meeting, expressed concerns about
1
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the tree replacement plan for Broadway.
BACKGROUND
Broadway free Replacement Plan February 16, 2016
ensuring the appropriate replacement trees are selected. The Beautification Commission
unanimously supported the plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
2
Staff estimates that it will cost approximately $'1 100 to plant all of the Redspire Pears and $2100
to plant the Crape Myrtles. The funds will be spent over a three to five-year period and will come
out of the Tree Replacement Fund. lt is anticipated there will be adequate funds in the Tree
Replacement Fund.
Exhibits:
o Letter Sent to Businesses and Homeowners
. Descriptions ofthe Proposed Trees
. Email Received
City of Burlingame
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 558-7300 . Fax: (650)696-7216
Jan.wy22,2016
Dear Neighbor ofBroadway Avenue,
As you have most likely noticd the omamental 'Aristocrat' Pear trees along Broadway Ave. in
the business area bave been suffering from fire blight. This vascular disease will kill the trees
over time. h additioq the Carrotwoods in the bulb outs at each intersection havc bcen
challenging to manage due to their broad canopy that are prone to damage by passing rucks and
have obscured pedesriao visibility.
Both of these problems need to be addressed. City staff has been working with the Broadway
Business Improvement Dsrict Board of Drectors to determine the best way to resolve tiese
issues.
After much discussion and several meetings, the Broadway BID Board approved ofthe
following propo,sal. As each 'Aristsocrat' Pear dies, it will be rcplaced by the disease resistant
'Redspire' Pear. Tbe BID looked at several options and chose the 'Redspire' sirce it closely
resembles the currcnt pear on Broadway. Over the next few years as each 'Aristocrat' succumbs
to fue blight, the City will replace the tree with a new 'Redspire'.
As an example, a newly planted 'Redspire' pear can bc seen in front of 1327 Broadway.
The Canotwoods will be removed all at onetime in order to expedite the process and maintain
uniformity on Broadway and replaced with Crape Myrtles. The Crape Myrtle tree uas chosen
for its upright growth ther will not hinder views ofbusinesses and pedestrians and its bright
flowers that will add color to the Avenue.
This proposal will be heard by the Beautification Commission on February 4 at 6:30pm at the
Recreation Center at 850 Burlingame Ave. The community will have the opportunity to weigh
in on the proposal. If you are unable to atend the meeting correspondence can be sent to the
Beautification Commission at 850 Burlingame Ave. or eborba@burlinmme.ore. For the
conespondence to be included in the Commissioners packe! it needs to be received by Thurday,
January 28 at 4:30pm.
s
c4
Bob Dsco
Parks Supervisor & City Arborist
ryfiv'v-
o.E
a2rb
@c.= 9{963=oar!lt:coEf
j_ -l
:€
i Es s ! Hi sB i E a -aI , tI=.E t:# ;-E g^35;=s=Eig ;=r-3
E pe!RE.EEiSEt nE??
S$iEFEEE=EE$i;E EI
!
5
o
LO>' (')EE
eP(!Lo8rEtos
3Bgn -J
=
E'a
!BrE
l!hoS4.69;
LSoa3*
.9t!
ro
FloN
(U
tno
CLoLo.
|U
=E'
.EoL
GO
Eo
{J(EoLL'oc,
d
rn
L(u
o-
o
E
(E
u0
.=
L
=o
?
a-
ti
ia
oo
F
tro
E
0,
-.L9q,6
io.o0,(JGcoE
l-f
I
II
=Eii*y ::9-o E8 FUIE>;* 3E =E iE;:
eEniriirsiiEEEiEE
PARKS/REC-
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Borba, Gina
Christine Dailey <christine@rjdailey.com>
Thursday, February 04 2016 4:42 PM
PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina
Broadway Commercial District street llees
I have lived in the Broadway area since 1969. I recall all the Broadway street trees being removed in the 1970's or
early'8o,s because the tree species proved to be not appropriate for planting along sidewalks. Now the existing
Broadway street trees are being removed once again because these too are not suitable. The Broadway commercial
distri* is'going to look pretty sad for several years because the smallest, least expensive trees will be planted I certainly
hope the iecision-makers make the approptiate tree selection this time around'
Ihank you.
christine Dailey
2119 Roosevelt Avenue
1
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f
MEETING DATE: February 16,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 16,2016
From:Kathleen Kane, City Attorney - (650) 558-7204
Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator, (650) 558-7261
Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance to Authorize lmplementation of a Community
Choice Aggregation Program
Staff recommends that the Council consider the adoption
implementation of a Community Choice Aggregation program
should:
of an ordinance to authorize
ln order to do so, the Council
By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance, as attached to this report.
Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of
adoption.
BACKGROUND
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is a program that allows local municipalities to pool their
energy demand to purchase electricity with a high renewable source content separately from the
local investor-owned utility. San Mateo County identified CCA as a promising strategy to meet
local clean energy goals and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The establishment
of a local CCA would entail the County and participating cities forming a Joint Powers Authority
(JpA) to procure electricity on behalf of County residents while PG&E continues to provide
transmissron and billing services. The San Mateo County CCA program has been branded as
Peninsula CIean Energy.
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance to implement a CCA in their
jurisdiction in November 2015. Since then at least 1 1 additional cities in the county have
approved similar ordinances. The County hopes that all 20 cities in the county will join the CCA
effort by the end of February.
DISCUSSION
The City Council introduced the proposed ordinance and conducted a public hearing on the
ordinance at its regular meeting on February 1,2016. Following closure of the public hearing, no
changes were made to the draft ordinance, and direction was given for the City Clerk to schedule
1
1
RECOMMENDATION
Peninsula Clean Energy February 16, 2016
the item for adoption at the Council's next regular meeting on February 't6, 2016. The ordinance
is attached to this report and is ready for adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.
Exhibit:
o Ordinance to Authorize lmplementation of a Community Choice Aggregation Program
2
ORDINANCE NO..
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF BURLINGAME
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORDINANGE AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY CHOICE
AGGREGATION PROGRAM
The City Council of the City of Burlingame, State of California, ORDAINS as
follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Burlingame has
investigated options to provide electric services to customers within the County,
including incorporated and unincorporated areas, with the intent of achieving greater
local control and involvement over the provision of electric services, competitive electric
rates, the development of clean, local, renewable energy projects, reduced greenhouse
gas emissions, and the wider implementation of energy conservation and efficiency
projects and programs; and hereby finds and declares as follows:
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo prepared a Feasibility Study for a
community choice aggregation ("CCA") program in San Mateo County with the
cooperation of the cities under the provisions of the Public Utilities Code section 366.2.
The Feasibility Study shows that implementing a community choice aggregation
program would provide multiple benefits, including:
. Providing customers a choice of power providers;
o lncreasing local control and involvement in and collaboration on energy rates and
other energy-related matters;
r Providing more stable long{erm electric rates that are competitive with those
provided by the incumbent utility;
. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions arising from electricity use within San Mateo
County;. lncreasing local renewable generation capacity;
. lncreasing energy conservation and efficiency projects and programs;
r lncreasing regional energy self-sufficiency;. lmproving the local economy resulting from the implementation of local renewable
and energy conservation and efficiency projects; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors has directed staff to
bring for its approval a Joint Powers Agreement creating the Peninsula Clean Energy
Authority ("Authority"). Under the Joint Powers Agreements, cities and towns within San
Mateo County may participate in the Peninsula Clean Energy CCA program by adopting
the resolution and ordinance required by Public Utilities Code section 366.2. Cities and
towns choosing to participate in the CCA program will have membership on the Board
of Directors of the Authority as provided in the Joint Powers Agreements; and
*t****
WHEREAS, the Authority will enter into Agreements with electric power suppliers
and other service providers, and based upon those Agreements the Authority will be
able to provide power to residents and business at rates that are competitive with those
of the incumbent utility (.PG&E'). Once the California Public Utilities Commission
approves the implementation plan created by the Authority, the Authority will provide
service to customers within the unincorporated area of San Mateo County and within
the jurisdiction of those cities who have chosen to participate in the CCA program; and
WHEREAS, under Public Utilities Code section 366.2, customers have the right
to opt-out of a CCA program and continue to receive service from the incumbent utility.
Customers who wish to continue to receive service from the incumbent utility will be
able to do so; and
WHEREAS, on January 4,2016, the City Council held a study session at which
time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to
implementation of the Peninsula Clean Energy CCA program in the City.
WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, as it is not a
"project" as it has no potential to result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change to the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. $ 15378(a)). Further, the
ordinance is exempt from CEQA as there is no possibility that the ordinance or its
implementation would have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs.
S 15061(b)(3)). The ordinance is also categorically exempt because it is an action
taken by a regulatory agency to assume the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or
protection of the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. $ 15308). The Director of
Community Development shall cause a Notice of Exemption to be filed as authorized by
CEQA and the CEQA guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, LET lT BE RESOLVED the City Council does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and material to this
Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Authorization to lmplement a Community Choice Aggregation
Program.
Based upon the forgoing, and in order to provide business and residents within
the City of Burlingame with a choice of power providers and with the benefits described
above, the City of Burlingame City Council ordains that it shall implement a community
choice aggregation program within its jurisdiction by participating as a group with the
County of San Mateo and other cities and towns as described above in the Community
Choice Aggregation program of the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority, as generally
described in the Joint Powers Agreement.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective 30 days after its
adoption, and shall be published and posted as required by law.
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a public hearing that occurred at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the 1"tday of February, 2016, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the 16u day of February, by the following vote:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ann Keighran, Mayor
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Attorney
AGENDA ITEM NO: 9a
STAFF REPORT
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: William Meeker, Gommunity Development Director - (650) 558-7255
Subject: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Proposed Public Park at
430-450 Airport Boulevard
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should conduct a public hearing, consider all oral and written testimony
received during the hearing and, following closure of the hearing and deliberations, take one of
the following actions:
Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed public park; or
Resolutions memorializing the City Council's action will be presented for adoption by the
Council at the next regular meeting.
The proposed project consists of the lease by the City of Burlingame from the California State
Lands Commission (CSLC) of 8.8 acres of land located at 430-450 Airport Boulevard for use as
a public park. lmprovements would include two parking lots for use by park visitors, concrete
pathways, a restroom facility, picnic tables and benches, lawn open space, ornamental
landscaping, and fencing. The shoreline improvements would include an asphalt bay trail with
benches and landscaping. One of the parking lots would be accessed from Airport Boulevard,
while the other parking lot would be accessed from Bayview Place.
The CSLC requires that the City Council conduct environmental review of the proposed project
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to the CSLC
considering granting a lease for the property. Staff has completed a review of the proposed
project, and on the basis of an lnitial Study and mitigations, finds that the project will not have a
significant effect upon the environment. Staff has prepared an lnitial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration (lS/MND) for consideration and adoption.
Only the IS/MND is subject to review at this time. Should the City Council adopt the IS/MND and
the CSLC agrees to lease the property to the City, the full project will return to the City Council
for further review at a later date. The adoption of the lS/MND is an interim step required to allow
MEETING DATE: February 16,20'16
Date: February 16,2016
Provide staff with direction for further analysis and response to comments.
BACKGROUND
Mitigated Negative Declaralion - 430150 Airpod Boulevard February 16, 2016
the City's application to lease the property to move fonvard to the CSLC for consideration
An lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were first prepared for this poect in
February 2013. Two comment letters were received: a letter from the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) dated March 4, 2013, and a letter from the
California State Lands Commission (CSLC) dated March 22,2013 (copies attached).
The letter from the CSLC contained a number of concerns and requests, including a request for
a more detailed project description, concern over the biological resources analysis, clarification
of cultural resources, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, public trust concerns, and cumulative
impacts. ln response, a biological resource analysis was prepared for the project, the project
design was refined, and the IS/MND was comprehenslvely revised to address the range of
items raised in the CSLC letter. The intent of the additional study and revisions was to fully
address the issues outlined in the CSLC letter.
Given the extent of the revisions to the IS/MND and the addition of the biological resources
analysis, the revised IS/MND was recirculated for public comment on December 4, 2015
(attached). The comment period extended from December 4, 2015 through January 11,2016.
Two comment letters were received, one from a Burlingame resident and the other from the
CSLC. Staff has prepared responses to both lefters (attached) and prepared a revised version
of the MND to reflect the responses (attached, with revisions shown as tracked changes).
The fiscal impact of the proposed park will depend on the terms of the CSLC lease, should a
lease be offered. Construction estimates for the proposed park improvements range from $4
million to $5 million. Should the City Council adopt the IS/MND, and the CSLC agrees to lease
the property to the City, the full project will return to the City Council at a later date for further
review including a more detailed review of fiscal impacts.
Exhibits:
Notice of lntent to Adopt a Mitigated Declaration (NOl) - Decembet 4,2015
Biological Resource Analysis - November 9, 2015
Comment Letters - December 4, 2015 NOI
/ California State Lands Commission/ Mary Murphy
Responses to Comment Letters
Revised IS/MND (revisions indicated in tracked changes)
Comment Letters - February 20, 2013 NOI
2
DISCUSSION
FISCAL IMPACT
430 - 450 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
cALtFORNTA ENVTRONMENTAL QUALTTY ACT (CEOA)
1. Proiect Title:
2. Lead Atency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Proiect Location:
5. San Mateo County Assessot/s Parcel Numbers:
5. Project Sponso/s Name and Address:
430 - 450 Airport Boulevard - lease of State Lands
Property for use as Public Park
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
William Meeker, Community Development Director
Telephone: (650) 558-7250
E-Mail: wmeeker@burlingame.org
430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Burlingame, CA
026-363-600
City of Burlingame
Parks and Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
7. General Plan Desitnation:General Plan - Waterfront Commercial
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan:
. Hotels, Restaurants and Recreational Uses
8. Zoning:AA (Anza Area)
9. Description of Project: The project site is approximately 8.8 acres located at 430-450 Airport Boulevard,
Burlingame, California (Figures l and 2).
The pro.iect site is located on "reclaimed" land on the edge of the san Francisco Bay. The project site is
undeveloped ruderal land comprised primarily of fill material. Along the northern edge of the slte there is
a gravel pedestrian trail, and concrete rubble provides erosion protection along the edge of the bay. To the
west of the project site there is a restaurant, parking lot, and Anza Lagoon, and to the east there is a
parking lot and the Sanchez Creek Lagoon. The southern project site boundary is defined by Bayview Place
and Airport Boulevard, and there are office buildings with additional parking lots further to the south.
The proposed project includes construction of a park with associated parking lots, concrete pathways, a
restroom facility, picnic tables and benches. The park improvements include automatic irrigation, lawn
open space, ornamental landscaping, and perimeter fencing along Airport Boulevard and Bayview Place.
The only lighting proposed will be in the parking lots. The shoreline improvements include an asphalt bay
trail with benches and landscaping. Construction ofthe park will require stripping and grubbing the site,
rough grading, and a storm draina8e system. The proposed project is illustrated on the attached
Conceptual Master Plan and Public Access & open space Plan, dated July 31, 2015 (Figure 3).
1
lnilhl Study 43O - 45O Airpon Boulevard
The proposed project willfill all the wetlands mapped on this project site. An Alternative Analysis will be
prepared as part of the permit applications for the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The City of Burlingame proposes to purchase wetland mitigation
credits from the San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank to satisfy the wetland mitigation requirements
for this project.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settint: The project site is within the Bayfront area in the City of Burlingame.
Existing ad.iacent land uses include office buildings, hotels and restaurants. The site is adjacent to San
Francisco Bay and the Bayfront Channel, which drains the Sanchez Creek watershed.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreementl: The proposed public park does not require discretionary approval from the City of
Burlingame, since public parks are a permitted use in the AA (Anza Area) zoning district. A building permit
will be required from the City of Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division, for
construction ofthe new restroom facilities. The project will require approvalofa lease agreement bythe
California States Land Commission. A permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC) is required for the Bay Trail improvements within 100 feet of the san Francisco Bay edge. Permits
from the U.5. Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board will be required for the
proposed impacts to seasonal wetlands on the project site. There is no building demolition involved with
this pro.iect so there is no permit required from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
2
! land Use / Planning
I Population / Housing
! Transportation / Traffic
Hazards &
Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
lnitial Study
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this pro.iect, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant tmpact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
! Aesthetics Agriculture and X A'r Quality
Forestry Resources
I Aiotogicat Resources
! Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ffi Cultural Resources I Geology/soils
I Hydrotogy / water Quatity
I ttoise
! Recreation
n Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by tead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
tr I find that the proposed project COULD NOT 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 siSnificant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
proiect have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A M|T|GATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
tr lfind that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact', or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on aftached sheets. An ENVTRONMENTAT tMpACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
tr I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATTON pursuant to applicable standards,
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EtR or NEGATTVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
na ture Date
l
Printed Name For
430 - 450 Arrport Boulevard
tr
A/cct/,,t . | , .--rz__oTaf Bcrptq<at7
lnrtlar Sludy
4
430 - 450 Aa.rorl BouLvard
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Summary of Mitigation Measures
430450 Airport Boulevard
Mitigation Measure
Air Quality Mltitation Measure 3a: During construction, the project sponsor shall require the
construction contractor to implement the following measures required as part of BAAQMD's
basic and enhanced dust control procedures required for all construction sites. These
include:. Water all active construction areas daily. watering should be sufficient to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site. lncreased watering frequency may be necessary
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used
whenever possible.
. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the
top of the load and the top of the trailer).. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
. Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each
day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
. Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible, ln addition, building
pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
Biological Resources Mitlgatlon Measure 4a: ln order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and other bird species
projected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Act, nesting surveys shall be conducted prior to
commencing with construction work if this work would commence between February 1st
and August 31st .The nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees within 200 feet of
the entire project site.
Mitigation Measure 4b: A preconstruction survey for burrowing owls should be conducted
14 days prior or less to initiating ground disturbance. As burrowing owls may recolonize a
site after only a few days, time lapses between project activities tri8ger subsequent take
avoidance surveys including but not limited to a finalsurvey conducted within 24 hours prior
to ground disturbance to ensure absence, lf no owls are found during these surveys, no
further regard for the burrowing owl would be necessary.
Mitigation Measure 4d: A BCOC permit application will be required for this proiect. The
project is in compliance with BCDC policies since the proposed project will improve public
access to the Bay, and will incorporate mitigation requirements to offset the adverse
environmental impacts of the project.
Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 5a: ln the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural
resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the
resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified
archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. City
staff shall also notify California State Lands Commission staff upon discovering unexpected
5
Environmental Factor
Mhitation Measure rk: The City of Burlingame proposes to purchase wetland mitigation
credits from the San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank to satisfy the wetland mitigation
requirements for this project. An Alternative Analysis for the wetlands to be filled on the site
shall be prepared as part of the permit applications for the Regional water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) and the U.s. Army corps of Engineers (Corps).
lnitialstudy 430 - 45{) Aiaort Boulevard
Summary of Mitigation Measures
43G450 Airport Boulevard
cultural resources. lf any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 1506a.5[a][3]
or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources
Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the
appropriate course of action. ln considering any suggested mitiSation proposed by the
consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique
archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary
and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project desiSn, costs, and other
considerations. lf avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery)
shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the proiect site while mitigation for
historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out.
Mitigation Measure 5b: lf paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell,
tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities,
work will stop in that area and within 100 feet ofthe find until a qualified paleontologist can
assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment
measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame. City staff shall also notify California
State Lands Commission staff upon discovering unexpected cultural resources.
Mitigation Measure 5c. lf human remains are discovered at any project construction sites
during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources
shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified
immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section
7050.5 of California's Health and Safety Code. lf the remains are determined by the County
coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be
notified within 24 hourt and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the
treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a
professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field
investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any,
identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance
to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains.
The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it
deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project
applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame,
before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains
were discovered. City staff shall also notify California State Lands Commission staff upon
discovering unexpected cultural resources.
Hydrology and water
Quality
Mitigation Measure 9a: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the proiect site. At a
minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following:
r A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading
activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October l thru
April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The
construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and
stabilization of disturbed soils;. Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseedlng, or short-term
biodegradable erosion control blankets;
. Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at
downstream storm drain inlets;
. Good site management practices to address proper management of construction
materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products,
hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and
6
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Summary of Mitigation Measures
43(H50 Airport Boulevard
. The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage
structures of debris and sediment.
Noise Mhltatlon Measure l2a: The projed sponsor shall require construction contradors to
implement the following measures:
. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise
control techniques (e.9., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake
silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds,
wherever feasible).
. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and
they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation
barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.
7
Mitigation Measure 9b: The project applicant, before project approval, shall prepare the
appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo Countywide water Pollution Prevention
Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post-construction
heatment and control of storm water runoff from the site. Post-construction treatment
measures must be designed, installed and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of
runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance
party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post-construction
stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other
maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance
of a final construction inspection.
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Aiaorl Boolevard
Project Description
The City of Burlingame proposes to create an 8.8 acre public park on an undeveloped site located at 430450
Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, California (Figures 1 and 2), on the San Francisco Bay margin (Park Site). The
site is owned by the state Lands Commission and has never been developed. The site is flat, except for slight
depressional topography where ground settling has occurred over the years. The site is perched approximately
8 to 10 feet above the mean high water line of the San Francisco Bay. An existing 2:1 slope along the shore of
the Bay is covered with concrete rubble and other monolithic slabs of concrete. No changes are proposed to
the shoreline.
The proposed pro.iect includes construction of a park with associated parking lots, concrete pathways, a
restroom facility, picnic tables and benches. The park improvements include automatic irrigation, lawn open
space, ornamental landscaping, and perimeter fencing along Airport Boulevard and Bayview Place. The only
lighting proposed will be in the parking lots. The shoreline improvements include an asphalt bay trail with
benches and landscaping. Construction of the park will require stripping and grubbing the site, rough grading,
and a storm drainage system. The proposed project is illustrated on the attached Conceptual Master Plan and
Public Access & Open Space Plan (prepared by John Cahalan Landscape Architect, dated July 31, 2015 - Figure
3).
The proposed project will fill all the wetlands mapped on this project site. An Alternative Analysis will be
prepared as part of the permit applications for the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The City of Burlingame proposes to purchase wetland mitigation credits
from the San Francisco Bay Wetland MitiBation Bank to satisfy the wetland mitigation requirements for the
project.
Project Approvals
The proiect site is located within the City of Burlingame. The City of Burlingame is the Lead Agency responsible
for approval of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project would require the
following approvals and permits:
. Approval of a Lease Agreement by the california state Lands commission.
. Permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission for construction of the bay trail and
amenities within the 100-foot wide San Francisco Bay shoreline band.
. Building Permit for construction of the new restroom facility.
. Permits from the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional water
Quality Control Board.
8
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map - Regional Location
\
MARIN
San
Half
Moon
Bay
Concord
Walnut
Creek
remont
n
SAN
MATEO
Hayward
9
80
4
Val
13
Richmond
C
80 Oakland
S. F.
n
101
17
Burli
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
FIGURE 2: Location Map
i
{}
10
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
/'
rs .
|-I J
.JL!zz
IIJ
Fzo
CE
lJ-
co
SANCHEZ CREEK CHANNEL
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevad
FIGURE 3: Conceptual Master Plan and Public Access & open Space Plan
t
t
!
E!
ul
UJ
o-
zult!o
rJ,loo
())t!,ldoz
z
o-
t
F
fFculo2o()
,
:It
I
!
I
I
I
I
t
Yt
o-
=tut
(!t;iiUr,I
a
LI
--l i 'i
iiri;
!=tb=!r.l
r!ri:! !llir
r-.]f.E
a
!t!!
;r
C?
/l
\\
\\IT
a
l
'fl r,
J2
J
(),
i
5
lnilislStudy 430 - 450 AiDort BouleYad
t2
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Environmental lmpacts
1.
a)
b)
c)
AESTHETICS-Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, includin&
but not limited to, trees, rock outc.oppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual charader
or quality ofthe site and its surroundings?
Create a new source ofsubstantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
d)
Discussion
a)No lmpdct. The proposed project is located along Airport Boulevard and adjacent to the San Francisco
Bay. The Scenic Roads and Highways Element of the City of Burlingome Generol Plon identifies Airport
Boulevard between Broadway and Coyote Point Drive as a local scenic connector route. There are
scenic vistas of Sa n Francisco Bayfrom Airport Boulevard acrossthesite. The proposed project will not
interfere with these views, since the only construction will be a small, one story restroom facilities.
The proposed landscaping and trails will enhance the views to the Bay, since the site is now
surrounded by a chain link fence which obscures views of the bay. Therefore, there will be no impact
on scenic vistas.
No lmpoct. The project site is currently vacant, and does not contain any scenic resources or historic
buildings. The site is not located adjacent to a state scenic highway. The project will not result in
damage to scenic resources.
No lmpoct. The proposed project would place attractive landscaping and open space amenities on a
site which is currently vacant and surrounded by a chain link fence. The project would improve the
existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings.
No lmpoct.fhe use of the site is expected to occur primarily during daylight hours, and minimal safety
lighting is proposed. The project would be required to comply with exterior lighting regulations of
Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 18.16.030, which requires that the cone of light be kept entirely
on the property and requires the use of shielded light fixtures. Therefore, the pro.iect would have no
impact on light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
MitiFtion Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
city of Burlingame , Municipol Code, Title 25 - zoning, Burlingame, California, 2011 edition.
City of Burlingame, Municipol Code, Title 18, Chopter 78.76 - Eledricol Code, Burlingame, California, 2010
edition.
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
xx
X
tr
n
tr
tr
13
lssues (ond supporting lnformotion sources):
Less Thdn
signifrcontor siqniftcdnt
Potentiolly wirh Lessfhon
Significont Mingdtion Signili.dnt
lfipoct lrcotFtorqtion lmpod No lmpod
tr
!tr
b)
c)
d)
lnitialstudy 43O - 45O Airport Boulevad
Ltues (dnd suppotting l,tomotion So!rces):
2. AGRICI,LTURE RE OURCES
ln determining whether impactsto agricultur.l resources are significant erwironmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural L3nd Evaluation and Site Assessmed Model(1997) prepared bythe Califomia
Department ofConservation as an optional modelto use in assessing impact5 on agricuhure and farmland.
would the p.oicct:
alConvertPrimeFa.mland,UniqueFarmland,ortr!trX
tarmland of Statewide lmportance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ofthe
California Resources Agency, to non-a8ricultutal
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for atricultural use, or tr ! n X
a Williamson Act contract?
c) lnvolve other changes in the existing environment tr fl tr X
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conveEion of Farmland, to non-agricuhural use?
Discussion
a-c) No lmpoct. The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site
does not include active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the
proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on
farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame aenerol Plon, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame . 2OO3. City of Burlingdme Mitigoted Negotive Declorotion, File No. ND-5j1 P, Update oI the
Boyfront Specilic Plon. December 8, 2003
!4
Less fha,
Signillconto,. signifEo,tt
Pot.ntio y wlth L.ssfhon
Sigoifrconl Mitigdtlon Signilicont
lm?o.t lrrcotpotution lmpact tlo lhpoct
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Bsu.t (otfi Sugporting lnlorhation sourcesl:
3. AR qUAUTY
Where avail.ble the significance criteria established bythe applicable airquality management or air pollution
control distrid may be relied upon to make the following determinations. would the proied:
a) conflictwithorobstructimplementationofthetr!X!
applicable air quality plan?
b) MolateanyairqualitystandardorcontributetrA!!
substantiallyto an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase tr EX tr n
ofany criteria pollutant for which the proiect
region is non-attainment underan applicable
federal or 5tate ambient air quality standard
(includinS releaslng emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for o2one p.ecurso6)?
d) Expose 5ensitive receptors to substantial pollutant tr f] X n
concentrations?
e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a tr n X tr
subrtantial numb€r of p€ople?
Discussion
a)Less Thon Significont- A project would have a significant effect on air quality if air pollutant emissions
would cause the exceedance of ambient air quality standards, contribute to existing or pro.iected air
quality exceedances, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
The project area is located in San Mateo County, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Basin.
The regional agency primarily responsible for developing the regional ozone plans is the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAaMD). BAAQMD is also the agency with permit authority over most
types of stationary sources in san Francisco Bay Area. BAAQMD exercises permit authority through its
Rules and Regulations. Both federal and state ozone plans rely heavily upon stationary source control
measures set forth in BAAQMD's Rules and Regulations. The overall stationary source control program
that is embodied by the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations has been developed such that new stationary
sources can be allowed to operate in the Bay Area without obstructing the goals of the regional air
quality plans.
The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards
and as a nonattainment area for the state particulate matter (PM1o and PMr.s) standards. The Boy Areo
2005 Ozone Strotegy has been prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues. No PMls or PM25
plan has been prepared or is required under state air quality planning law. The 2005 Ozone Strategy
was developed in order to bring the area into attainment of federal and State ambient air quality
standards for ozone and particulate matter violations. As noted below, the proposed proiect
would not result in a significant increase in emissions of particulate matter or ozone precursors
during operation. Construction emissions, with implementation of the mitigation measures below,
would also not result in significant emissions of particulate matter or ozone precursors. Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD'S air
quality plans to bring the Air Basin into attainment for particulate matter and ozone, resulting in a
less-than-signif icant impact.
15
Latt Thdn
Skl tkonto. Sr,nftcdt t
PoEntlory uith lzssThon
Slgntfuarrt Mltigotion Signifrco/,t
lfip&t tncoapototiot lrnpod ,lo lfiNd
lnitialSludy ,130 - 450 Airpo.t Bouler/"ard
Construction activities at the project site would involve use of equipment and materials that would
emit ozone precursor emissions. With respect to the construction phase of the project, applicable
BAAQM D regulations would relate to portable equipment (e.9., Portland concrete batch plants, and
gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, pile drivers, and
cranes), architectural coatings, and paving materials. Project construction would be subject to the
requirements of BAAQM D Rules and Regulations.
With respect to the operational-phase of the proiect, emissions would be Benerated primarily from
motor vehicle trips to the project site. lt is expected that the park facility will be used by people who
work in the area and those staying in local hotels, as well as local residents who may drive to the site
to use the park and to access the adjacent bay trail. According to the ITE Trip Generation, the
proposed park facility is expected to generate approximately 12 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
The minor increase in vehicle trips generated by the project would only marginally increase daily
emissions of ozone precursors and PM4and would be well below BAAQM D established thresholds for
consideration of a significant impact. Consequently, the project would not affect air quality in the
region or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plans. Any
stationary sources on site would be subject to the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Compliance with
BAAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensure that the project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plans.
b, c) Less Thon Significont with Mitigotion. The proposed project includes construction of a new restroom
facility, two parking lots, public access pathways, picnic areas and benches, as well as landscaping of
the site. The pro.iect would affect local pollutant concentrations in two ways. First, during project
construction, the project would affect local particulate concentrations by generating dust. Over the
long term, the project would result in emissions due to motor vehicle trips associated with the park
use proposed by the project, and the motor vehicle trips would affect carbon monoxide concentrations
along the local road network.
During construction, the project would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including
suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. Project-related
construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, earthmoving, and general
construction activities. Construction-related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day,
depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. ln the absence of
mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local
visibility and PMlo and PM2.s concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and
intermittent basis during the construction period. ln addition, the fugitive dust generated by
construction would include not only PM10, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the
atmosphere within several hundred feet ofthe site and could result in nuisance-type impacts.
The BAAQMD considers any proiect's construction related impacts to be less than significant if the
required dust-control measures are implemented. Without these measures, the impact is generally
considered to be significant, particularly if sensitive land uses are located in the project vicinity.
BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children,
the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include
residences, school playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals
and medical clinics. lnthecaseof this project, there are no sensitive receptors located adjacenttothe
project site. The proposed project would be subject to the measures recommended by the BAAQM D
(listed below in Mitigation Measure 3a), which would reduce construction-related PMlq and PM2 5
emissions to a less than significant level.
16
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airpon Boulevard
Mititation Measure 3a: During construction, the project sponsor shall require the
construction contractor to implement the following measures required as part of BAAQMD'S
basic and enhanced dust control procedures required for all construction sites. These include:
Water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site. lncreased watering frequency may be necessary
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used
whenever possible.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the
top of the load and the top of the trailer).
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of
each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Once complete and in use, the proposed project would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants,
primarily as a result of motor vehicle traffic. The project could affect localized carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations at nearby intersections. However, CO levels have been declining for a number of years
and are expected to continue to do so in the future, and the relatively small number of vehicle trips
that the project would generate, would not violate the state CO standard at any local intersections.
Therefore, the project would not result in a violation of the state or federal standards for CO.
Less Thon Significant. BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor
population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located.
These land uses include residences, school playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes,
convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. There are no facilities where sensitive receptor
population groups are likely to be located adjacent to the project site. ln any event, the pro.iect is not
expected to generate pollutants in sufficient concentrations to impact sensitive receptors. Therefore,
the proposed project would not be considered to expose sensitive receptors to significant risks from
emissions of diesel particulate matter.
During construction, occupants of the surrounding businesses may experience occasional odors from
diesel equipment exhaust and the application of architectural coatings during construction. This effect
would be intermittent, would be contingent on prevailing wind conditions, and occur only during
construction activities. The generation of diesel odors during construction would occur during daytime
hours only and would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity, and
these emissions would not affect a substantial amount of people; therefore, the impact is considered
less than significant.
t7
Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalk, etc. as soon as feasible. ln addition, building
pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
d)
tnitialstudy 430 - 45O Ai(!o.l Eouleva^C
e)Less Thon Significonf. As a general matter, the types of land use development that pose potential odor
problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, composting facilities, and transfer
stations. No such uses would occupy the project site. Therefore, the project would not create
objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Also, there are no existing
odor sources in the vicinity of the pro.iect site that would impact future occupants of the project site.
Project odor impacts are therefore considered to be less-than-significant.
Sources
The City of Burlingome General Plon, Burlingame, California, 20LO,2OO2, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame.2003. City of Burlingome Mitigoted Negotive Declordtion, File No. ND-531 P, Updote ol the
Boylront Specific P,on. December 8, 2003
Bay Area Air Quality Management Oislric., BAAQMD CEOA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quolity lmpocts of
Projects ond Plons. December, 1999.
California Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board (CARB). Air Quolity ond Lond Use
Handbook: A Communw Heolth Perspective. April, 2005.
18
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lssues (ond supporttnq lnJormotion Sourcet):
X !
tr n M
!tr
4. gtotoctcAlREsouRcEs-
would the proiect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or bythe California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantialadverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in localor regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Firh and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlandi as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean water Act (including; but not limited to,
marrh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.)or state-protected
wetlands, through direct removal, fillin&
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) lnterfere substantially with the movement ofany
native resident or mitratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native re5ident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Cohflidwith any local policies or ordinances
protecting biolo8ical resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
fl Fundamentally conflict with the provisions ofan
adopted Habitat Conservation PIan, Natural
Community ConseNation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
tr
x !
Discussion
a) tess Ihon Significontwith Mitigotion lncorporotion.
Nesting Raptors and Other Nesting Birds (excluding Burrowing Owl)
All raptors (that is, birds of prey) and all migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (50 CFR 10.13) and their eggs and young are protected under California Fish and Game Codes
Sections 3503, 3503.5. Any project-related impacts to nesting and migratory bird species would be
considered a significant adverse impact.
ln order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and other bird species pro.iected pursuant to the Migratory
Bird Act, nesting surveys shall be conducted prior to commencing with construction work if this work
would commence between February 1st and August 31'r. The nesting surveys shall include
examination of all trees within 2OO feet of the entire project site, not iust trees slated for removal on
the proiect site.
An early survey should be conducted in February or March if construction is proposed to commence
between February l't and June 1st. lf construction has not commenced by the end of March, a second
nesting survey shall be conducted in April/May, whichever month is within 30 days of the
tr
x
xtr
19
Lats fhon
slgnlficont Signilicont
PoEntiolly uith L.ss,hon
Signili.orrt Mitigotion Slqnificdnt
lmpo.l lncorporction lmpoct No l,npod
tr
x
!
tr
tr
lnilhlStudy 430 - 450 Ajrpo.t aoulevad
lf nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree must be fenced with
orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the project site), and a 200-foot radius around the
nest tree must be staked with bright orange lath or other suitable staking. lf the tree is located off the
project site, then the buffer shall be demarcated per above where the buffer occurs on the project
site. The size ol the buffer moy be altered if o quolified roptor biologist conducts behoviorol
obsertotions ond determines the nesting roptors ore well acclimoted to disturbonce. lf this occurs, the
raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue
disturbance/harassment to the nesting raptors. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur
within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have
fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction
zones. This typically occurs by July 15th. This date may be earlier or later, and would have to be
determined by a qualified raptor biologist. lf a qualified biologist is not hired to watch the nesting
raptors then the buffers shall be maintained in place through the month of August and work within the
buffer can commence September 1't.
Potential impacts to nesting raptors and other nesting bird species would be reduced to a level
considered less-than-significant pursuant to the CEQA through MitiSation Measure 4a.
Mititation Measure 4a: ln order to avoid impacts to nesting rapto6 and other bird species
proiected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Act, nesting surveys shall be conducted prior to
commencing with construction work if this work would commence between February 1st
and August 31st .The nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees within 200 feet
of the entire project site.
Western BurrowinS Owl
The closest known record for western burrowing owl is located 2.3 miles southeast of the project site
in the City of san Mateo (CNDDB Occurrence No. 1105). There is a low potential for this species to nest
in the anthropogenic/ruderal habitat on the project site due to the overgrown vegetation and a
noticeable absence of burrowing mammals (e.g. ground squirrels). M&A did not identify any suitable
burrows within the project area during our surveys. M&A biologists have not observed this owl on or
adjacent to the pro.iect site.
20
commencement of construction. lf construction woutd commence after May but before September 1't,
then the second survey shall be conducted within the 30 day period prior to site disturbance.
lf common (that is, not special-status) birds for example, California towhee, western scrub jay, or
acorn woodpeckers are identified nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer
of 50 feet should be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The buffer
should be demarcated with painted orange lath or via the installation of orange construction fencing.
Disturbance within the buffer should be postponed until it is determined by a qualified ornithologist
that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the area or that the
nesting cycle has otherwise completed. Typically, most passerine birds in the region of the project site
are expected to complete nesting by August 1't. However, many species can complete nesting by the
end of June or in early to mid-July. Regardless, nesting buffers should be maintained until August 1!t
unless a qualified ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests
at an earlier date. lf buffers are removed prior to August 1't, the qualified biologist conducting the
nesting surveys should prepare a report that provides details about the nesting outcome and the
removal of buffers. This report should be submitted to the City of Burlingame prior to the time that
nest protection buffers are removed if the date is before August 1st.
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Ai.port Boulevard
While western burrowing owls are not currently known to occur on the site, this is a mobile species
that could move onto the project site in the future. lmpacts to western burrowing owls from the
proposed projea could be potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. This impact could be mitigated to a
level considered less than significant pursuant to the CEQA through Mitigation Measure 4b.
MitiFtion Measure 4b: Based on the presence of this species in the pro.iect vicinity and
the potential habitat found on the project site, a preconstruction survey for burrowing
owls should be conducted 14 days prior or less to initiating ground disturbance. As
burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, time lapses between project
activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final
survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to ensure absence. lf no
owls are found during these surveys, no further regard for the burrowing owl would be
necessary.
a. Burrowing owl surveys should be conducted by walking the entire project site. Pedestrian
survey transects should be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface.
The distance between transect center lines should be 7 meters to 20 meters and should be
reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility.
Poor weather may affect the surveyo/s ability to detect burrowing owls thus, avoid
conductinB surveys when wind speed is greater than 20 kilometers per hour and there is
precipitation or dense fog. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied
burrows should be avoided by a minimum of 50 meters (approximately 160 ft.) wherever
practlcal to avoid flushing occupied burrows. Disturbance to occupied burrows should be
avoided during all seasons.
b. lf burrowing owls are detected on the site, the following restricted activity dates and setback
distances are recommended per CDFW's Staff Report (2012).
From April l through October 15, low disturbance and medium disturbance activities
should have a 200 meter buffer while high disturbance activities should have a 500 meter
buffer from occupied nests.
From October 15 through March 31, low disturbance activities should have a 50 meter
buffer, medium disturbance activities should have a 100 meter buffer, and hiSh
disturbance activities should have a 500 meter buffer from occupied nests.
No earth-moving activities or other disturbance should occur within the afore-mentioned
buffer zones of occupied burrows. These buffer zones should be fenced as well. lf
burrowing owls were found in the project area, a qualified biologist would also need to
delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site.
Less fhon Significont with Mitigotion lncorporotion. A Request for a Jurisdictional Determination was
submitted to the Corps of Engineers (Corps) on February 10,2015. The Corps conducted a site
verification visit on March 5, 2015. On April 1, 2015 the Corps confirmed iurisdiction over 0.42-acre of
waters of the U.S. on the proiect site. The confirmed Preliminary.iurisdictional Determination Map is
shown on Figures 4 and 5.
lmpacts to waters ofthe United States and/or State can be reduced to less-than-significant levels
through various means, including avoidance, minimization of impacts, and mitigation compensation
Based on the Corps confirmed map, jurisdictional areas will be avoided by the project where possible.
Because full avoidance of waters of the United States is probably not possible, potential impacts shall
b)
2L
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Aarport Eoulevad
be minimized to the extent feasible through changes to pro.lect design. lmpacts shall also be minimized
by the use of Best Management Practices to protect preserved features and ensure water quality.
These practices can include installing orange constructlon fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and other
protective measures. During project construction, a biological monitor shall be on-site to monitorthe
integrity of waters and prevent impacts to the adjacent San Francisco Bay.
The proposed project will fill all the wetlands mapped on this project site. For those wetland areas that
cannot be avoided, permits from the Corps and RWQCB shall be acquired that allows the removal of
specified wetlands An Alternative Analysis will be prepared as part of the permit applications for the
RWQCB and the Corps.
Potential impacts to waters of the United States/State would be reduced to a level considered less-
than-significant pursuant to the CEQA through the measures described above, as summarized in
Mitigation Measure 4c.
Mititation Measure lk: The City of Burlingame proposes to purchase wetland mitigation
credits from the San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank to satisfy the wetland
mitigation requirements for this project. An Alternative Analysis for the wetlands to be
filled on the site shall be prepared as part of the permit applications for the Regional
Water Quality control Board (RWQCB) and the U.s. Army corps of Engineers (Corps).
Mitigation Measure 4d: A BCDC permit application will be required for this project. The
project is in compliance with BCDC policies since the proposed project will improve public
access to the Bay, and will incorporate mitigation requirements to offset the adverse
environmental impacts of the proiect.
22
The pro.iect site is within BCDC iurisdiction. A portion of the park project will be within 100 feet of the
Bay shoreline. lmpacts to BCDC jurisdiction would be regarded as a significant impact. This impact
could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Potential impacts to BCDC jurisdiction
would be reduced to a level considered less-than-significant pursuant to the CEQA with Mititation
Measure 4d.
lnitialStudy
FIGURE 4: Confirmed Wetland Delineation Map
a
t
a 2 E g
I
-9.IEE*
,.,1 :;']B ]];;,i]
!E r:
'r{li
:1ii,lli
!,: !
;
Ee Eii3lE.jir 3i;E
?i1w--
I
-ar!i
,l l*
iiiii
430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Be
3
at 'lt
..
F-*
r
!
.i.
rr--
LTt
F tt
?r(t\
,t.',
**
F
F\\
/
)
a
J
C
o
ir':
tr
^i
I
t
aT
a
E.
E?
=IiEEq
:f !
\l
lnitial Sludy 43O - 450 Airpo( Soulevard
FI6URE 5: confirmed wetland Delineation Map
iiiii
'tiii
i
I;
!
T
Ic
.a-
IcE
Ei=E8d
5it!r!
E iE!3aet
7I
rl:
'i!!:itr!!t:it,!;tc
a
/.I
li,illr"
a,!ii
?
!
,,i
i
a
I
E
l
9F
IE
.cl9
-6a_ii
iE
6*>:
n
'Eeo'E
dB
l
l '',a I ,
a
]
24
a
l
-4
t
t
fl
h -rrrJJ-a-arc--Db-;*=::':=-- 1-r--
aE!'E
-!
iar>$-:
Jl.- rfI
.!
\qRY
g
t
I4a/
^\
L,li
!tF-
Tl'
3 ,
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevad
Less Thon Significont. Wildlife corridors are linear and/or regional habitats that provide connectivity
to other natural vegetation communities within a landscape fractured by urbanization and other
development. Wildlife corridors have several functions: 1) they provide avenues along which wide-
ranging animals can travel, migrate, and breed, allowing genetic interchange to occur; 2) populations
can move in response to environmental changes and natural disasters; and 3) individuals can
recolonize habitats from which populations have been locally extirpated (Beier and Loe 1992). All
three of these functions can be met if both regional and local wildlife corridors are accessible to
wildlife. Regional wildlife corridors provide foraging, breeding, and retreat areas for migrating,
dispersing, immigrating, and emigrating wildlife populations. Local wildlife corridors also provide
access routes to food, cover, and water resources within restricted habitats.
The proposed project will not interfere with the movement of native wildlife. The project site is
located on "reclaimed" land on the edge of the 5an Francisco Bay. The project site is undeveloped
land comprised primarily of ruderal (weedy) vegetation growing on highly compacted fill material
mixed with gravel. Along the northern edge of the site there is a gravel pedestrian trail, and concrete
rubble provides erosion protection along the edge of the San Francisco Bay. Adjacent to the west is a
vacant, compacted gravel parking area and a restaurant with a parking lot. The southern project site
boundary is defined by Bayview Place and Airport Boulevard. Power lines are located along Airport
Boulevard, and there are office buildings and a high rise hotel with additional parking lots ad.iacent to
the south. To the east there is a parking lot and the Sanchez Creek Lagoon. The surrounding land uses
effectively isolate the project site from wildlife movements. Therefore, development of this project
site would not impact wildlife movement. No mitigation for wildlife corridors should be required.
e)No lmpoct. Chapter 11.06 (Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection) of the Burlingame Municipal
Code calls for the preservation of trees and vegetation, which are considered a vital part of the
City's character. The City defines a "Protected Tree" as any tree with a circumference greater than
48 inches when measured 54 inches above natural grade. There are no protected size trees on the
proiect site.
With this application, extensive landscaping is proposed along the perimeter of the site, with a large
grass area covering the remainder ofthe site. Landscaping would also be provided alongthe proposed
Bay trail. The proposed project would not conflict with the local Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protection Ordinance calling for the preservation of any existing trees and addinB new trees.
The City's Generol Plon - Conservation Element, encourages the planting of "indigenous materials".
While the planting of non-native, ornamental species in landscaping the project site would not violate
any policies, the pOect sponsor should give preference to planting species native to the project site.
No lmpoct. No natural communities exist in the vicinity of the proposed project area and there are no
Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plans that apply to this part of Burlingame.
Sources
The City ol Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, zoLo,2oo2,1985 and 1984 amendments.
Biologicol Resource Anolysis, Bowiew Pork Project, November 9,2015, prepared by Monk & Associates
Environmental Consultants.
f)
25
d)
lnjli.l Study 43O - 450 AiDorl Eoulevad
Revised Request for Jurisdictionol Determinotion BoWiew Pork Project, February 10, 2015, prepared by Monk &
Associates Environmental Consu ltants.
Preliminory lurisdictionol Determinotio4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 1, 2015.
Response Letter: City of Burlingome, Applicotion for Generul Lease-Agency Use of Sovereign land, San Moteo
County, Colifornio (File Ref: w2669), August 11, 2015, prepared by Monk & Associates Environmental
Consultants.
Mop of Areos of Speciol Biologicol lmportonce, Son Froncisco ond Son Moteo Counties, Colifornio, Slate
Department of Fish and Game.
Biologicol Constroints Anolysis Ior the Burlingome Eayfront Specilic Plon, September 13, 2002, prepared by
Environmental Collaborative
City of Burlingame .2003. City ol Burlingame Mitigoted Negotive Decloration, File No. ND-5j1 P, Updote of the
Boyfront Specilic Pldn. December 8, 2003
26
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lssues lod Supporting hlo noaioh Soutcat):
Signiricort or
Signilicont
5. CUITURAL RESOURCES-
would the project:
d) Disturb any human remains, includingthose
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
a) Cause a rubstantialadverse chante in the
significance of a historical resou.ce as defined in
515064.s?
b) Guse a substantial adverse change in the
rignificance of a unique archaeoloSical resource
pursuant to s15054.5?
c) Diredly or indiredly dest.oy a unique
paleontologicalresource or site or unique geologic
feature?
tr
tr
tr
x!
Discussion
o)
b)
Less Thon Significant with Mitigotion The project site is vacant, and is partofthe larger Bayfront area
which is primarily developed with office, hotel and restaurant uses in the general vicinity of the pro,iect
site. Originally, the project site and surrounding area was a tidal area and marshland, which was built-
up with imported fill in the 1950s and 1960s. There has been no development on this site since it was
filled. Therefore, there is no record of historic resources on this site.
California State Lands Commission staff maintains a Shipwreck Database of known shipwrecks and
potentialvessels located on the State's tide and submerged lands. However, the location of many
shipwrecks remains unknown. Please note that any submerged archaeological site or submerged
historic resource that has remained in State waters for more than 50 years is presumed to be
significant.
Title to all abandoned shipwreck, archaeologicalsites, and historic or cultural resources on or in the
tide and submerged lands of California is vested in the State and under the iurisdiction of the CSLC. lf
any cultural resources are discovered on state lands during Project implementation, City staff will
consult with Senior Staff Counsel at the CSLc.
Less Than Significont with Mitigotion Archeological resources are the physical remains of the human
occupation and/or use of a location. These resources include both prehistoric (Native American) and
historic-age artifacts, such as projectile points, shell beads, glass, ceramics, and metal and features,
such as shellmounds, fire hearths, bedrock mortars, and building foundations. Shellmounds are
generally prehistoric features composed of discarded dietary remains and utilized artifact remains
including marine shell, bone, and stone implements.
For Eastern San Mateo County, archaeological resources are generally situated near San Francisco Bay
and on terraces ad.,acent to intermittent or perennial creek or springs, along ridges, and on broad or
moderately wide mid-slope terraces. Archaeological resources in the vicinity of the City of Burlingame,
such as prehistoric shellmounds, have been found adjacent to the Bay shore and inland areas adjacent
to creeks. Areas associated with these environmental characteristics are suggestive of areas with high
archaeological sensitivity.
27
lzss ft on
sbnlficont
wih less ft,,,n
Mitigotio,t sbnlficona
lacofpilotion lrnpEct No l,nFat
tr n x
trx
lnitialStudy 430 450 Aiport Boulevad
Mititation Measure 5a: ln the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural
resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the
resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified
archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. City
staff shall also notify California State Lands Commission staff upon discovering unexpected
cultural resources. lf any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 150il.5[a][3] or
as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources
Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the
appropriate course of action. ln considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the
consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique
archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and
feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other
considerations. lf avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.9., data recovery)
shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for
historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out.
Mitigation Measure 5b: lf paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell,
tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities,
work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can
assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures
in consultation with the City of Burlingame. City staff shall also notify California State Lands
Commission staff upon discovering unexpected cultural resources.
Less thon SigniJicont with Mitigotion The site has no known human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries. However, it is impossible to be sure about the presence or absence of
human remains on a site until site excavation and grading occurs. The proposed project requires
minimal excavation and grading, therefore there is a low likelihood that human remains will be
encountered. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 5c, however, the impact is considered less-
than-significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure 5c. lf human remains are discovered at any project construction sites
during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall
be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately,
according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of
c)
28
Project related construction activities involving ground-disturbance during construction could result in
significant impacts, if any unknown culturally significant sites are discovered. lf remains were
unearthed during project construction, damage to or destruction of significant archaeological remains
would be a potentially significant impact. Potential impacts to archeological resources would be
reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5a.
Less Thon Signilicont with Mitigotion. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains and/or
traces of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains, such
as bones, teeth, shells, and wood, are found in geologic deposits (rock formations). The pro.,ect vicinity
has been developed and no known paleontological resources have been recorded. Because the
proposed projea would result in minimal excavation in bedrock conditions, significant paleontoloBic
discovery would be unlikely. However, s;gnificant fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of
supposed low sensitivity. ln the event a paleontologic resource is encountered during project activities,
implementation of Mititation Measure 5b would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
d)
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
California's Health and Safety Code. lf the remains are determined by the County coroner to be
Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24
hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of
the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native
American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with
the Most likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist
may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation
and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of
recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State
law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 150 .5(e) and Public Resources Code section
5097.98. The pro.lect applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City
of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where
the remains were discovered. City staff shall also notify California State Lands Commission staff
upon discovering unexpected cultural resources.
Sources
Sanborn Map Company, City of Burlingame, 1955.
City of Burlingame. 2003. City of Eurlingome Mitigoted Negotive Declorotion, File No. ND-531 P, Updote of the
Boyfront Specific Plon. December 8, 2003
The City of Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
29
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airpori Boulevard
lssues (ond Suppotting lnlonotion Sources):
6. GEOLOGY AND solls-would the proiectr
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effeds, includingthe risk of loss, injury, or
death involvinE:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, a5
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologistfor the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result ofthe
projed, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as
it may be revised), c.eating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supportingthe
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewatea
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
x !
tr
n
n!
x
tr
xx
tr
Discussion
a.i)Less Thon Significont. The site is approximately three miles from the San Andreas Fault, but is not
within the Alquist-Priola zone or on or immediately adjacent to an active or potentially active fault.
The active faults nearest to the project site are the San Andreas, located approximately three miles
southwest of the project site, the Serra Fault, a minor thrust fault considered to have common roots
with the San Andreas Fault located approximately 2.5 miles from the proiect site, and the Hayward
Fault, located approximately 16 miles northeast. As the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone nor on or immediately adjacent to an active fault, fault rupture hazards
associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant.
a.ii,iii) Less Thon Significont with Mitigotion- The City of Burlingame is located in a seismically active region.
Recent studies by the USGS indicate that there is a 63 percent mean probability of a Richter
magnitude 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the Bay Area within the next 30 years, and a 21
percent mean probability that one or more earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.7 or greater will
occur on the San Andreas fault within the next 30 years. The pro.iect site could experience a range of
ground shaking effects during an earthquake on one of the aforementioned Bay Area faults. An
earthquake on the San Andreas fault could result in very strong ground shaking intensities. Ground
30
Lcss Thon
Significontor Siqnilicdnt
Potentio y with Lessfhon
Slgnifrcont Miaigotion Significont
lrnpad lrrcorporition lmpod No lmpad
tr
tr
x
tr
tr
trx
tr
n
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
lnitialStudy
shaking of this intensity could result in moderate damage, such as collapsing chimneys and falling
plaster. Seismic shaking of this intensity can also trigger ground failures caused by liquefaction,
potentially resulting in foundation damage, disruption of utility service and roadway damage. The
project site is underlain by materials that can cause moderately high shaking amplification, and is
immediately adjacent to an area considered by the Assoclation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to
have a low to moderate potential for liquefaction (ABAG, 2008).
The California Geological Survey (CGS) Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment Program estimates
peak ground accelerations in the alluvium at the site would be o.7 429 and short term (0.2 seconds)
would be 1.6019. The 2010 California Building Code (CBC) incorporates attenuation relationships
developed by the CGS's Program and considers vibration contributions from multiple seismic sources,
including those generated by the nearby San Andreas fault and those of more distant, potentially
damaging, faults in the South and East Bay. The resultant map (Figure 1613.5(3) of the 2010 CBC) of
short term (0.2 second) ground response provides peak ground acceleration values for the San
Francisco Bay Area. The 2010 CBC requires the design earthquake (i.e., the maximum considered
earthquake acceleration response for a given site) to be calculated using 2/3 of the mapped
acceleration value. Adherence to CBC Section 1613 would ensure that construction at the project site
would be capable of withstanding the maximum considered groundshaking.
The Pro.iect could experience a range of groundshaking effects during an earthquake on a Bay Area
fault, particularly the san Andreas fault. A characteristic earthquake on the San Andreas fault could
result in very strong (Modified Mercalli lntensity Vlll) groundshaking intensities.' Groundshaking of this
intensity would result in heavily damaged or destroyed masonry, damage to foundations, and shifting
of frame structures (if not bolted down) off their foundations. Development at the project site would
be required to comply with construction standards and seismic design criteria contained in the CBC as
adopted by the city.
Although the potential for seismic groundshaking to occur at the site is unavoidable, the risk of
excessive, permanent damage to the building is anticipated to be relatively minor because the
structural design would be required to adhere to the Building Code standards. Therefore,
groundshaking hazards are considered less than significant.
a.iv) Less Thon Significont. The project site is relatively level. Because the site is not a steep or unstable
slope and does not have irregular surface, natural slope instability is not a concern. Therefore,
because the ground surface at the project site is flat with no steep or unstable adjacent slopes, there
would be no impact from landslide hazard.
b)Less Thon Significont. The proposed proiect is not expected to create substantial erosion or loss of
topsoil because most of the proiect site will be landscaped or paved at the completion of
construction. Construction activities would be required to comply with the California Building
Code, which regulates drainage and erosion control activities for excavations. Soil erosion after
construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans, as
needed. Conformance with City grading standards and the County's Stormwater Management
Plan would ensure that substantial erosion would not occur as a result of construction and
implementation of the proposed project. Consequently, this potential impact would be less than
significant.
Less Thon Significont with Mitigotion. The site is relatively level and does not have a history of
landslides. The Project Site is mapped as Urban Land-Orthents (65 percent Urban Land, 30 percent
Orthents and similar soils, and 4 percent minor components) by the Natural Resources Conservation
c,d)
31
430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lnilialSludy 430 - 450 Airpo{t Eoulevard
Service. The underlying soil forming materials (native soils) are mapped by the U.S. GeoloBical Survey
as alluvial fan and fluvial deposits less than 10,000 years old. Under seismic conditions most
Burlingame soils are reasonably stable. This site is in an area of moderate to low (0.1- 1% probability)
liquefaction susceptibility.
The project will be required to be designed to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards,
of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for
structural stability. The project would conform to the City's Building Code requirement that a site-
specific soils report identify any potentially unsuitable soil conditions and incorporate design
recommendations accordingly. Grading and foundation workwould be required to comply
with the CBC, which specifies the safety requirements to be fulfilled for site work, including the
protection of adjacent properties from damage during excavation. This would include the
prevention of subsidence of pavement or foundations caused by dewatering. Consequently, the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with soil or slope instability
related to subsidence or expansive, liquefiable, or collapsible soils.
The site was reclaimed from San Francisco Bay by constructing perimeter dikes of concrete rubble and
filling behind the dikes with soil and rubble. The surrounding soil and geological materials form a
buttress that would prevent the lateral movement of soil during liquefaction or lurching caused by an
earthquake. The soils and/or geologic materials supporting the building foundation at the site would
be required by the Building Code to be engineered to prevent liquefaction and to resist the lateral
forces imposed by earthquakes. Adherence to the requirements of the CBC would ensure the
maximum practicable stability of the project site and would reduce the potential for lateral spreading
and liquefaction to a less-than-significant level.
No lmpoct. The proposed project would dispose of wastewater using existing wastewater
infrastructure operated by the City of Burlingame. There are no septic or alternative wastewater
systems proposed as part of the proposed project; therefore, no impact would result.
Sources
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps,
httD://sis.abaP.ca.sov/website to uefactionsusce ot ibil itv/, accessed October, 2012
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibilw in Son Moteo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
Perkins, Jeanne, Mops Showing Cumulotive Domoge Potentiolfrom Eorthquake Ground Shokinq, U.S.G.S. Map
MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987.
ABAG, shaking lntensity Map, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/mapsba.htm l, accessed February 18,
20Lr.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey of San
Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. Website: http://websoilsu rvey. n rcs.
usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed February L6, 2011.
Brabb, E. E., R.W. Graymer, and D. L. Jones, Geotogy of the onshore part of san Mateo County, california: A
Digital Database, United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-137 , L998.
32
e)
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
ttsues (ond Supportiag tnlomction Sources):
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Would the proiect:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emigsions, either directly
or indiredly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
ernissioos of Sreenhouse gases?
tr
a,b) Less Thon Significant Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases because
they transform the light of the sun into heat, similar to the glass walls of a greenhouse. Common
greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides,
chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, ozone, and
aerosols. However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity
production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere
beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations- Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxlde, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly since the late 18th century as a result
of human activities and now far exceed pre- industrial values- The greenhouse gas emissions from
an individual project, even a very large development project, would not individually generate
sufficient greenhouse Bas emissions to measurably influence global climate change- However,
climate change has an irreversible, significant cumulative impact on a global scale. Consideration
of a project's impact to climate change, therefore, is essentially an analysis of a project's
contribution to a cumulatively significant global impact through its emission ofgreenhouse gases.
Burlingame's community emissions inventory provides a baseline of emisslon levels against which
future reductions can be measured. The analysis showed that the community of Burlingame released
335,944 metric tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) in the base year of 2005. The transportation
sector accounted for 60% of the emissions and the commercial sector accounted for 22%. These two
sectors were the largest sources of emissions from the Burlingame community. Emissions from the
residential sector accounted for 14%, and the waste sector accounted for 4% of the emissions.
trxtr
33
lzss fhon
Slgntllcont
PoEn lalb wfin LBtfhoD
Sbniftont Slgn ficont,mpoct lnco'pototion lrn,Ect ,lo trnqct
n !
tr
Discussion
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Burlingame, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air
pollution through their police power and decision-making authority. The City released a Climate
Action Plan (BCAP) in June 2009. The BCAP serves as a guiding document to identify methods that
the City and community can implement to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. lt is an
important first step toward meeting the reguirements mandated by new California legislation, known
as Assembly Bill 32, California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires emissions to be
reduced 15% below current levels (as measured in 2005) by the year 2020 and to be reduced by 80% by
the year 2050.
To maintain consistency with the AB 32 emission reduction targets, the Task Force recommended that
Burlingame reduce emissions by 15% below the base year by 2020 and 80% by the year 2050.
Burlingame's 2005 base year emissions were 336,944 metric tons of CO2e. To reduce emissions to 15%
below 2005 baseline levels by 2020, the community would need to reduce emissions by 50,542 metric
tons to 286,402 metric tons during that perlod.
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Ajrport Eoulevard
Table 1 identifies the 2005 base year emissions, the target year reduction and the estimated annual
required emissions to meet the 2020 reduction target. A total of 50,542 metric tons is the minimum
reduction needed for Burlingame to meet the 2020 target and the needed reduction in tons could be as
high as 122,378 metrics tons if Burlingame consumption trends continue. The estimated annual
reduction is in the range of 5,054 tons lo L2,238 tons per year to meet the target year. These
reductions are challenging but are in line with the goals of many Bay Area cities.
Table 1- Burli me GHG Emissions
Burlingame's Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term solutions to reduce its
emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful consideration of
the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major sources of
emissions from Burlingame's community Greenhouse lnventory. The five major focus areas include:
energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal
programs.
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for
state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards.
SFBAAB'S nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and
future development pro.iects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative
basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single pro.iect is sufficient in
size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. lnstead, a pro.iect's
individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. lf a
project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality
would be considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHGI emissions is to identify the emissions levelfor which a project
would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce
statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. lf a pro.lect would generate
GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a
cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operationaFrelated GHG emissions are:
For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of co2e; or 4.6 MT
CO2elSP/Vr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential,
commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
2020 "Business-
as-Usual"
336,9M 408,7802005 Base Year Emissions (metric tons CO2e)
2020 Target Year Reduction (15% below 2005 levels)286,402 286,402
(s0,s42)1L22,378].Emissions Reductions Necessary to Meet Target
15.0%29.9o/oRequired Percentage Emissions Reduction
(s,0s4)(12,2381Required Annual Emissions Reductions (2010-2020)
34
2005 Base Year
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boul€vard
For statlonary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and
equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. lf
annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively
significant impact to globalclimate change.
The BAAQMD has established projea level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. lf a
project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the
screening criteria, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Below
are some screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/20LO
(Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size *+
Single-family 56 du
Apartment, low-rise 78 du
Apartment, mid-rise 87 du
Condo/townhouse, general 78 du
City park 600 acres
Day-care center 11,000 sf
General office building 53,000 sf
Medical office building 22,000 sf
Office park 50,000 sf
Quality restaurant 9,000 sf
**lf project size is => screening size, then it is considered significant.
As noted in the above table, a City park would require operational GHG screening if it is 500 acres or
more. The proposed 8.8 acre site is well below the operational screening criteria. Therefore, the project
would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment nor would it conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the pu rpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
City of Burlingame , Climote Adion Plon, Burlingame, California, June, 2009
BAAQMD CEQA Ah Quoltty Guidelines, 061201O
35
lnilialStudy 4m - 450 AiDorl Eoulevad
Lats fhdn
Signlficona
Mlttgotlon
Less fhdn
SiEnifrcont
lssu.s lond irpporting lnlonnotion Soutccs):
t. HAJZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIATS
would the proiectl
a) Create a siSnificant hazard to the public orthe
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of harardous materials?
b) Create a significant harard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardou! materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely ha2ardous materials, substance5, or waste
within one-quarter mile ofan exidin8 or proposed
school?
d) 8e located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials site5 compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sedion 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the envircnment?
e) For a project located within an airpon land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
0 For a project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip,
would the pro.lect result in a safety ha2ard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) lmpair implementation ofor physically interfere
with an adopted ernergency response plan or
emergency evacuation pla n?
h) Expose people or struduresto a significant risk of
loss. injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacentto urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
x
x
x
x
tr
trtrtr
x!
tr
tr
tr
tr tr
tr tr
x
x
a-c) No lmpoct. The proposed project is the development of a public park with picnic facilities, turf area,
landscaping, a restroom facility and a public trail along the San Francisco Bay. The proposed park use
would not involve the transport, use, storage or disposal of reportable quantities of hazardous
materials, and therefore is not expected to expose people to health hazards, nor is it expected to
create a health hazard. The subiect site is currently vacant. Since the proiect does not involve
demolition of any existing buildings, the project will not release hazardous materials into the
environment during construction activities.
No lmpoct. The proiect site is not listed on the san Mateo County Environmental Health Department's
list of fuel leak sites, nor is it listed on the State of California's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites
list. The project site is vacant, and is part ofthe larger Bayfront area which is primarily developed with
office, hotel and restaurant uses in the general vicinity of the poect site. Originally, the project site
and surrounding area was a tidal area and marshland, which was built-up with imported fill in the
d)
36
Signiliccna or
Potentiolty
strgniflcont
lmpoct
tr
trtr
T
tr!
Discussion
lnitial Study 430 - 450 AiDort Boulevard
1950s and 1960s. There has been no development on this site since it was filled in the 1950s and
1950s. There is no indication that there has been any uses which could have contaminated the site.
e-f)No lmpoct. The project is approximately seven miles southeast of San Francisco lnternational Airport
and is subject to the policies set forth in lhe Sdn Mdteo County Comryehensive Airport Londscope
P/o, (ALUP). The Project would result in air traffic safety impacts if the height of the proposed
building would result in interference with air traffic. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is
responsible for determining whether the project would result in a safety hazard for air traffic. The
FAA sets forth guidelines in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, to determine if an object is
an obstruction to air navigation. The regulations address the potential light, glare, and air emissions
that could distract aircraft operators. For this location, the ALUP has set a height restriction of about
163.2 feet above mean sea level. The proposed one-story restroom facility is well below this height
limitation, with a maximum height at the roof pitch of about 15 feet. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with the height restrictions set forth by the San Mateo County ALUP and would not interfere
with air traffic. No impact resulting from the proximity to the San Francisco lnternational Airport
would occur. The pro.iect site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, no impact on safety
related to proximity to a private airstrip would occur.
c)Less Thdn Signilicont lmpoct. By its nature, this project will not interfere with any emergency response
or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. The City of Burlingame General
Plan Safety Element does not designate emergency evacuation routes. Therefore, there would be a
less-than significant impact related to emergency response or evacuation plans.
h)No lmpoct. Fire hazards in the City of Burlingame are considered slight to moderate. The project site is
in a developed urban area and is not adjacent to, or intermixed with wildlands. Based on a review of
the County's Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire) Map (CDF,2000), the proposed project site is located
over three miles from the nearest fire sensitive wildland area and would not result in a significant risk
with regard to wildland fires. The project site is not connected to any open space or forested urban
area that could qualify as a wildland area. Thus, the proposed project would not result in exposure of
people or structures to wildland fires.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources:
The CiW of Burlinqame Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipol Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2011 edition.
Stote of Colilornio Hozordous Waste ond Substonces Sites trst, February 16, 2012
List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites by County and Fiscal Year from Water Board GeoTracker
database
Son Moteo County Comprehensive Airport Lond Use Plon, San Francisco lnternational Airport, February, 2012.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, San Mateo County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire), Map
NHD-41, January 06, 2000.
37
lnitjalStudy 430 - 45() Airpo( Aoievard
lssuet (ond suppotting lnlormotion soutces):
9. HYDROLOGY ANO WATER QUALITY-Would tho
proi€qt:
a) Violate anywater quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
inte.fere substantia lly with groundwater reqharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level(e.9,, the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would dropto a levelwhich would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alterthe existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantialerosion ofsiltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially alterthe existing drainage pattern ofthe
site or area, including th rough the alteration of the
course ofa stream or nver, or tubstantially increase
the rate or amountof Surface runoffin a manner
whichwould result in floodingon- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoffwaterwhich would
exceed the capacity of eristing or planned
stormwater drainage systemr or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runofL)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
8) Place housingwithin a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood lnsurance Rate Map orother flood hazard
delineation map?
kh) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirectflood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving floodin& ihcluding
flooding as a result ofthe failure of a levee or dam?
j) lnundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) subject to flooding risks resulting from sea level
rise?
Discussion
a)
n!tr
tr
tr
!
tr
n
tr
x
tr
trxtr!
tr
!
n
tr x
n
x
x
tr
!
tr
tr
!
tr
Less Thon Signilicont with Mitigotion The proiect site is located on the shoreline of the San Francisco
Bay, is currently vacant and is covered with vegetation. The project site and surrounding land was
reclaimed from the San Francisco Bay in the 1960s by constructing perimeter barriers of concrete
rubble. The perimeter of the area was created by using pieces of the old san Mateo bridge structure,
and additional fill and rubble were placed behind the pieces of the San Mateo bridge structure. The
pro.iect would have a potential impact on hydrology and water quality related to surface water runoff
and the potential impact from contaminants in the runoff on water quality within the San Francisco
Bay.
Lst fhon
SignfKontor Signilicoht
f'otentiolly with L.ss fhon
Signiftcont Mhlgotlon Sbnificont
lrnpad lnaotpototlon lmpoai ,lo,mpod
x
xtr
n
trx
tr
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Development of the proposed project would require compliance with the City of Burlingame Municipal
Code which requires that all storm drain systems shall be designed to remove stormwater from the
area at a maximum rainfall intensity of 1 inch per hour and that properties shall be graded to provide
stormwater removal at this rainfall rate (Municipal Code Section 26.16.090). A grading permit would
be required (Municipal Code Section 18.20.030) and runoff from the p@ect site would be evaluated
for its potentialto cause erosion (Municipal Code Section 18.20.060). Additionally, the city engineer or
building official would inspect the project site after rough grading to ensure compliance with the
grading permit (Municipal Code Section 18.20.080). Consequently, the on-site flooding impacts
associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
Because development of the proposed project would include parking lots with more than 10,000
square feet of impervious surfaces, the project would be required to meet Provisions C.3 and C.6 of
the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), Order No. R2-2009-0074 and Order No. R2-2011-
0083, NPDES No. CA5612008.
Mititation Measure 9a: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the proiect site. At a
minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following:
a) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading
activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru
April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction
schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed
soils;
b) Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term
biodegradable erosion control blankets;
c) Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at
downstream storm drain inlets;
d) Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials
and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials,
litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and
Following construction, the proposed pro.iect would result in an increase in impervious surfaces.
Nonpoint source (NPs) pollutants are washed by rainwater from roofs, streets, parking areas, and
landscape areas into the local drainage network. Pollutant concentrations in site runoff are dependent
on a number of factors, including land use conditions; site drainage conditions; intensity and duration
of rainfall; the climatic conditions preceding the rainfall event; rooftop materials and implementation
of water quality BMPs. Due to the variability of urban runoff characteristics, it is difficult to estimate
39
Current construction practices commonly employ Best Management Practices (8MPs) that minimize
the discharge of pollutants from the site. BMPs are proven means to effectively control site runoff and
run-on during construction and should be applied at the project site. lmplementation of Mitigation
Measure 9a would reduce potential construction-related impacts to less-than-significant.
e) The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage
structures of debris and sediment.
lniiiatStudy 430 - 45O Airport Boulevard
pollutant loads for NPS pollutants. Without proper mitiSation, the proposed project could contribute
to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering the San Francisco Bay, potentially causing adverse
effects on aquatic life and human health. Since the project proposes construction of two parking lots
which will result in more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces on the site, the project will be
required to adhere to the Provision C.3 requirements of the countywide NPDES permit for post-
construction stormwater runoff management. Fulfilling the requirements of Provision C.3 would
address the post-construction stormwater controls for water quality. lmplementation of Mititation
Measure 9b would reduce post construction-related water quality impacts to less-than-significant
levels.
Mitigation Measure 9b: The project applicant, before proiect approval, shall prepare the
appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post-construction
treatment and control of storm water runoff from the site. Post-construction treatment
measures must be designed, installed and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of
runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance
party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post-construction
stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other
maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a
f inal construction inspection.
No tmpoct. The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not
provided by groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for
the project, and no dewatering of the site is anticipated. The proposed project may result in a slight
increase in infiltration due to enhanced on-site stormwater containment and treatment, but this
increase is considered minor and would not significantly increase groundwater recharge.
Less Thon Significdnt. No streams or rivers flow through the proiect site; thus the proposed project
would not affect any waterways. The storm drainage management will adequatelY handle the storm
water Best Management Practices that will meet the requirements of the San Mateo Countywide
Water Pollution Prevention Programs "C.3" and "C.6" requirements under the regional permit. This will
include provision of source control and/or stormwater treatment measures included within the design.
With these improvements, no significant impacts to the drainage system would occur with
implementation of the proposed project.
Less Thon Significont The project will not result in significant increases in storm water flows such that
new systems would be required. The existing storm drain system which serves the area has adequate
capacity to accommodate any additional runoff which will occur as a result of the proiect. Therefore,
stormwater generated on the proposed project site is not expected to significantly impact existing
stormwater draina8e facilities.
b)
c,d)
e)
40
The Public Works Department requires Best Management Practices (BMPS) to be implemented both
during and post construction to control and prevent discharge of sediment, debris, and other related
wastes to the storm drainage system. The proposed proiect will require a stormwater runoff permit
(C3). Review of the proposed project by engineering staff will mitigate soil erosion, the loss of topsoil
and minimize stormwater runoff. Construction activity may result in short term erosion and lack of
sediment control. Construction related erosion and resulting potential sedimentation impacts would
be reduced to a less than significant level through the projed's compliance with standard best
management practices applied as conditions of project approval.
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Less Thon Significont. The proposed park will not degrade existing water quality. The storm drainage
system will incorporate the storm water Best Management Practices that will meet the requirements
of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Programs "C.3" and "C.6" requirements
under the regional permit. This will include provision of source control and/or stormwater treatment
measures included within the design. These elements will not only reduce the speed at which
stormwater enters the City's drainaBe system, but in certain cases biologically clean some of the
contaminants associated with stormwater runoff, thus, further reducing any impacts to water quality.
No lmpoct. The project site is located in Flood Zone X, areas subject to inundation by a 500-year flood.
The site is not within the 1oo-year flood zone and therefore there would be no impact associated with
100-year flood hazards.
The proiect site is located along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, which may be subject to tsunamis
entering through the entrance to the Bay at the Golden Gate bridge. The Tsunami lnundation Map for
Emergency Planning, prepared by the California Emergency Management Agency, indicates that a
potential tsunami could inundate the channels adjacent to the project site. The proiect would not
result in direct changes in tsunami or seiche risk. Other portions of the Bay shoreline have been
identified as being within potential wave run-up areas, but the map does not indicate that the
property where park activities would occur would be vulnerable to this risk. Therefore, the impact is
considered to be less than significant
Less thon Signilicont lmpoct. M easu rements ta ken in the Bay indicate t hat the cu rrent rate of sea level
rise is about 3.5 inches per century at Alameda and 8.4 inches per century at 5an Francisco. Climate
change effects on sea levels could lead to even higher rates of sea level rise (accelerated sea level rise).
Different scenarios and models used to predict sea level rise result in different estimates of the
magnitude of sea level rise.
Although the Project site is relatively low in elevation, it is generally protected from 100-year flood
hazards by sea walls and levees along the Bay edge of about 7 to 9 feet in elevation. The tidal flood
elevation is listed as 7 feet and does not include wave run-up. However, the ma.iority of the central
portion of the site is subject to shallow flooding from a 500-year flood event.
The California Climate Change Center predicts that accelerated sea level rise could result in a sea level
rise in California of 4.3 to 27.6 inches above the existing msl by 2099. The California Climate Action
Team projects that sea levels could rise to 16 inches at mid-century and to between 20 and 55 inches
by the year 2099.
The current mean higher high tide near the Project Site is about 3.5 feet above the current msl. An
increase in sea level rise of 1 foot would result commensurate increase in the mean higher high tide
level. When combined with astronomical tides, a 1-foot increase in msl would result in the 100-year
event high tide peak occurring at the 1o-year event frequency. ln other words, the frequency of a
current 1oo-year high tide (about 5.54 feet above current msl at the San Francisco Presidio station)
could occur 10 times more often when sea levels increase to l foot above the current msl. As a result
of these conditions, lesser storms and tides may be sufficient to result in more frequent and severe
flooding, erosion, and structural stresses compared to existing conditions. Such changes are predicted
regardless of whether the Project is implemented. Some erosion and damage to levees and channel
banks have already occurred along the waterfront in Burlingame, so sea level rise could exacerbate the
problem.
c-i)
k)
4L
f)
lnilialStudy 430 - zt50 AiDort Boulevard
Water surface elevation gradients (slopes) are primary drivers of flow conveyance within streams and
storm drains. The higherthe gradient, the faster water can flow. lf the downstream outletofa stream
or storm drain is controlled by the water surface elevation of the Bay or Ocean, rising sea levels can
affect the flow within those drainages; a higher water surface elevation at the outlet reduces the
gradient and slows down flow. This could result in reduced storm flow conveyance capacity and cause
or contribute to backwater flooding effects.
Currently, the Project Site is protected from flooding by a shoreline barrier, but the barrier has
experienced some erosion since it was constructed in the 1960s. As explained above, sea levels are
predicted to rise, and this could increase the frequency of flood events, reduce storm flow conveyance
capacities, result in over-topping of the existing barriers, contribute to shallow groundwater rise flood
effects, increase high tide elevations, and create more stress on the shoreline and flood protection
features. Such changes are expected to occur regardless of whether the Project is implemented.
Overall, the Proiect is not expected to result in substantial flood risks to people and above- ground
structures because the current site elevation would be above the expected 100-year peak tide
elevation, and the only structure proposed on the site is a restroom facility. As noted in the above, a
55-inch sea level rise (which is the maxlmum predicted to occur by 2099) would result in inundation of
a majority of the Pro.iect Site, with a potential 100-year flood elevation of about 11.6 feet above msl
(existing tidal base flood elevation plus 55-inch sea level rise).
Because the Project Site is not subject to tsunami inundation, it can be expected that the tsunami run-
upelevation is notgreaterthanthe 100-year tidal elevation ofTfeet. As such, even in the event of sea
level rise, the majority of the Proiect Site would be above the 100-year flood elevation, and the
potential for inundation during the 100-year flood event in would not be substantial.
Furthermore, the shoreline and features located ad.iacent to the shoreline would be subject to higher
tides. As noted above, the mean higher high tide near the Project Site is about 3.5 feet above the
current msl. A 4.6-foot increase in sea level would result in a mean higher high tide of at least 8.1feet
above current msl. There would be no structures within the 100-foot setback from shoreline areas,
which would reduce the potential for flood risks. However, the perimeter barriers along the shoreline
have experienced erosion and are not designed and/or protected to withstand the higher dynamic
forces associated with the higher tides could fail under the sea level rise scenario and expose people to
increased risk from flooding and erosion. However, since there are no structures proposed otherthan
the restroom facility, the impact is expected to be less than significant.
Sources
The City oI Burlingome 6enerol Pldn, Burlingame, California,2Ol0,2@2,1985 and 1984 amendments.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quolity lmpacts of Proiects dnd Plons, May,2Ol7.
City of Burlingame, Municipol Code, Title 26, Chopter 26.16 - Physicol Design ol lmprovements, Burlingame,
california.
City of Burlingame , Municipol Code, Title 78, Chopter 18.2O - Groding, Excovotion, Fills, Burlingame, California
42
Higher sea levels could also reduce the available coastal floodplain storage volumes. However,
because the Project Site is protected by levees and sea walls, there is currently relatively little coastal
floodplain storage that could be affected.
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Bouleva.d
Mop oI Approximote Locations ol 7oo-year Flood Areos,lrom the National Flood lnsurance Program Flood
lnsurance Maps, October 16,2012.
300 Airport Boulevord Droft ElR, SCHfl 2OLOI220L2, prepared forthe City of Burlingame, December,2011
Tsunomi lnundotion Mop for Emergency Plonning, Slale of California, County of 5an Mateo, San Mateo
Quadrangle, June 15, 2009, California Emergency Management Agenc.y
Floyd, M., M. Anderson, M. Roos, R. Pete6on, M. Perrone, and D. Todd. 2006. Chapter 2: Potential lmpacts of
Climate Change on California's water Resources, Table 2-6 Relative Sea l-evelTrends for Eight Tide
Gauges Along the Coast of California with 50 Years or More of Record. p. 2-43. ln: California
Department of Water Resources, Progress on lncorporating Climate Change into Planning and
Management of California's Water Resources Technical Memorandum Report, prepared July 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981. Flood lnsurance Study, City of Burlingame California, San
Mateo County. Prepared March 16, 1981.
Cayan, D., P. Bromirski, K. Hayhoe, M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, and R. Flick. 2006. Projecting Future sea Level:
Table 3 Projected global sea level rise (SLR) (cm) for the SRES A1fi, 42, and 81 greenhouse gas emission
scenarios. SLR for A2 and 81 scenarios is estimated by combining output recent global climate change
model simulations with MAGICC projections for the ice melt component. SLR estimates for Alfi
estimated from MAGICC based on 42 temperature changes scaled according to those in A1fi. A Report
From the california climate change center cEc-500-2005-2002-sF. p. 19.\
5an Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Climate Change, 2007,
www.bcdc.ca.sovlolanning,/clima te chanse/climate chanee.shtml
43
Inilial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lssues lon.l Supporting lnlomotion Sources)
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING-
Would the proiect:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with j u risdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, Iocal coastal program, or 2oning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
tr
tr
D
tr
tr tr
Less Thon Significont lmpoct. The project site is within an urban area in the City of Burlingame. Land
uses in the project vicinity consist primarily of office buildings, restaurants and hotels. The General
Plan designates the project site and the surrounding area for waterfront commercial uses. The
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan designates this site as appropriate for hotels and recreational uses.
The proposed project to develop a park and improve a portion of the bay trail is consistent with the
General Plan land use designation for the site and is compatible with the existing office, hotel and
restaurant uses on adjacent properties, and will provide recreational opportunities for people who
work in the area and visit the local hotels. lt will also provide recreational opportunities for residents
in other portions of the community. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established
community, and would result in a less than significant impact.
No lmpoct. The General Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan designate the project site and the
surrounding area for waterfront commercial uses. The pro.iect site is located within the Anza Area of
the Bayfront Specific Plan. The Specific Plan notes that the Anza Area has been developed as a visitor-
oriented destination with bay and airport oriented hotels, destination restaurants and offices which
support the local and visitor economy. lt indicates that there are severalvacant and underused parcels
suitable for development in the Anza Area, one of which is owned by the State of california and is
designated for hotels, destination restaurants and commercial recreation uses. The plan further states
that pedestrian and recreational access is a major land use theme in the Anza Area, surrounded by San
Francisco Bay and estuaries, and indicates that projects should provide and maintain Bay trail
improvements, and project design should continue to encourage the integration and placement of
passive and, where appropriate, active recreation areas accessible to the public. The site is zoned AA
(Anza Area), and public parks are a permitted use within this zone district. The proposed development
of a public park would be consistent with the plan, as well as the policies contained in the plan. The
project would not result in any conflicts with land use plans, policies or regulations.
The portion of the proposed project within 100 feet of the shoreline is within San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction. The Conceptuol Master Plon lor the
Bdyview Park Project (see Attachment A) indicates the 100-foot BCDC setback. The project is in
compliance with BCDC policies since the proposed project will improve public access to the Bay, and
will incorporate mitigation requirements to offset the adverse environmental impacts of the project.
44
Less fhon
Signifrcontor signilicont
Potenliolly with L.ss fhan
Signilicont Mitiqotion Signilicont
lmpod lncorporoaion lfipdd No lmpdd
tr
trxtr
tr
a)
b)
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
c)No lmpoct.Ihe ptoject site is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
Sources
The City of Burlingome 6enerol Plan, Burlingame, California,2OlO,2OO2, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Burlingome Boyfront Specific Plon, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and June L8,2OL2
City of Burlingame, Municipol Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2012 edition.
45
430 - 450 Airpon BoulevardlnitalStudy
lssucs (ond Suppot-ting lnlomotion Sources):
11. MINERAL RESOURCES-Wou|d the projed:
a) Result in the loss ofavailability of a known mineral
resource that would be ofvalue to the region and
the residents ofthe rtate?
b) Result in the loss ofavailability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
u5e plan?
x
xtrtr
oiscussion
a-b) No lmpact. According to lhe Son Moteo County Generol Plor, Mineral Resources Map, the project site
does not contain any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result
in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the
proposed project.
Mititation Measures: None Required.
Sources
San Mateo County, Generol P\on,7986.
The City of Burlingome Generol Plan, Burlingame, Calffornia,zOtO,2@2,1985 and 1984 amendments.
46
lrts fhon
Slgnttgaitq Slg,,itcdnt
,o'antidrry wilh tari rrro,
Sigdtfkdnt Mitlgotion SbrrtfGcnt
lrnpocl tnaoryo@tion lrnpoct Noltrrya
tr
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lssues (dnd supporting lnlormotion sour.es):
Signifrcont ot
Potentially
Signifrcont
Significont
Mitigotion
Less Thon
Signilicont
12. NOISE-Would the prorect result in:
a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance. or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation ofexcessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient no;se levels in the projectvicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a pro.iect located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles o{ a public airport or public use airport.
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
0 Fora project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a,c,d)
n
n
tr
tr
tr
!
n
Less Thon Significont with Mitigotion. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site include offices,
restaurants and hotel uses. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site and
the surrounding area for waterfront commercial uses. The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan identifies
this area as the Anza Area, and designates this site as appropriate for hotels, destination restaurants
and recreational uses.
tr
x
x
tr
tr
x
tr
According to the existing noise contour map in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan, the
proiect site is in an area that is exposed to noise in the 60 to 65 decibel (dB) range. Existing noise
sources at the project site are dominated by roadway traffic along Airport Boulevard, and to a lesser
extent, Highway 101, as well as noise from San Francisco lnternational Airport, located seven miles to
the northeast of the site. The Noise Element contains noise and land use compatibility
recommendations for evaluating the compatibility of new uses with the on-site noise environment.
The Noise Element of the General Plan establishes 60 dBA CNEL as the maximum suggested outdoor
noise level for land uses that include intensively used parks and playgrounds. (CNEL is a 24-hour
average noise level with a 10 dBA "penalty" added to noise during the night and evening hours
(7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.)). As noted above, the project site is in an area that is already exposed to
noise in the 60 to 65 dB range. The proposed project would not contribute substantially to further
increase the 24-hour average outdoor noise level in the project area, since the noise levels are already
high due to traffic and aircraft noise.
lmplementation of the proposed project would result in intermittent short-term noise impacts
resulting from construction-related activities. Construction-related activities associated with the
project would include excavation, grading, and general building construction. Section 18.07.L10 ofthe
47
lnitial Study 430 - 450 AiDon Boulevard
City's Municipal Code limits the hours of construction to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on
weekdays, g:OO a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
During the hours permitted by the City for construction aqtivities, project-related construction noise
may create unacceptable peak noise levels for surrounding land uses, and thus result in a temporary
but potentially significant impact. lmplementation of Mitigation Measure 12a would reduce
temporary construction noise impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 12a: The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to
implement the following measures:
Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise
control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers,
ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever
feasible).
stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and
they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation
barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.
b)Less Thon Significont. Neither the proposed proiect nor the construction of the project is expected to
generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise. Construction ofthe park facility will produce short
term noise and vibration from activities such as demolition of existing paved areas, but the duration is
expected to be short and extent of vibration localized and less than significant.
Less Thon significont. The proposed project is located within the airport land use plan for the San
Francisco lnternational Airport, and the project site is exposed to both overflight and backblast noise
from aviation traffic. However, the site does not fall in the 65 dB CNEL or higher contours for noise
generated by the aircraft landing or taking off from the airport, indicating that airport noise at the site
should be less than 65 dB. Therefore, the project would not expose people to excessive noise levels
from aviation traffic.
No lmpoct. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, no
impact would occur.
50n Mdteo County Comprehensive Airport Land lJse Progrom, 5an Francisco lnternational Airport, February,
2012.
f)
48
Sources
The City of Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
e)
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lstues (ond suppofting lnlomotion Sources):
tr
Discussion
o)No lmpoct. The project site and the surrounding area is planned for waterfront commercial uses,
which include recreation uses. The project does not represent any alteration to the planned land uses
in the area. The proposed public park would be used by people who work in the adjacent office
buildings, and be visitors to the area's hotels and restaurants. The park would also be used by
Burlingame residents and residents of adiacent communities. Therefore, the project would not have a
direct impact on housing demand in the immediate area.
b, c) No lmpact. The project site is currently vacant. Since there are no residential units on the project site,
the proiect would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people that would
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City oI Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California,2OLO,2OO2,1985 and 1984 amendments
Burlingame Boyfront Specific Plon, April5,2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and Jun e L8,2Of2
trtr
49
Less Thon
signiricontu Sbniliccrrt
Pountid y with LessThdn
S:Enificont Mitigotion fignilicont
tmpad lncotpototion lmpoct No lfipdca
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING-
would the proied:
a) lnduce substantial population groMh in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers ofexisting housinE;
necessitatingthe construction otreplacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
tr
tr
tr
lnitjalSludy 43O - 45O Airporl Boulevard
Issucs lond sugpottinq l,tormolion SolJftes):
14. PUBIIC SERVICES- Would the proiect:
a) Resultinsubstantialadversephysicalimpacts
associated with the p.ovision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physicallyaltered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in orderto maintain
acceptable service ratiot response timet or other
performance obiectives for any of the public
setuices:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Discussion
a. i)Less Than Significont- Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central
County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough and City of Millbrae. Three
stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive
and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire
Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all
applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures
are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety re8ulations.
The proposed project is not anticipated to generate a significant additional demand for fire protection
services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities. Therefore, the pro.iect's
potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant.
a.ii) Less Thon Signilicont. Police protection services are provided in the city of Burlingame by the
Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed proiect is for a public
park facility and improvements to the Bay trail. The pro.iect would not result in a significant increase
demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The proiect's
potential impact on police services would be less than significant.
a.iii) No lmpoct. Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School
District (BSD) for grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The
proposed pro.iect is for a public park, and will not result in an increase in student population.
Therefore, there would be no impact on school facilities.
a.iv,v) No lmpoct.Ihe City of Burlingame is served by several park and recreation facilities, including 13
parks and playgrounds, an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. This pro.iect will add to the
inventory of park services available to the residents of Burlingame. The project would result in a
positive impact on the availability of parks facilities and therefore there would be no adverse impact.
n
trxxx
xx
tr!!
n
n
tr
tr
tr
50
Lcss fhdn
Sbntfi.orrto. S,gnlticont
PoE,ttiolly with Lcts,]hon
Sig,titicott Mingation Sbnt icdnt
lmpoct lncorpordtion lhpoct No l,npod
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airpod Boulevard
Mititation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City ol Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, Califomia,2OLO,2OO2,1985 and 1984 amendments.
Burlingome Boyfront Specilic Plon, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and June 18, 2012
City of Burlingame Website, www.burlinqame.orq
51
lnitialStudy il3o - 45O Airpon Boulovad
15. RECREATIONI
a) Would the project increasethe use of existing
neiSh borhood and regionalpa*s or other
recreationa I facilities such that substantial physical
deteriordtion of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreationalfacilities which might have an adverse
physical effed on the environment?
tr
tr tr
Discussion
a,b) No lmpoct. The proposed project is to develop a public park. Therefore, since the proposed pro.lect
will provide additional park facilities for the use of area residents, the project would not increase the
use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would
occur; the project include the construction of recreational facilities, and the impacts of these facilities
has been evaluated by completion of this lnitial Study. There would be no impacts to recreation uses.
The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it
displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Burlingame Boyfront Specific Plon, Agril 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and June 18, 2012
52
lssuet (ond suppoding lntondtion Sov.€st:
Lattthon
SlttlkoDto' Srgnlftont
Pdantw vfr, aassll,p,[
gtnlt @tt Mwotbn S,g,a'fto,t
hnpcl tadpottdoi tnw, No ln l0ct
tr
n
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lssues (dnd Supporting lnloftnotion Sources)
15. TRANSPORTATTON/TRAFFIC-
Would the prorect:
a) Cause an incr€ase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the exidingtraffic load and capacity ofthe
street system (i.e., result in a substantialincrease in
eitherthe number ofvehicle trips, the volume-to-
capacity ratio on roads, orcongestion at
intersedions)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantialsafety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.9., sharp curves or dangerous
intersectionr) o. incompatible uses (e.9., farm
equiPment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
fl Result in inadequate parklng capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.9., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
n
tr
tr
!
trx!
x
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
The proposed project includes an 8 to 10 foot wide asphalt path along the San Francisco Bay edge with
benches and landscaping, public access pathways leading from Airport Boulevard to the Bay trail, two
parking lots on both sides of the park space, with 133 parking spaces, a Sroup picnic area, a n accessible
picnic area and a restroom facility. The Burlingame Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance does not
include a parking standard for public parks or other open space uses. Based on similar facilities of this
size, it is expected that the proposed 133 parking spaces will provide adequate parking for the 8.81
acre park.
53
Less rhdn
Sqnlficont$ Signiticont
Potentiolly with Lets Thdn
Significont Mitigotion Sbnifkont
lrnFoct lncotpototion lmpoct No lfipocl
tr tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
trx
a,b,fl Less Thon Significont. Regional access is provided to the project site by U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), a
major regional arterial in the State of California which extends north and south along the westerly side
of San Francisco Bay. Local access to the project site and circulation through the area is provided by
Airport Boulevard, Anza Boulevard and Bayview Place. Airport Boulevard is a two-lane to four-lane
street that borders the Project site and extends from Bayshore Highway in the north to Peninsula
Avenue/Coyote Point Drive to the south. Airport Boulevard is four lanes adjacent to the Project site,
and narrows to two lanes at Sanchez Channel. Anza Boulevard is a short roadway which provides
northbound access to US 101 from Airport Boulevard. Bayview Place is a two-lane road which adjoins
the site and provides access to a restaurant adjacent to the site.
lnitialstudy 430 - 45O AiDort Boulevad
Transit service in the area includes local bus service provided by the San Mateo County Transit District
(SamTrans). Regional transit service is provided by the Caltrain community rail line and Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) both of which are served by the Millbrae lntermodal Station. There are existing
sidewalks adjacent to the project site as well as access to the Bay trail for pedestrian use, and bicycle
lanes are provided along Airport Boulevard.
The intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site (Bayshore Highway/Airport Boulevard,
Airport Boulevard/Anza Boulevard, Airport Boulevard/Coyote Point Drive) are all currently operating at
acceptable levels of seNice (either LOS B or LOS C) during the AM and PM peak hours. The
intersections near the Broadway interchange have been operating at LOS D, while the intersection of
Amphlett Boulevard and Poplar Avenue in the City of San Mateo was operating at an LOS F at the time
of the ElR. However the City of San Mateo has made improvements at the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar
Avenue intersection at the Highway 101 interchange to provide sufficient capacity for existing and
future traffic volume for the Burlingame Point project so that it will be operating at LOS D or better,
both under existing conditions and the 2030 time horizon, which takes into account future
development not only of the Burlingame Point proiect but also the adjacent 350 Airport Boulevard
site. Furthermore, the EIR anticipated improvements to the Highway 101/Broadway interchange, and
those improvements are currently under construction.
The EIR included an analysis of the impacts of the 300 Airport Boulevard proiect on the study
intersections. lt concluded that all but one of the study intersections would continue to operate at
acceptable levels of service during both peak hours. The one intersection which would continue to
operate at LOS F with the projed is the unsignalized intersection of Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar
Avenue, which has since been improved to LOS D with recent improvements. With the improvements
to the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar Avenue intersection, all of the study intersections would continue
to operate at acceptable levels of service during both peak hours.
ln terms of cumulative impacts with the proposed park in relation to the 300 Airport Boulevard office
project, traffic generated by a public park is generally not as heavy during the AM and PM peak hours
of traffic, as park users typically use the park facilities during the day (in the hours between AM and
PM peak hours) and they are more heavily used on weekends. Trip generation rates for different land
use types are published by the lnstitute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) in the Trip Generation
Manual, Ninth Edition. There are several categories of park related uses which might be applied to the
Proiect. An 8.8 acre City Park is expected to generate 2 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, while an
8.8 acre Beach Park would generate 12 trips during the PM peak hour. To be conservative, analysis
54
An Environmental lmpact Report was prepared for a project at 300 Airport Boulevard, near the project
site, which proposes to construct a 767,ON square foot office/life science development. This project
was approved by the City Council on lune 18, 2012, and the applicant is working on obtaining the
necessary permits for construction. The EIR prepared for the 300 Airport Boulevard project provides
information regarding the operating conditions of intersections in the project vicinity. The EIR included
an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for six signalized intersections in the City of
Burlingame and five signalized intersections in the City of San Mateo. One unsignalized intersection
was also selected for study in the City of 5an Mateo. Traffic conditions atthe study intersections were
analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. lt
is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions would occur on an average weekday.
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service
is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with
little or no delay, to LOS F, or congested conditions with excessive delays.
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airpoft Boulevard
assumes that this facility would be similar to a Beach Park, and would generate 12 vehicle trips during
the PM peak hour. This increase in traffic would not result in any significant impacts to intersections in
the vicinity of the project site.
Given that all of the study intersections in the 300 Airport Boulevard EIR would continue to operate at
acceptable levels of service during both peak hours, that the proposed park would not result in any
significant impacts to intersections in the vicinity of the project site, and that the respective projects
would generate traffic at differing peak periods, there would not be cumulative impacts from the 300
Airport Boulevard and park projects being developed.
c)No lmpoct. The project is located within the boundaries of the airport land use plan for San Francisco
lnternational Alrport. The project is not within two miles of a private airstrip. The San Francisco Airport
is approximately t\r,o miles from the project site. The proposed project would not change air traffic
patterns, increase air traffic levels or result in a change in location that would result in substantial
safety risks. The project would have no impact.
d)No lmpoct. The proposed project would not involve redesign or reconfiguration of roadways, and the
proposed public park would not introduce any incompatible uses or vehicles. Therefore the proposed
proiect would have no impact on road hazards.
e)No lmpoct. The proposed project is not expected to affect emergency response times or access to
other sites in the area. Emergency access to the project site will be provided from Airport Boulevard.
Therefore, the pro.iect would have no impact to emergency access-
s)No lmpoct. The project site is located in an area served by public transit. The proposed project would
not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The
project would have no impact.
Sources
The City of Burlingome Generul Plon, BurlinBame, California, 2O7O,2@7,1985 and 1984 amendments.
Burlingame Boylront Specilic Plan, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and June 18, 2012
City of Burlingame, Municipol Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2011 edition.
300 Airport Boulevord Droft ElR,scHfi 20lot220l2, ptepared for the city of Burlingame, December, 2011
Son Moteo County Comprehensive Airport Lond Use Progrom, San Francisco lnternational Airport, February,
20L2.
Response Letter: City ol Burlingdme, Applicotion for Generol Leose-Agency Use of Sovereign lond, Son Mateo
county, colifornio (File Ref: w2669), August 11, 2015, prepared by Monk & Associates Environmental
Consultants.
55
lnithlStudy 43O - 45O Ailporl Boulevad
Slqniftcdnt or
SiEnifrcont
lE s fhoa
Significont
,mpodlisurs lond Suopo,tino ln qmotion Sourcesl:
17. PARI6 AND WIND EFFECTS ON RECREATION -
would the proiect:
a) Have an impact on windsurfint and kiteboarding
recreational resourcet.
o)
tr x
LessThon Significont. The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan discusses wind and notes that future
development could have an impact on recreational uses such as windsurfing by blocking the flow of
wind across the bay. ln addition, the plan discusses that the existing wind patterns in the area may be
incompatible with passive recreational uses and other outdoor activities.
The plan notes that the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Area is located on flat land adjacent to San
Francisco Bay. The area is exposed to the strong winds driven by the Pacific Ocean marine layer that
flows onshore, overthe hills and down toward the Bay. Such winds frequently reach speeds in excess
of 15 miles per hour (mph) and during the peak wind season, often reach speeds of 20 mph or more.
The higher speed winds generally come from the northwest to the west directions. These strong winds
offer both use opportunities and development constraints for the area.
Some recreational uses, such as windsurfing, are powered by these strong winds. However, the winds
may be incompatible with other activities occurring in this area, such as passive recreational use,
outdoor activities such as walking to businesses in the area or residential activities where users may be
accustomed to outdoor use areas. Also, future development of tallstructures hasthe potentialto
either reduce wind speed on the bay and impact recreational users, or to increase wind speeds at
grade directly adjacent to the new structures resulting in hazardous wind conditions.
The plan notes that in the Anza Area, there are many opportunities for people to see and reach the
shoreline at the area's park along the Bay Trail and from private open space. The building pattern in
this area with more open space and greater distance from the San Francisco Bay proper does not slow
the wind significantly as it crosses the area.
The Specific Plan indicates that in order to preserve the wind resource for recreational windsurfers and
to improve the wind environment on the Bay Trail, pedestrian pathways and in useable open spaces,
community standards shall be considered for new development. The following standards apply to this
site:
AllAreas:
o The community standard to be achieved by wind evaluations required below shall be that the wind
reduction caused by a structure shall reduce the wind speeds compared to existinB conditions by
no more than 10% at irreplaceable windsurfing launching and landing sites, or reduce wind speed
by no more than 10% over large portions ofthe windsurfing transit routes or primary board sailing
areas.
. In the evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian
and open space environment, the structures shall result in an increase in wind speed and
turbulence in areas adjacent to the buildings of no more than 10% compared to existing
conditions.
56
lzts Thdn
SOn tkont
Mitlgotlon
lncoapoeotio,No lmpoct
Discussion
tr
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Ajrport Boulevard
On properties along the shoreline, types of landscaping that can materially affect wind speeds
should be discouraged.
ln order to have a minimal impact on wind in the nearby Bay, planting of trees along the Bay trails
should be minimized.
Within parks and open space areas away from the water, small structures and landscaping should
be used to reduce winds and provide protected areas.
Anza Area:
. Foranybuilding65feettall or higherin anyarea within 400feetofthe north facing shoreline, a
wind analysis should be prepared to evaluate the potential wind effects to bay recreation.
. The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind
conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these buildings.
Since this project does not include buildings which are 65 feet tall or higher, a wind analysis is not
required. The applicant should avoid usinB types of landscaping that can materially affect wind speeds
along the shoreline. ln addition, in order to have a minimal impact on wind inthe nearby Bay, planting
of trees which would block the wind flow should be discouraged. Based on these criteria, the impacts
of the proiect on wind would be less than significant.
Sources:
Burlingome Boylront Specific Plon, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and June 18, 2012
Memo regording wind Eflects Considerotions, Burlingome Bayshore Areo SpeciJic Plon, prepared by Charles
Bennet, Environmental Sciences Associates
Mititation Measures: None Required.
lniiialStudy 430 - 1150 AiDort Boulevad
l$u6 lcnd Suo,,ortlno lnlonnoa:ton So!ftesl :
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-Would the
proiecl:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe
applicable RegionalWaterQuality Cont.ol Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewate r treatm ent facilities or expansion of
existint facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effeds?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainaSe facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
si8nificant environmental effects?
d) Have suf{icient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacityto serve the
project's projeded demand in addition to the
provide/s existing commitments?
0 8e served by a landfillwith sufricient permitted
capacity to accommodate the projed's soiid waste
disposalneeds?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a,b,e)
tr x !
!
!
n X tr
trtrtr
xtr
tr
tr
Less Thon Significont. Wastewater from the City of Burlingame is gravity fed to lift stations which
transports wastewater to the City's wastewater treatment plant at L103 Airport Boulevard. The City
of Burlingame contracts with Veolia Operating Services to operate and maintain this facility, which
serves the entire City of Burlingame as well as approximately one-third of the Town of Hillsborough-
After preliminary treatment, the wastewater is conveyed via a 34-inch diameter pipeline to a
regional wastewater treatment facility in South San Francisco for dechlorination. After secondary
and partial tertiary treatment, the wastewater is discharged into San trancisco Bay through a so-foot
outfall. The treatment plant has a designed capacity to treat 5.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and 16
MGD during wet weather.
The proposed public park would include a small building to provide restroom facilities. There is an
existing sewer main in Airport Boulevard with adequate capacity to serve the proposed restroom
building, and therefore would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater
infrastructure. The wastewater treatment facility and Burlingame's wastewater infrastructure are
currently operating below capacity, and although the proposed project would slightly increase
contributions to existing wastewater volumes, this increase would be incremental. As such, the
proposed project would be expected to be adequately served by the wastewater treatment facility
and not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-
significant impact on wastewater facilities or capacity.
58
lzss Thdn
s,lgntfrcontd slgr rkdPoEntiolly wlth Letsfhoh
Srgr fico,rt nfngo{too Significont
lmpet lrrcd?orotla ,mPoct No hnFct
tr
!
x
x
X
!
!
tr
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airpo.t Boulevard
c)
d)
Less Thon Significont Storm drain inlets or catch basins and mains within the City of Burlingame are
maintained by the Street and Sewer Division in the Department of Public Works. There is an
existing 36" storm drain in Airport Boulevard with a catch basin at the corner of Airport Boulevard and
Bayview Place, adjacent to the project site.
The existing site is primarily vacant, with weedy vegetation covering most of the site except for a
paved parking lot at the south side of the site. The project would transform a portion ofthe existing
parking lot into landscaped area, and would develop a second lot on the north side of the site. The two
parking areas together will create a net increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. Any
stormwater that does not infiltrate the ground through on-site landscaping and permeable paving will
flow along the existing curb and gutter into this storm drain inlet into the stormwater main. This
existing storm drain system that serves the area is adequate to a 3o-year flood capacity. Because the
proposed project would increase the amount of impeNious area on site, stormwater runoff is
anticipated to increase as a result of the project. However, since the majority of the site will be
landscaped, the stormwater runoff generated by the proposed project site is not expected to
significantly impact existing stormwater drainage facilities.
The City's water system, which is administered by the Burlingame Public Works Department,
serves customers in the City of Burlingame, the unincorporated Burlingame Hills area, and a
portion of the Coyote Point County Park. ln 2005, water demand in the City of Burlingame
averaged about 5.01 million gallons per day. The City of Burlingame is a member of the Bay Area
Water Users Association (BAWUAI, which holds a water supply contract with the SFPUC. The
BAWUA'S contractual limit with SFPUC is 184 million gallons per day (mgd), of which 5.23 mgd is
allocated to the City of Burlingame. Given the projected water use, the City is not expected to
exceed its share of 5.23 mgd through 2030.
The proposed restroom facility structure and site landscaping will create an increased demand for
water usage on the site compared to existing conditions. However, the increase in water demand
from the restroom and site landscaping is not considered to be significant.
There is an existing 12 inch water main in Airport Boulevard to serve the project site. The project will
need to comply with the Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance, which requires landscaping to
be designed to achieve water efficiency. The project will also need to comply with the lndoor Water
Conservation Ordinance, which requires the installation of modern, water-conserving features to
further reduce the demand for water by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project
would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion
of existing facilities, and the SFPUC would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
proposed project from existing entitlements and resources. As such, the proposed pro.iect's water
demand would be less than significant.
Less Thon Significont. The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste
collected in Burlingame to the San Carlos Transfer Station and The Recyclery of San Mateo County for
sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by
the project could be adequately served by existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the
project would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is
considered less than significant. Ox Mountain Landfill, the landfill used for final disposal of the
t' cl
59
Less Thon Significont. The City of Burlingame purchases all of its water from the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Water is supplied to the City by several SFPUC pipelines that are
connected to six metered connections at various locations throughout the City.
lnilial Study 43O - 45O Airport Boulevard
material generated by the City of Burlingame, has several years of capacity left at current
disposal rates, plus it is possible for the landfill to be expanded into adjacent areas to allow for
further capacity. Therefore, impacts on the City's solid waste capacity due to implementation of
the proposed project are considered less than significant.
Pro.iect construction would generate solid waste in the form of removal of the existing plant
material from the site- These activities would be required to comply with federal, State, and local
statutes and regulations governing solid waste. The proposed pro.iect is subject to the City's
construction and Demolition waste Recycling Requirement, which requires the applicant to submit
a waste reduction plan that demonstrates that at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition
waste can be recycled. Therefore, the demolition waste from the existing parking lot and the
construction of the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on landfills.
50
Sources
The City of Burlinqame Generol Plon, Burlingame, California,2OlO,2OO2, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Burlingome Boylront Specific Plon, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and June 18, 2012
RecologysanMateocounty,@,siteaccessedoctobel,20l2.
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Less Thon
Sighiftcontttith Less Thon
Mhiqotion Signilicdntlncotpordtion lmpodItsues (ond Suppofting lnlomotion Soukes):
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to deSrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish orwildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the numberor restrid the range ofa rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
exampleg ofthe major periods of Glifornia history or
prehistory?
b) Doesthe project have impactithat are individually
limited, but cumulative considerable? (rcumulative
considerable" mean5 thatthe incremental effeqts ofa
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effecti of past projects, the effect! of other
cunent proiects. and the effects ofprobable future
project5)?
c) Does the projed have environmental effects which
willcause substantial adverse effec_ts on human
beings, either diredly or indirectly?
Discussion
a)
b)
c)
Signiftcont or
Slgnilkont
lmpdd
x
trx
x
tr
tr
Less Thon Significont The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat ot 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. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during
construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the lnitialStudy.
Less Than Significant with Mitigotion. The proiect may have significant adverse effects on human
beings in the areas of air quality, blological resources, cultural resources, and noise. Mitigation
measures identified in this lnitial Study would reduce the effects to a less than significant level.
61
No lmpcct
trn
Less Thon Signilicont with Mitigotion. ln accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the
environmental analysis in this lnitial Study was conducted to determine if there were any proiect-
specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar
to the project or its site were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The
proposed project would contribute to environmental effects in the areas of air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, temporary increases in construction-generated dust and noise, and a
temporary increase in sedimentation and water quality effects during construction. Mitigation
measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative impacts associated
with these environmental issues. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
BAWIEW PARK PROJECT
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
November 9, 2015
Prepared for
City of Burlingame Community Development
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road - Second Floor
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Prepared by
Monk & Associates, Inc.
I 136 Saranap Avenue, Suite Q
Walnut Creek, Califomia 94595
I136 Samnap Ave., Suite Q . walnut Cr€ek r Califomia r 94595
(925) 947 4867 . FAX (925) 947-1165
MONK & ASSOCIAI'ES
Environmental Consultants
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PROPERTY LOCATION AND SETTING ..........
pRoPosED PROJECT......................
ANALYSs METHODS ........
4. I Background Research..........
5.
4.2 Field Reconnaissance ..............
4.3 Wetland Delineation..................
RESI.]LTS OF RESEARCH AND PROJECT SITE ANALYSES
5.1 Soi1s..............
5. I .l URBAN LAND-ORTHET'1-IS
5.2 Topography and Hy&ology
5.3 Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats .....................
5.3. I ANTHROPOCENIC /RI]DERAL HABITAT
5.3.2 SEAS0NAL WETLAND
6. SPEC[AL-STATUS SPECIES DEFINITION.....
6.1 Defrnitions....
6.2 Potential Special-Status Plants on the Bayview Park Project Site.
6.3 Potential Special-Status Animals in the Bayview Park Project Site Area.............................
6.3.I WESTERN BURRoWNG OwL......
6-3.2 CAr-rFoRNrA CLAPPER RArL
6.3.3 SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAXE
6.3.4 wHrrE-TATLED KrrE
6.3.5 NoRTHERN HARRTER t0
7. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NATIVE WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANTS.............. I I
7.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ll
7.I .I RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ..
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
J
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
7
8
8
9
9
0
I
2
3
4
.. 13
7.I.2 APPLICABILITY To THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............
7.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act......................................
7.2.I APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT............
7.3 Califomia Endangered Species Act ............
7.3.I SECTIoN 2O8I oF THE CALIFoRNIA ENDANCERED SPECIES ACT
7.3.2 APPLICABILITY To PRoPoSED PRoJECT.....,.,.,
7.4 Catifomia Fish and Game Code $ 3503,3503.5,351l, and 3513..
7.4.I APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
7.1 City of Burlingame General Plan
7.1.1 CoNSERVATToN ELEMENTS oF THE GENERAL PLAN
7.1.2 APPLTCABTLITY To TI{E PRoPoSED PRoJECT
7.I.3 AREAS oF CHANCE AFFECTINC NATURAL RESOURCES
7.I.4 APPLICABILITY To fiE PROPOSED PROJECT
7.2 Burlingame Bay{ront Specific P[an....................
7.2.I II. GOALS AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
7.2.2 APPLICABILITY To fiE PROPOSED PRoJECT
7.3 City of Burlingame Bayfiont Specific Plan Area.
7.3.1 APPLICABILITY To THE PRoPoSED PRoJECT
.. 13
l3
14
l4
t4
t6
l6
l6
l6
l6
t7
t7
17
t7
l8
l8
l9
l9
.16
7.3.2 MINIMUM SETBACKS
I
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
7.3.3 APPLICABILITY To TI{E PRoPoSED PRoJECT .............
7.3.4 PARKINC LoCATIoN
7.3.5 APPLICABILITY TO T}IE PROPOSED PROJECT ...........
7.3.6 PuBLrc AccEss .....
7.3.7 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..............
7.4 City or Burlingame Tree Ordinance.................................
I I.I.1 APPLICABILITY To TT{E PROPOSED PROJECT
12. IMPACTS ANALYSIS
I 2. I Sigril'rcance Criteria...............
I 2.2 Significance Criteria
I3. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION.....
l9
l9
l9
l9
.............20
............20
7.4. 1 DEF[.urroNs..............
7.4.2 PERMITS REQUIRED...
7.4.3 TR.EE REQUIREMENTS AND REFORESTATION
7.4.4 APPLICABILITY To THE PRoPoSED PRoJECT .
8. SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION...,......2I
8.1 BCDC Po[icies.......................
8.I.I APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT....23
9. CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION........
9.1 Sovereign Lands .....
9.2 Applicability to Project............
IO. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND STATE............
l0.l U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and General Permitting ................................24
24
27
10.2 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) / Califomia Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) .......28
10.2.1 SECTIoN 4OI oF THE CLEAN WA.TER ACT 28
20
20
2l
2t
..........22
......................_.. _...23
.......................23
.............................24
........24
I0.2.2 APPLICABTLITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
10.2.3 PoRTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALTTY CONTROL 4CT..........................
I0.2.4 APPLICABILITY To PRoPoSED PROJECT
I0.2.5 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELMTNATION SYSTEM (NPDES)29
10.3 RWQCB Municipal Storm Water Permitting Pro9am............32
IO.3.I RWQCB PHASE tr PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.......
I0.3.2 APPLICABILITY To THE PROPOSED PROJECT..........
......28
......28
......29
10.4 Califomia Departrnent of Fish and Wildlife Protections..............................34
10.4.1 SEC-rroN 1602 oF CALIFoRNIA FISH AND GAME CoDE......................................................34
I 0.4.2 AppLrcABrLrry ro PRoposED PRoJECT...............................34
I I. CALtrORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REGULATIONS.................34
32
34
35
36
........35
....35
..........35
13.1 knpact BIO-1. Development ofthe project would have a potentially significant impact on
tree nesting raptors and other nesting birds (Potentially Significant) ........................................37
13.2 Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Nesting Raptors and Other Nesting Birds (excluding
.........37
..................... 37
................................. 38
Burrowing Owl).
13.3 Impact BIO-2. Development ofthe project would have a potentially significant impact on
Westem Burrowing Ow1...........
11
l0.l.l SEgrroN 4M oF Tr{E CLEAN WATER Acr....................
IO.I.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........
I2.2.I THRESHoLDS oF SIGNIFICANCE
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
13.4 Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Westem Burrowing Ow1................ ............38
13.5 knpact BIO-3. Development of the proposed project would have a potentially significant
impact on Waters of the United States and/or State (Significant)39
13.6 Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State ............39
13.7 knpact BIO4. Developmant ofthe proposed project would have a potentially significant
impact on BCDC Jurisdiction (Sigrificant)................. ...................................40
13.8 Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Impact on BCDC Jurisdiction 40
ul
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
FIGI]RES
(Behind Tab at Back of Report)
Figure 1. Regional Map ofthe Bayview Park Project Site.
Figure 2. Bayview Park Project Site Location.
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph ofthe Bayview Park Project Site.
Figure 4. Soils Map of the Bayview Park Project Site.
Figure 5. Closest Known Records for Special-Status Species within 5 Miles of the Bayview Park
Project Site.
TABLES
(Behind Tab at Back of Report)
Table l. Plant Species Observed on the Bayview Park Project Site.
Table 2. Wildlife Species Observed on the Bayview Park Project Site.
Table 3. Special-Status Plant Species Known To Occur in the Vicinity ofthe Bayview Park
Project Site.
Table 4. Special-status Wildlife Species Known To Occur in the Vicinity of the Bayview Park
Project Site.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A. Conceptual Master Plan for the Bayview Park prepared by John Cahalan
Landscape Architect (revised July 3l, 2015).
Attachment B. Sheet l. Confirmed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Map
lv
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
I. INTRODUCTION
Monk & Associates, lnc. (M&A) has prepared this biological resource analysis for the proposed
Bayview Park Project Site (herein referred to as the project site) located at 430-450 Airport
Boulevard in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, Califomia (Figures 1 and 2). The
pupose ofour analysis is to provide a description ofexisting biological resources on the project
site and to identi$ potentially significant impacts that could occur to sensitive biological
resources from the construction of a proposed city park.
Biological resources include common plant and animal species, and special-status plants and
animals as desigrated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Califomia Department of
Fish and Wildlife (the Departn:ent), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other
resource organizations including the Califomia Native Plant Society. Biological resources also
include waters ofthe United States and State, as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the Department. It is
important to note that our analysis includes an assessment ofthe potential for impacts to
regulated waters.
This biological resources analysis also provides mitigation measures for "potentially significant"
and "significant" impacts that could occur to biological resources. When implemented. the
mitigation measures would reduce impacts to levels considered less than significant pursuant to the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Accordingly, this report is suitable for review and
inclusion in any review being conducted by the City of Burlingame for the proposed project
pursuant to the CEQA.
2. PROPERTY LOCATION ANDSETTING
The proposed project site consists of8.81 acres of land leased by the City of Burlingame from
the State Lands Commission. The project site is located at 430-450 Airport Boulevard, in the
City of Burlingame, California (Figures I and 2). The property is located within the San Mateo,
Califomia U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2). Figure
3 provides an aerial photograph ofthe project site showing the land use ofthe site and the
surrounding area. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the San
Francisco International Airport; therefore, it is subject to a constant stream of air traffic noise
from approaching inbound flights (Figure 2). The project site is designated as "Waterfront
Commercial" in the Ceneral Plan, and in the Burlingame Specific Plan this area is zoned for
hotels, restaurants and recreational uses.
The project site is located on "reclaimed" land on the edge ofthe San Francisco Bay. The project
site is undeveloped land comprised primarily of ruderal (weedy) vegetation $owing on highly
compacted fill material mixed with gravel. Along the northern edge of the site there is a gravel
pedestrian trail, and concrete rubble provides erosion protection along the edge ofthe San
Francisco Bay. Adjacent to the west is a vacant, compacted gravel parking area and a restaurant
with a parking lot. The southem project site boundary is defined by Bayview Place and Airport
Boulevard. Power lines are located along Airport Boulevard, and there are offrce buildings and a
I
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
high rise hotel with additional parking lots adjacent to the south. To the east there is a parking lot
and the Sanchez Creek Lagoon (Figure 3).
3. PROPOSEDPROJECT
The City of Burlingame is proposing to develop the project site into a ciry park. The park would
include a picnic area, a group picnic area, and a restroom facility. Park improvements included in
the proposed project include an 8 to lO-foot wide asphalt path along the San Francisco Bay edge
with benches and landscaping that will connect to the existing public access pathway. Two
parking lots are proposed on either side ofthe park as well as turf and other landscaping around
the site perimeter. Tlte Conceptual Master Plan "Option B" for the Bayview Park prepared by
John Cahalan Landscape Architect (revised June 7, 2013) is provided in Attachment A.
4. ANALYSIS NIETHODS
4.1 Background Research
Prior to preparing this biological resource analysis report, M&A researched the most recent
version of the Departrnent's Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 3.1 application (CNDDB
2013) for historic and recent records of special-status plant and animal species (that is,
threatened, endangered, rare) known to occur in the region ofthe project site. All special-status
species records were compiled in tables. M&A examined all known record locations for special-
status species to determine if special-slatus species could occur on the project site or within an
area of affect.
M&A also review ed the Biological Constaints Analysis for the Burlingame Bayfront Specific
Plan Area prepared by Environmental Collaborative (September 2002) ar,d the Inilial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the City of Burlingame (February 2013, updated
October 2015). In additioq M&A reviewed the Conceptual Master Planfor the Bayvieu' Park
prepared by John Cahalan landscape Architect (revised July 31, 2015).
4.2 Field Reconnaissance
M&A biologists Geoff Monk and Tim O'Donnell conducted a general survey of the project site
on July 23, 2013 to record biological resources and to assess the likelihood ofagency regulated
areas on the project site. The survey involved searching all habitats on the site and recording all
plant and wildlife species observed. M&A also noted potential habitats on or adjacent to the
project site that could support special-status species.
4.3 Wetland Delineation
A wetland delineation was conducted by M&A biologists Hope Kingma and Tim O'Donnell on
July 16, 2013. The wetland delineation was conducted according to the Corps' 1987 ll'etlands
Delineation Mamal in conjunction with the regional supplement for the Arid West Region. The
jurisdictional determination request report and draft wetland delineation map were prepared in
compliance with the Corps' 2001 Minimum Standards for Acceptance for Preliminary
Delineations and the Corps' 2012 Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific
Division Regulatory Program.
2
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
Vegetation, hydrology, and soils information were taken at 15 data points to confirm the
boundaries of Corps jurisdiction and to characterize the remaining portions ofthe project site
(Sheet l, Attachment B). Data points, potential wetlands, and other features were mapped using a
Trimble Pro-XH Global Positioning System (GPS) having sub-meter accuracy. The delioeation
map was made from the GPS files using ArcMap 10.3. All spatial data was projected into the
Califomia State Plane, NAD 83 (feet) coordinate system, Zone 2. Using GPS technology, the
boundaries (within 30 inches) of each delineated feature were transferred to an aerial photograph
ofthe project site and presented in Sheet l.
M&A submitted a Request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on February 10, 2015
The Corps conducted a site verification visit on March 5, 2015. On April I , 2015 the Corps
confirmed jurisdiction over 0.42-acre of waters ofthe U.S. on the project site. The confirmed
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Map is provided as Sheet l, Attachment B.
The results ofour literaNre research and field surveys are provided in the sections below
5. RESULTS OF RESEARCH AND PROJECT SITE ANALYSES
The properties of Orthents are highly variable because ofthe kinds and amount of fill material in
the profile or because of the amount of cutting and grading of the soils. Runoffis rapid and the
hazard ofwater erosion is slight. This soil type/unit is used for home sites, urban and recreational
development. The main limitations are the susceptibility ofthe soils to subsidence and the hazard
oferosion. Urban land-Orthents is classified as a hydric soilby the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
5.2 Topography and Hydrology
The project site is protected from San Francisco Bay wave action by several feet ofconcrete
rubble along the banks that form the edge of the bay. The site elevation is several feet above the
mean high tide and therefore is not subject to any tidal inundation. The project site consists of
highly compacted fill material and gravel that has uneven, undulating topography.
J
5.1 Soils
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now called the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS), mapped one soil type for the project site (NRCS 2013). The mapped soil unit is Urban
land - Orthents, reclaimed complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Figure 4 provides a soil map ofthe
project site.
5-I-I URBAN LAND-ORTHENTS
This soil type is generally characterized as fill material, and is found on, and in lidelands, marsh
or bay areas that are covered with fill. Orthents consist ofcut or fill areas, or both, that vary
geatly in dspth and drainage. The fill areas consist ofsoil, gravel, broken cement, asphalt, rock,
bay mud, and other material from urban construction. ln some places, the original soils have
been gaded and the layers mixed. Inclusions in this soil unit are small areas of soils adjacent to
the bay that are subject to briefperiods offlooding during storms and high tides.
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
There are several topographic low areas on the project site that support potential seasonal
wetlands. These topographic low areas receive water from direct precipitation and runoff from
the adjacent upland areas, and hold water or remain saturated long enough to allow wetlands to
develop.
5.3 Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats
M&A biologists examined the habitats and characterized the vegetation present within the
project site. Two communities were identified within the project site: anthropogenic /ruderal
habitat and seasonal wetlands. A complete list ofplant species observed on the project site is
presented in Table 1. Nomenclature used for plant names follows The Jepson Mantul. /' edition
(Baldwin 2012) and changes made to this manual as published on the Jepson Interchange Project
website.
5.3. I ANTHRoPoCENIC /RUDERAL HABITAT
Ruderal (weedy) communities are assemblages ofplants that thrive in waste areas, roadsides and
other sites that have been disturbed by human activity. Typicalty hardpacked soils ofroadsides,
parking lots, industrial areas and construction sites support communities of ruderal species. The
majority of the project site is highly disturbed with compacted fill material and gravel deposits.
The project site has been left undeveloped and has become overgrown with ruderal species
throughout the project site. Ruderal species found onsite include fennel (Foeniculum vulgare),
rip-gut brome (B romtts diandnts), slender wild oat (Avena barbata),Italian rye grass (Fesitca
perennis), common vetch ( Zicla sativa), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), Bermuda
grass (Cynodon dactylon) and English plant ain (Plantago lanceolata).Non-native invasives such
as pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), Scotch broom (C/tisus scoparius), and French broom
(Genista monspessulana) also occur scattered throughout the project site. A long row of
landscaping evergreen trees occurs along the southem project site boundary and is dominated by
ngaio trees (Myoporum laetum) Ntd also includes spider gum (Eucalyptus confernrminata) and
the native shrub toyon (llereromeles arbutifolla) in the understory.
Typically, anthropogenic inlluenced communities provide habitat for those animal species adapted
to man. Examples of animals associated with these communities include Anna's hummingbird
(Calypte anna), American crow (Comus brachyrhyncios), common raven (Corvus corax),
European xarlrng (Mimus polyglottos), mouming dove (Zenaida macroura), and rock pigeon
(Columba livia), all of which have been observed on the project site. Flocks of grassland bird
species, such as westem meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and house sparrow (Passer
domesticus) were also observed on the project site. Other species observed at the project site
include rurkey rrrltttre (Cathartes aara), Califomia gull (Larus califomicas), northem flicker
(Colaptes arratus), black pho ebe (Sayornis nigricans), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile
rufescens), bushtit (Psaltiparus minimus), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), house finch
(Carpodacus mexicanus), and lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltia). As the project site has been left
undeveloped for many years, a network of well-worn wildlife trails and an abundance ofraccoon
(Procyon /olor) scat occurs throughout the site.
4
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
5.3.2 SEASONAL WETLAND
Seasonal wetlands occur in the topogaphic low areas on the highly compacted fill and gravel of
the project site (Sheet l, Attachment B). These seasonal wetlands are dominated by non-native
species such as Meditenanean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussonednum), Italian ryegrass,
rabbit's-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), curly dock (Rumex crispus), cutJeaf plantain
(Plantago coronopus), and to a lesser extent, the native grass creeping wildrye (E/ymas
t ri ti co i d es stbsp. tri ti c o i de s).
Seasonal wetlands on the project site are oflow value to wildlife. These wetlands sit on top ol
fill material and only shallowly inundate during normal to above normal rainfall years. Also,
they are vegetated with non-native plant species which provide limited foraging value. Thus,
while they do provide wildlife with a seasonal water source, their value as foraging and breeding
habitat is restricted. These wetlands likely provide amphibians such as the Sierran treefrog
(Pseudacris sierua) with an egg-laying habitat and the larvae will complete their life cycle in the
wetlands. lnvertebrates such as mayflies (Ephemeroptera), damselflies (Odonata), and
predaceous diving beetles (Dytiscidae) are commonly associated with inundated seasonal
wetland habitats and complete their life cycle in the wetlands. Finally, it is expected that urban-
adapted wildlife such as mallards (l nas platyrhynchos), raccoons, striped skunks (Mepiitrs
mephitis), and Virginia opossums (Dldelpftis virginiana) will forage in the shallow water.
6. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DEFINITION
6.1 Definitions
For purposes ofthis analysis, special-status species are plants and animals that are legally
protected under the Califomia and Federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA and FESA,
respectively) or other regulations, and species that are considered rare by the scientific
community (for example, the CNPS). Special-status species are defined as:
plants and animals that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered
under the CESA (Fish and Game Code $2050 et seq.; 14 CCR S670.1 et seq.) or the
FESA (50 CFR 17.12 for plants; 50 CFR l7.l I for animals; various notices in the Federal
Register [FR] for proposed species);
plants and animals that are candidates for possible fuhrre listing as threatened or
endangered under the FESA (50 CFR 17; FR Vol. 64, No. 205, pages 5'7 533-57547,
October 25, 1999); and under the CESA (Califomia Fish and Game Code $2068);
plants and animals that meet the defrnition of endangered, rare, or threatened under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR $ 15380) that may include
species not found on either State or Federal Endangered Species lists;
Plants occurring on Ranks lA, lB,2A,2B.,3, and 4 of CNPS' electtonic Inventory
(CNPS 2001). The Califomia Departrnent of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recognizes that
Ranks lA, lB, 2A and 28 of the CNPS inventory contain plants that, in the majority of
cases, would qualify for State listing, and CDFW requests their inclusion in EIRs. Plants
5
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resowces Analysis
Bayview Park Prcject
City of Burlingame, Califomia
occurring on CNPS Ranks 3 and 4 are "plants about which more information is
necessary," and "plants of limited distribution," respectively (CNPS 2001). Such plants
may be included as special-status species on a case by case basis due to local significance
or recent biological information (more on CNPS Ralk species below);
migratory nongame birds of management concern listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concem in the United States: The
list 1995; Office of Migratory Bird Management; Washington D.C.; Sept. 1995);
animals that are designated as "species ofspecial concem" by CDFW (2013);
Animal species that are "fully protected" in Califomia (Fish and Game Codes 351l,
4700, 5050, and 5515).
Bat Species that are designated on the Western Bat Working Group's (WBWG) Regional
Bat Species Priority Matrix as: "RED OR HIGH." This priority is justified by the
WBWG as follows: "Based on available information on distribution, status, ecology, and
known threats, this desigrration should result in these bat species being considered the
highest priority for funding, planning, and conservation actions. lnformation about status
and threats to most species could result in effective conservation actions being
implemented should a commitment to management exist. These species are imperiled or
are at high risk of imperilment."
ln the paragraphs below we provide further definitions oflegal status as they pertain to the
special-status species discussed in this report or in the attached tables.
Federal Endansered Threatened Soecies. A species listed as Endangered or Threatened under
the FESA is protected from unautltorized "take" (that is, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap)
ofthat species. If it is necessary to take a Federal listed Endangered or Threatened species as part
of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from the USFWS
prior to initiating the take.
S tate Threatened Species. A species listed as Threatened under the state Endangered Species Act
($2050 of Califomia Fish and Game Code) is protected from unauthorized "take" (that is, harass,
pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) ofthat species. If it is necessary to "take" a state listed Threatened
species as part ofan otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from
CDFW prior to initiating the "take."
Califomi Species of Special Concem. These are species in which their Califomia breeding
populations are seriously declining and extirpation from all or a portion of their range is possible.
This designation affords no legally mandated protection; however, pursuant to the CEQA
Guidelines (14 CCR $ 153 80), some species of special concem could be considered "rare."
Pumuant to its rarity status, any unmitigated impacts to ra:e species could be considered a
"significant effect on the environment" ($15382). Thus, species ofspecial concem must be
6
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
considered in any project that will, or is currently, undergoing CEQA review, and,/or that must
obtain an environmental pemit(s) from a public agency.
CNP Species. The CNPS maint ains an "lnventory" of special status plant species. This
inventory has four lists ofplants with varying rarity. These lists are: Rank 1, Rank 2, Rank 3, and
Rank 4. Although plants on these lists have no formal legal protection (unless they are also state
or federal listed species), CDFW requests the inclusion of Rank 1 species in environmental
documents. In addition, other state and local agencies may request the inclusion ofspecies on
other lists as well. The Rank I and 2 species are defined below:
. Rank lA: Presumed extinct in Califomia;
. Rank 18: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere;
o Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere;
r Rank 28: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
All of the plants constituting Rank lB meet the definitions ofSection 1901, Chapter 10 (Native
Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (Califomia Endangered Species Act) ofthe Fish
and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing (CNPS 2001). Rank 2 species are rare in
California, but more common elsewhere. Ranks 3 and 4 contain species about which there is
some concem, and are reviewed by CDFW and maintained on "watch lists."
Additionally, in 2006 CNPS updated their lists to include "threat code extensions" for each list.
For example, Rank lB species would now be categorized as Rank 1B.1, Rank 1B.2, or Rank
1B.3. These threat codes are defined as follows:
o .l is considered "seriously endangered in Califomia (over 80% of occurrences
threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)";
o .2 is "fairly endangered in Califomia (20-80% ofoccurrences threatened)";
. .3 is "not very endangered in Califomia (less than 20oZ ofoccurrences threatened or no
current threats known)."
Under the CEQA review process only CNPS Rank I and 2 species are considered since these are
the only CNPS species that meet CEQA's definition of "rare" or "endangered." lmpacts to Rank
3 and 4 species are not regarded as signihcant pursuant to CEQA.
Fully Protected Birds. Fully protected birds, such as the white+ailed kite and golden eagle, are
protected under Califomia Fish and Game Code ($35 I I ). Fully protected birds may not be "taken"
or possessed (i.e., kept in captivity) at any time.
6.2 Potential Special-Status Plants on the Balview Park Project Site
Figure 5 provides a graphical illustration olthe closest known records for special-status species
within 5 miles ofthe project site and helps readers visually understand the number ofsensitive
species that occur in the vicinity ofthe project site. No special-status plants have been mapped
on or adjacent the project site. However, according to the Departrnent's CNDDB, a total of 22
special-status plant species are known to occur in the region ofthe project site. A discussion of
each special-status plant considered for the project site individually, taking into consideration
their habitat requirements, is provided in Table 3. Most ofthese plants occur in specialized
7
MONK & ASSOCIATE
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
habitats such as woodland, chaparral, coastal scrub, serpentinite, marshes, and swamps. Owing to
the excessively disturbed and unnatural conditions found at the project site (that is, fill soils and
ruderaVanthropogenic habitat), special-status plants would not be likely to occur. No special-
status plants were observed on the project site during surveys conducted in July 2013 and March
2015. Consequently, M&A biologists conclude that the proposed project would not result in
impacts to special-status plants. Mitigation for special-status plant species would not be
warranted for this project site.
6.3 Potential Special-Status Animals in the Balwiew Park Project Site Area
Figure 5 provides a graphical illustration ofthe closest known records for special-status species
within 5 miles ofthe project site and helps readers visually understand the number ofsensitive
species that occur in the vicinity ofthe project site. No special-status animals have ever been
mapped on the project site; this is likely due to the absence of natural and/or native habitats on
the project site and the amount ofdisturbance that has occurred onsite over the years. However,
according to the CNDDB, a total 15 special-status animal species are known to occur in the
region of the project site (Table 4). Only one ofthese hfteen special-status animal species has
any possibility of occurring on the project site: western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia
hypugaea). This owl is discussed below. In addition, due to the sensitivity of two species, the
fudgeway's rail (formerly known as the Califomia clapper rail)(Rallus obsoleuts obsoletus) and
the San Francisco garter snake ( i"fia mnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), these federally listed species
are discussed below. Finally, the eucalyptus trees and some of the tall shrubs may provide
nesting habitat for the white-tail ed kite (Elanus lezcznrs). The northem harrier (Circr s cyaneus)
may also nest on the ground in the level to near level uplands. These two raptors (birds ofprey)
are also discussed below.
6.3.I WESTERN BURROMNG OWL
The western burrowing owl is a Califomia species of special concem. Its nest, eggs, and young
are also protected under Califomia Fish and Game Code ($3503, $3503.5, and $3800). The
burrowing owl is also protected from direct take uoder the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR
10.13). Finally, based upon this species' rarity status, any unmitigated impacts to rare species
would be considered a "significant effect on the environment" pursuant to $21068 ofthe CEQA
Statutes and $ 15382 ofthe CEQA Guidelines. Thus, this owl species must be considered in any
project that will, or is currently, undergoing CEQA review, and/or that must obtain an
environmental permit(s) from a public agency. When these owls occur on a project site,
tpically, mitigation requirements are mandated in the conditions of project approval by the
CEQA lead agency.
Burrowing owl habitat is usually found in annual and perennial grasslands, characterized by low-
growing vegetation. Often the burrowing owl utilizes rodent burrows, typically ground squirrel
burrows, for nesting and cover. They may also on occasion dig their own burrows, or use man-
made objects such as concrete culverts or rip-rap piles for cover. They exhibit high site fidelity,
reusing burrows year after year. Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat can be verified at a
site by observing these owls during the spring and summer months or, alternatively, the presence
of its molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragrnents, or excrement (white wash)
at or near a burrow entrance. Burrowing owls typically are not found in grasslands with tall
8
The closest known record for western burrowing owl is located 2.3 miles southeast ofthe project
site in the City of San Mateo (CNDDB Occurrence No. I 106). There is a low potential for this
species to nest in the anthropogenic/ruderal habitat on the project site due to the overgrown
vegetation and a noticeable absence of burrowing mammals (e.g. ground squirrels). M&A did
not identifu any suitable burrows within the project area during our surveys. M&A biologists
have not observed this owl on or adjacent to the project site.
While westem burrowing owls are not currently known to occur on the site, this is a mobile
species that could move onto the project site in the future. Impacts to nesting westem burrowing
owls are regarded as potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. In order to avoid potential
impacts to burrowing owls, a survey should be conducted the year that development ofthe
project site commences. The survey should follow the survey methodology prescribed in
CDFG's Staff Report on Burro*-ing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 1995). If burrowing owls are
identified nesting on or immediately adjacent to the project site, mitigation measures should be
implemented (see the "Impacts and Mitigation" section for further details).
6.3.2 CALIFoRNIA CLAPPER RAIL
The Califomia clapper rail was federally listed as an endangered species throughout its entire
range on October 13, 1970 (Federal Register 35: 1604). Critical habitat has not been designated
for this species. It was state listed as an endangered species on June 6, 1971.
The closest CNDDB record for Califomia clapper rail dates from 1975 in the Sanchez Marsh
vicinity. Surveys conducted in Sanchez Manh in 2003 did not identify any clapper rails in this
marsh. The CNDDB considers this location record to be "possibly" extirpated. Regardless, there
is no suitable marsh habitat along the bay margin adjacent to the project site. The distance
between the proposed project site along the bay margin and the closest suitable marsh habitat in
Sanchez Marsh is 0.6 mile or greater. There is also existing development to the shoreline both
east and west ofthe proposed project site, isolating this bay shoreline area from extant habitats
that could support the clapper rail. M&A believes that there is an appropriate protective buffer
between potential suitable habitat of the clapper rail and the proposed project. Moreover, this
buffer is permanent as it consists ofdeveloped areas. Thus, use ofthe park site by people would
also not be expected to impact the Califomia clapper rail. Consequently, implementation of the
proposed project is not expected to afect the California clapper rail.
6.3,3 SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE
The San Francisco garter snake is a slender multi-colored subspecies ofthe common garter
snake. Designated as an endangered subspecies since the year 1967 it is endemic to San Mateo
County and the extreme northem part of coastal Santa Cruz County in Califomia.
9
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
vegetation or wooded areas because the vegetation obscures thet ability to detect avian and
terrestrial predators. Since burrowing owls spend the majority of their time sitting at the
entrances oftheir burrows, grazed grasslands seem to be their preferred habitat because it allows
them to view the world at 360 degrees without obstructions.
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Baywiew Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
This subspecies of the common garter snake is found in scattered wetland areas on the San
Francisco Peninsula from approximately the northem boundary of San Mateo County south
along the eastem and westem bases ofthe Santa Cruz Mountains, at least to the Upper Crystal
Springs Reservoir, and along the Pacific coast south to Afro Nuevo Point, and thence to Waddell
Creek in Santa Cruz County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that many locations
that previously had healthy populations of garter snakes are now in decline due to land
development pressure and the filling of wetlands in San Mateo County over the last sixty years.
The snake's preferred habitat is a densely vegetated pond near an open hillside where it can suq
feed, and find cover in rodent burows. This subspecies avoids brackish marsh areas because its
preferred prey, the Califomia red-legged frog (Raza draytonii), cannot survive in saline water.
The shallow, very small seasonal wetlands within the project site do not provide suitable habitat
for the San Francisco garter snake. The seasonal wetlands are shallow depressions that do not
support obligate wetland vegetation, and provide very marginal wildlife habitat. The San
Francisco garter snake could not survive on the proposed project site and this site is separated
from other potentially suitable San Francisco garter snake habitat by extensive commercial
development. The San Francisco garter snake would not occur along the tidally influenced
shoreline ofthe Bay. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to
affect the San Francisco garter snake.
6.3.4 WHITE-TAILED KITE
The white-tailed kite is "fully protected" under the Califomia Fish and Game Code. Fully
protected birds may not be "taken" or possessed (i.e., kept in captivity) at any time ($351l). It is
also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13). The white+ailed
kite is typically found foraging in grassland, marsh, or cultivated fields where there are dense-
topped trees or shrubs for nesting and perching. They nest in a wide variety of trees of moderate
height and sometimes in tall bushes, such as coyote bush (Bacci aris pilularis). Native trees used
are live and deciduous oaks (Quercas spp.), willows (Sa/rr spp.), cottonwoods (Populus spp.),
sycamores (Platanus spp.), maples (lcer spp.), toyon (Ilere romeles arbutifolra), and Monterey
cypress (Cupress us macrocarpa). Although the surrounding tenain may be semiarid, kites often
reside near water sources, where prey is more abundant. The particular characteristics ofthe
nesting site do not appear to be as important as its proximity to a suitable food source (Shuford
1993). Kites primarily hunt small mammals, with Califomia meadow voles (Microtus
californicus) accounting from between 50-100% of their diet (Shuford 1993).
The eucalyptus trees, willows, and toyon on the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for
white-tailed kite. Hence, preconstruction nesting surveys should be conducted to ensure that
there are no project-related impacts to nesting white-tailed kites (see the "Impacts and
Mitigation" section for further details).
6.3.5 NoRTHERN HARRIER
The northern harrier is a state species of special concem. This raptor is also protected under
Califomia Fish and Game Code $3503.5 that protects nesting raptors and their eggs/young. The
northern harrier is also protected from direct take under the Migatory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR
l0
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
The project site's level to near level uplands provide suitable nesting habitat for the northem harrier.
Hence, development ofthe proposed project without conducting nesting surveys could result in
impacts to nesting northern harriers. Preconstruction surveys would have to be conducted prior to
grading the project site to ensure that direct take ofthis species would not occur. If northern
harriers were found nesting on the project site an adequate buffer would have to be established
around the nesting site until the nesting cycle ended, typically in August. It is imperative to have
a qualified raptor biologist determine the size of the buffer so that direct take is minimized and
the project otherwise remains in compliance with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Please
see the "Impacts and Mitigation" section for further details.
7. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NATIYE WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANTS
This section provides a discussion ofthose laws and regulations that are in place to protect native
wildlife, fish, and plants. Under each law we discuss their pertinence to the proposed
development.
7.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) forms the basis for the federal protection of
threatened or endangered plants, insects, fish and wildlife. FESA contains four main elements,
they are as follows:
Section 4 (16 USCA $1533): Species listing, Critical Habitat Designation, and Recovery
Planning: outlines the procedure for listing endangered plants and wildlife.
Section l0: Exceptions to the Take Prohibition: non-federal agencies can obtain an incidental
take permit through approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan.
In the case ofsalt water fish and other marine organisms, the requirements ofFESA are enforced
by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS enforces all other cases. Below,
Sections 9 , 7 , and, I 0 of FESA are discussed since they are the sections most relevant to the
proposed project.
Section 9 ofFESA as amended, prohibits the "take" ofany fish or wildlife species listed under
FESA as endangered. Under Federal regulation, "take" ofhsh or wildlife species listed as
l1
10.13). Nordrern harriers build grassJined nests on the ground within dense, lowJying vegetation in
a variety ofhabitats, though they are typically found nesting in grassland or manh habitats. They
usually nest on level to near level ground. This species is padicularly lulnerable to ground predaton
such as coyotes (Ca nis latrans), rd fox (Vulpes r.alpes). and various snake species. Ground nesting
birds in general are also subject to disnubance by agricultural practices.
Section 7 ($ 1536): Federal Consultation Requirernent: imposes limits on the actions of federal
agencies that might impact listed species.
Section 9 ($1538): Prohibition on Take: prohibits the "taking" ofa listed species by anyone,
including private individuals, and State and local agencies.
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
threatened is also prohibited unless otherwise specifically authorized by regulation. "Take," as
defined by FESA, means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." "Harm" includes not only the direct taking
ofa species itself, but the destnrction or modification ofthe species' habitat resulting in the
potential injury ofthe species. As such, further defrned to mean "an act which actually
kills or injures wildlife; such an act may include sigrrificant habitat modihcation or degradation
where it actually kills or injures wildlife by signifrcantly impairing essential behavioral pattems,
including breeding, feeding or sheltering" (50 CFR 17.3). A December 2001 decision by the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals (Arizona Cattle Growers' Association, Jeff Menges, vs. the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management, and the Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity) ruled that the USFWS must show that a threatened or endangered species is present on
a project site and that it would be taken by the project activities. According to this ruling, the
USFWS can no longer require mitigation based on the probability that the species could use the
site. Rather they must show that it is actually present.
Section 9 applies to any person, corporation, federal agency, or any local or State agency. If
"take" ofa listed species is necessary to complete an otherwise lawful activity, this triggers the
need to obtain a incidental take permit either through a Section 7 Consultation as discussed
further below (for federal actions or private actions that are permitted or funded by a federal
agency), or requires preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) pursuant to Section l0 of
FESA (for state and local agencies, or individuals, and projects without a federal "nexus").
Section 7(a)(2) ofthe Act requires that each federal agency consult with the USFWS to ensure
that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely tojeopardize the
continued existence ofan endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification ofcritical habitat for listed species. Critical habitat designations mean: (l) specific
areas within a geographic region currently occupied by a listed species, on which are found those
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation ofa listed species and that
may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a listed species that are determined essential for the conservation
ofthe species.
The Section 7 consultation process only applies to actions taken by federal agencies that are
considering authorizing discretionary projects. Section 7 is by and between the NMFS and/or the
USFWS and the federal agency contemplating a discretionary approval (that is, the "federal
nexus agency," for example, the Corps or the Federal Highway Administration). Private parties,
cities, counties, etc. (i.e., applicants) may participate in the Section 7 consultation a, ,ie
discretion of the federal agencies conducting the Section 7 consultation. The Section 7
consultation process is triggered by a determination ofthe "action agency" - that is, the federal
agency that is carrying out, funding, or approving a project - that the project "may affect" a listed
species or critical habitat. Ifan action is likely to adversely affect a listed species or designated
critical habitat, formal consultation between the nexus agency and the USFWSA',IMFS is
required. As part of the formal consultation, the USFWSA{MFS may resolve any issues
informally with the nexus agency or may prepare a formal Biological Opinion assessing whether
the proposed action would be likely to result in "jeopardy" to a listed species or if it could
adversely modify designated critical habitat. If the USFWS/NMFS prepares a Biological Opinion
t2
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
it will contain either a'leopardy" or "non-jeopardy" decision. If the USFWS,NMFS concludes
that a proposed project would result in adverse modification ofcritical habitat or would
jeopardize the continued existence ofa federal listed species (that is, it will issue ajeopardy
decision), the nexus federal agency would be most unlikely to authorize its discretionary permit.
If the USFWS,NMFS prepares a "non-jeopardy" Biological Opinion, the nexus federal agency
may authorize the discretionary permit making all conditions ofthe Biological Opinion
conditions of its discretionary permit. A non-jeopardy Biological Opinion constitutes an
"incidental take" permit that allows applicants to "take" federally listed species while otherwise
carrying out legally sanctioned projects.
For non-federal entities, for example private panies, cities, counties that are considering a
discretionary permit, Section 10 provides the mechanism for obtaining take authorization. Under
Section l0 ofFESA, the applicant for an "incidental take permit" is required to submit a
"conservation plan' to the USFWS or NMFS that specifies, among other things, the impacts that
are likely to result from the taking, and the measures the permit applicant will undertake to
minimize and mitigate such impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement those
steps. Conservation plans under FESA have come to be known as "habitat conservation plans" or
"HCPs" for short. The terms incidental take permit, Section l0 permit, and Section l0(aXlXB)
permit are used interchangeably by the USFWS. Section l0(a)(2)(B) ofFESA provides statutory
criteria thal must be satisfied before an incidental take permit can be issued.
7.1.2 AppLlcABrlrry ro rHE pRoposED PRoJECT
The project site does not provide fisheries habitat. Hence, there would be no impacts to federal
listed fish species. Also, the site does not provide suitable habitat for federal listed plants and
none have been identified onsite during surveys conducted by M&A. Thus, no impacts to
federallyJisted plants are expected. The project site does not provide suitable habitat conditions
for any federallyJisted animal species and none have been observed on the project site during
multiple site visits. No impacts to federally listed species are expected from the proposed
project and Section 7 consultation is not warranted for this project.
7.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. $$ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936,
1960, 1968, 1969,1974,1978, 1986 and 1989) makes it unlawtul to "take" (kill, harm, harass,
shoot, etc.) any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section
10.13, including their nests, eggs, or young. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds,
raptors, songbirds, wading birds, seabirds, and passerine birds (such as warblers, flycatchers,
swallows, etc.).
t3
7.I.I RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
FESA gives regulatory authority over terrestrial species and non-anadromous fish to the
USFWS. The NMFS has authority over marine mammals and anadromous fish.
Executive Order 13186 for conservation ofmigatory birds (January I l, 2001) requires that any
project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds. The order
is designed to assist federal agencies in their efforts to comply with the MBTA and does not
constitute any legal authorization to take migatory birds. The order also requires federal
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
agencies to work with the USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU).
Protocols developed under the MOU must promote the conservation of migatory bird
populations tlrough the following means:
o avoid and minirnize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migatory bird
resources when conducting agency actions;
. restore and enhance habitat of migratory birds, as practicable; and prevent or abate the
pollution or detrimental alteration ofthe environment for the benefit of migratory birds,
as practicable.
7.2.I APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all active nest sites would have to be avoided
while birds were nesting. Upon completion of nesting, the project could commence as otherwise
planned. As long as there is no dfuect mortality ofspecies protected pursuant to this Act caused
by development ofthe site, there should be no constraints to development of the site. Please
review specific requirements for avoidance ofnest sites for potentially occurring species in the
"Impacts and Mitigation" section below.
7.3 California Endangered Species Act
7.3.I SECTION 2O8I OF THE CALIFORNh ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
In 1984, the state legislated the Califomia Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game
Code 92050). The basic policy ofCESA is to conserve and enhance endangered species and their
habitats. State agencies will not approve private or public projects under theirjurisdiction that
would impact threatened or endangered species ifreasonable and prudent alternatives are
available. Because CESA does not have a provision for "harm" (see discussion ofFESA, above),
CDFW considerations pursuant to CESA are limited to those actions that would result in the
direct take of a listed species.
If CDFW determines that a proposed project could impact a State listed threatened or endangered
species, CDFW will provide recommendations for "reasonable and prudent" project altematives.
The CEQA lead agency can only approve a project ifthese alternatives are implemented, unless
it finds that the project's benefits clearly outweigh the costs, reasonable mitigation measures are
adopted, there has been no "irreversible or irretrievable" commitment ofresources made in the
interim, and the resulting project would not result in the extinction ofthe species' In addition, if
there would be impacts to threatened or endangered species, the lead agency typically requires
project applicants to demonstrate that they have acquired "incidental take" permits from CDFW
and./or USFWS (if it is a Federal listed species) prior to allowing/permitting impacts to such
species.
Ifproposed projects would result in impacts to a State listed species, an "incidental take" permit
pursuant to $2081 ofthe Fish and Game Code would be necessary (versus a Federal incidental
take permit for Federal listed species). CDFW will issue an incidental take permit only if:
l) The authorized take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity;
2) the impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully mitigated;
3) measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized take:
t4
MONK & ASSOCIATIS
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
a) are roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the taking on the species;
b) maintain the project applicant's objectives to the greatest extent possible; and,
c) capable of successful implementation; and,
4) adequate funding is provided to implement the required minimization and mitigation measures
and to monitor compliance with, and the effectiveness of, the measures.
If an applicant is preparing a habitat conservation plan (HCP) as part of the federal lO(a) permit
process, the HCP might be incorporated into the $2081 permit if it meets the substantive criteria
of$2081(b). To ensure that an HCP meets the mitigation and monitoring standards in Section
2081(b), an applicant should involve CDFW staff in development ofthe HCP. Ifa final
Biological Opinion (federal action) has been issued for the project pursuant to Section 7 ofthe
federal Endangered Species Act, it might also be incorporated into the $2081 permit if it meets
the standards of $2081(b).
No $2081 permit may authorize the take of a species for which the Legislature has imposed strict
prohibitions on all forms of "take." These species are listed in several statutes that identify "fully
protected" species and "specified birds." See Fish and Game Code $$ 3505, 3511,4700, 5050,
55 15, and 5517. If a project is planned in an area where a "fully protected" species or a
"specified bird" occurs, an applicant must design the project to avoid all take.
Fish and Game Code $2080.1 allows an applicant who has obtained a "non-jeopardy " federal
Biological Opinion pursuant to Section 7 ofthe FESA, or who has received a federal l0(a)
permit (federal incidental take permit) pursuant to the FESA, to submit the federal opinion or
permit to CDFW for a determination as to whether the federal document is "consistent" with
CESA. If after 30 days CDFW determines that the federal incidental take permit is consistent
with state law, and that all state listed species under consideration have been considered in the
federal Biological Opinion, then no further permit or consultation is required under CESA for the
project. However, if CDFW detemrines that the federal opinion or permit is not consistent with
CESA, or that there are state listed species that were not considered in the federal Biological
Opinion, then the applicant must apply for a state CESA permit under Section 2081(b). Section
2081(b) is ofno use if an affected species is state-listed, but not federally listed.
State and federal incidental take permits are issued on a discretionary basis, and are typically
only authorized if applicants are able to demonstrate that impacts to the listed species in question
are unavoidable, and can be mitigated to an extent that the reviewing agency can conclude that
the proposed impacts would not jeopardize the continued existence ofthe listed species under
review. Typically, if there would be impacts to a listed species, mitigation that includes habitat
avoidance, preservation, and creation ofendangered species habitat is necessary to demonstrate
that projects would not threaten the continued existence of a species. ln addition, management
endowment fees are usually collected as part of the agreement for the incidental take permit(s).
The endowment is used to manage any lands set-aside to protect listed species, and for biological
mitigation monitoring of these lands over (typically) a five-year period.
l5
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
7.3.2 AppLrcABrlrry ro PRoposED PRoJECT
The project site supports disturbed, ruderaVanthropogenic habitat. It does not support any native
habitats/plant communities. Thus, no state listed plant or animal species are expected onsite and
none would likely be impacted by the proposed project (see Tables 3 and 4 respectively).
7.4 California Fish and Game Code $ 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513
California Fish and Game Code $3503, 3503.5, 351I, and 3513 prohibit the "take, possession, or
destruction of birds, their nests or eggs." Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and./or loss
of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment ofeggs or young) is considered "take." Such a
take would also violate federal law protecting migatory birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Ac!.
Al[ raptors (that is, hawks, eagles, owls) their nests, eggs, and young are protected under Califomia
Fish and Game Code ($3503.5). Additionally, "fully protected" birds, such as the white-tailed kite
(Elanus leucurus) and golden eagl e (Aquila chrysaetos), are protected under Califomia Fish and
Game Code ($35 I I ). "Fully protected" birds may not be taken or possessed (that is. kept in
captivity) at any time.
7.4- I APPLICABILITY To THE PRoPoSED PRoJECT
Preconstruction surveys would have to be conducted to ensure that there is no direct take of
nesting birds including their eggs or young. Any active nests that were found during
preconstruction surveys would have to be avoided by the project. Suitable non-disturbance
buffers would have to be established around nest sites until the nesting cycle is complete. More
specifics on the size ofbuffers are provided below in the "lmpacts and Mitigation" section.
7.1 City of Burlingame General Plan
Below we provide language from the portions ofthe City's General Plan that pertain to
Biological Resources.
7. I .I CONSERVATION ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The following issues and programs listed below are taken from the City of Burlingame's
Conservation Element of the General Plan (City of Burlingame Conservation Element 1973)
Issues: The bayshore is the habitat for shore birds attracted there because of other aquatic life and
vegetation. Disturbances to their food supply, in the form of water pollution and destruction of
mudflats, have diminished the bird population of the area. Water fowl are an integal part of the
ecological system. They also add interest and visual enjoyment.
Program: Maintain an appropriate environment for this wildlife by providing a sanctuary along
the bayshore. Mudflats, marshland, and clean water are essential ingredients of this environment.
- Regulate development and the discharge ofpollutants along the bayshore.
7.I.2 APPLICABILITY To THE PRoPoSED PROJECT
The proposed project is the conversion ofundeveloped, disturbed land into a city park. This park
will have benches for wildlife viewing. The project will tie into the existing storm water system
l6
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingam€, Califomia
owned and operated by the City of Burlingame. No impacts to the bayshore are expected to
occur based on the proposed project.
7.1.3 AREAS OF CHANGE AFFECTING NATURAL RESOI,T.CES
Areas include: developed and undeveloped properties adjacent to the Bay:
Characteristics: This large expanse ofland to the northeast ofBayshore freeway was created by
one of the last extensive landfrlls in the South Bay. The major portion is in private ownerships, in
part already developed, and the remaining open land is planned for extensive development in the
future. This area includes the waste water treatment plant and the solid waste disposal site to be
incorporated in the City's proposed aquatic park. This fill area lacks a comprehensive plan and
guidelines. There is severely limited capacity for traffic into the area. Some of the development
that has already occurred, though well maintained, is not easily compatible with the atmosphere
ofthe Bay.
Program: Develop comprehensive designs giving special attention to the natural resources.
- lnstitute stronger zoning regulations to protect the natural resources.
7.I,4 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project site falls into Area 3, an undeveloped property adjacent to the Bay. This undeveloped
piece of land created by Bay fill is proposed to be developed into a City park. By creating a
public park on this property it is anticipated that the "Program" regarding special attention to the
natural resources of the property will be considered in the park design.
7.2 Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan (amended June 2012) (City of Burlingame 2012) has
goals and development policies that pertain to the project site. These goals and development
policies are discussed below.
7.2.I II. GOAIS AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
GOAL A: Land uses in the Bayfront Area should reflect the special locational value ofthe area
including its adjacency to San Francisco Bay, a regional freeway (US 101) and to San Francisco
Intemational Airport.
A-1. Encourage a vibrant visitor oriented destination which includes hotels, corporate campus,
biotech and commercial employment centers and supports the developed residential area ofthe
city.
A-2. Land uses on the east side ofUS 101 should be environmentally consistent with, and
supportive of, Burlingame's main function as a residential community.
A-3. Future design and development ofthe Bayfront Area should be based on the unique
attributes ofeach Bayfront Subarea and its special contribution to the community's economy and
sense ofplace.
17
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
A-4. Given the proximity to San Francisco Bay and the history of frll and development of
Burlingame's bay front, the area should be tied together by the Bay Trail system and focal points
of active and passive recreation and open space.
GOAL B: Protect and enhance the unique qualities of Burlingame's shoreline envkonment.
B-1. New development should be designed to respect the unique environmental characteristics of
the Bayfront Area including wind, noise and public safety.
B-2. Enhance the role of Burlingame's bay front and shoreline, including all areas affected by
tidal waters, in the San Francisco Bay ecosystem and consider the impact of future development
on the viability ofthe Bay's ecosystem and recreational use ofthe Bay.
B-3. Especially in the areas with water frontage, promote development which is compatible with
the existing environmental constraints in the area; discourage uses in the area where the existing
environmental inlluences will affect the economic viability ofthe use or have a negative impact
on the local recreation, visitor-oriented and employee center uses.
B-4. Continue measures to protect, preserve and enhance, but provide visual access to the
valuable designated wetland areas within the planning area.
7.2.2 APPLICABILITY To THE PRoPoSED PRoJECT
The proposed project will connect the Bay Trail system and the park facility will provide a focal
point for active and passive recreation and open space, while protecting and enhancing the
unique qualities of Burlingame's shoreline environment. The proposed project is consistent with
the Burlingame Bayfront Specifrc Plan.
7.3 City of Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Area
The Bayfront Specific Plan designates the project site and the surrounding area for waterfront
commercial uses. The project site is located within the Anza Area ofthe Bayfront Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan notes that the Anza Area has been developed as a visitor oriented destination
with bay and airport oriented hotels, destination restaurants and offices which support the local
and visitor economy. It indicates that there are several vacant and rmderused parcels suitable for
development in the Atlza Area, one of which is owned by the State of Califomia and is
designated for hotels, destination restaurants and commercial recreation uses. The plan fuither
states that pedestrian and recreational access is a major land use theme in the Anza Area,
surrounded by San Francisco Bay and estuaries, and indicates that projects should provide and
maintain Bay trail improvements, and project design should continue to encourage the
integration and placement ofpassive and, where appropriate, active recreation areas accessible to
the public.
l8
A-5. Encourage land uses which provide a connection between the east and west sides of U.S.
l0l.
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
7.3.I APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPoSED PRoJECT
The site is zoned AA (Anza Area), and public parks are a permitted use within this zone district.
The proposed development of a public park would be consistent with the plan, as well as the
policies contained in the plan.
(B) On the Estuaries Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Charurel, and Burlingame Lagoon. An
average setback ofsixty five (65) feet between any structure and the shoreline as
defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission approved Public
Access Guidelines for the city of Burlingame.
(C) In addition, for structures taller than forty (40) feet, the minimum setback from the
Bay Conservation and Development Commission bayside jurisdiction line shall be equal
to the height ofthe structure, and where there is no structure, the setback from the top of
bank shall not be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission.
7.3.3 APPLICABILITY To THE PRoPoSED PRoJECT
The proposed park structures will be in compliance with these setback requirements
7.3.4 PARKINC LoCATION
No parking spaces shall be provided within the front setback on any property; driveways shall be
allowed in the front setback; parking spaces at the rear ofa building shall be set back twenty (20)
feet from the inner edge of the Bay Trail.
7.3.5 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PRO'ECT
The proposed parking areas associated for the park project are in compliance with these setback
requirements.
7.3.6 PUBLIC ACCESS
Public access shall be maintained and developed based on the city-adopted and Bay
Conservation and Development Commission-approved public access guidelines for Burlingame
based on the applicable water frontage as follows:
l9
7.3.2 MINIMUM SETBACKS
According to the Bayfront Specific Plan Area, the following minimum setbacks from San
Francisco Bay and its estuaries Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon shall
apply to any lot that is adjacent to these water features. [n case of conflict between these
provisions and other setback requirements in this section, the greatest minimum setback shall
apply.
(A) On San Francisco Bay Proper. An average setback ofseventy-five (75) feet between
any structure and the shoreline as dehned by the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission approved Public Access Guidelines for the City of Burlingame.
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
(a) On San Francisco Bay Proper. An average setback of seventy-five (75) feet ofthe lot
as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission; in no case shall the area as measured from the top ofbank be less than the
minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission; and
(b) On Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon. An average setback of
sixty-five (65) feet as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission; in no case shall the area as measured from the top of
bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission.
(c) All areas improved for public access within the jurisdiction ofthe Bay Conservation
and Development Commission shall be maintained by the property owner and shall be
available to the public in perpetuity as determined by the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission. (Ord. 1766 $ 2 (part), (2005)
7.3.7 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed park project provides improved public access and will be in compliance with Bay
Conservation and Development Commission requiranents.
7.4 City or Burlingame Tree Ordinance
The City's "Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance" provides for the preservation of
protected trees in the City of Burlingame.
7.4.1 DEFTNITIoNS
(a) "Protected tree" means:
(1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured
fifty-four inches above natural grade: or
(2) A tree or stand oftrees so designated by the city council based upon findings that it is
unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical
sigrificance or other factor; or
(3) A stand oftrees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the
others for survival.
7.4.2 PERMITS REQUIRED
(a) No protected tree shall be removed from any parcel without a permit except as provided
in Section 11.06.040.
(b) The following conditions shall be observed during construction or development of
property:
(l) Protected trees are to be protected by a fence which is to be maintained at all times;
(2) Protected trees that have been damaged or destroyed by construction shall be replaced
or the city shall be reimbursed, as provided in Section 11.06.090;
(3) Chemicals or other construction materials shall not be stored within the drip line of
protected trees;
20
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
(4) Drains shall be provided as required by the director whenever soil fill is placed
around protected trees; and
(5) Sigrrs, wires or similar devices shall not be attached to protectd trees. (Ord. 1057 $ 1
(part), (197s); Ord. 1470 $ l, (1992); ord. 1598 $ I (part), (1998)
7.4.3 TREE R.EQUIREMENTS AND REFoRESTATIoN
(a) Permits for removal ofprotected tee(s) shall include replanting conditions with the
following guidelines:
(1) Replacement shall be three (3) fifteen (15)-gallon size, one twenty-four (24)-inch box
size, or one thirty-six (36)-inch box size landscape tree(s) for each ree removed as
determined below.
(2) Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two (2) 24-inch box
size, or two (2) 36-inch box size landscape trees for each tree so removed as determined
below.
(3) Replacement of a tree be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists
on the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protection ordinance.
(4) Size and number ofthe replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the director and
shall be based on the species, location and value ofthe tree(s) removed.
(5) If replacement trees, as designated in subsection (b)(l) or (2) above, as applicable,
camot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be made to the city. Such
payments shall be deposited in the tree planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree
planting. (Ord. 1470 $ 1, (1992); Ord. 1492 $ 3, (1993); Ord. 1598 $ I (part), (1998)).
7.4.4 APPLICABILITY To THE PRoPoSED PRoJECT
The City of Burlingame requires a tree removal permit to remove any protected tree with a single
trunk circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above
natual gade, located on private or public property. There are no trees on the project site that
would be considered a "protected tree" and therefore, a tree removal permit will not be required
for the proposed project.
8. SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AIID DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) administers a
comprehensive plan (i.e., the San Francisco Bay Plan) for the conservation ofthe San Francisco
Bay through regulation ofdevelopment. BCDC regulates all filling and dredging in the San
Francisco Bay, regulates new development within the first 100 feet inland from the Bay to ensure
that maximum feasible public access, minimizes pressure to fill the Bay by ensuring that the
limited amount of shoreline area suitable for high priority water-oriented used (ports, water-
related industries, water-oriented recreation, airports and wildlife areas) is reserved for these
purposes, active planning and study programs, administers the federal Coast Zone Management
Act within the Bay, and preserves Suisun Marsh by administering the Suisun Marsh Preservation
Act in cooperation with local governrnents.
2l
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
The BCDC area or jurisdiction includes:
1 . Areas subject to tidal action from the south end of the Bay to the Golden Gate and the
Sacramento fuver line, including all sloughs, and specifically, the marshlands lying between
mean high tide and five feet above mean sea level; tidelands (land laying between mean high tide
and mean low tide); and submerged lands (land lying below mean low tide);
2. 100-foot intand ofthe shoreline extending around San Francisco Bay, which includes the
South Bay, Central Bay, San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay;
3. Salt ponds diked off from the Bay and used as such from 1966-1969;
4. Managed wetlands diked off from the Bay and used as duck hunting preserve, game refuge, or
farms from 1966-1969;
5. Specifred waterways subject to tidal action and tributaries up to five feet above mean sea level
on or tributary to the following waterways:
Plummer Creek; Redwood Creek; Petaluma fuver; Sonoma Creek; Coyote Creek; Tolay
Creek; Napa River; and Corte Madera Creek.
If it is determined that the project site falls within BCDC jurisdiction, it is likely that an
Administrative permit or a Regionwide permit would be necessary. Such permits authorize
minor repairs and improvements, as defrned by BCDC regulations. If the activity is not classified
as a minor repair or improvement, a major permit would have to be required. Major permits are
subject to public hearings and can only be issued if the project is consistent with the policies of
the San Francisco Bay Plan and the McAteer-Petris Act. Administrative permit applications can
be reviewed by the Commission and would then be subject to the public hearing process as well.
Regionwide permits may be issued for project involving routine repair, replacement and
maintenance ofexisting facilities, as specified by the Commission's regulations.
8.1 BCDC Policies
To assure full compliance with the Commission's laws and policies, permits granted by the
Commission generally include several conditions that must be carried out as part ofthe
authorized project. Typical permit conditions include requirements to construct, guarantee and
maintain public access to the Bay, specified construction methods to assure safety or to protect
rrater quality, plan review requirements that must be met before construction can begin, and
mitigation requirements to offset the adverse environmental impacts ofthe project. Failure to
comply with permits conditions can invalidate the permit and lead to fines and legal action
against the permittee. To avoid urmecessary delays in project completion, applicants should
consider all aspects of a proposed project with particular attention to the public access and any
necessary mitigation early in the project's design. [Govemment Code section 66632 and Public
Resources Code Section 295001.
The Commission considers only two factors in determining whether to issue a permit for work
within its 100-foot shoreline band jttisdictior.:
22
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
Within piority use areas (those parls of the shoreline that the Commission has reserved
for ports, water-related industries, airports, wildlife refuges and water-related recreation),
the Commission can authorize only either the use for which the area has been reserved or
an interim use that will not preclude the site from being converted to the priority use.
Maximum feasible public access to the shoreline must be provided as part of the project.
Outside of the pn ority use areas the Commission can authorize any use if the project
provides the maximum feasible public access to the Bay consistent with the project.
Applications for projects anywhere along the Bay shoreline can be denied if the required
public access is not provided as part ofthe project [Govemment Code section 66632.4].
8.1.1 AppLtcABILITy ro rHE PRoPoSED PRoJECT
A permit from the BCDC is required for the Bay Trail improvements within 100 feet of the Bay
shoreline. The Conceptual Master Plan for the Bayview Park Projec, (see Attachment A)
indicates the 100-foot BCDC setback. The project is in compliance with BCDC policies since the
proposed project will improve public access to the Bay, and will incorporate mitigation
requirements to offset the adverse environmental impacts ofthe project.
In addition, the City of Burlingame Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development (City of
Burlingame, 1980) provides standard setbacks for proposed buildings along the shoreline area
within the jurisdiction ofthe BCDC. The proposed restroom facility meets the setback
requirements. Regardless, a BCDC permit application will be required for this project (see
Impacts and Mitigation Section for further details).
9. CALIFORNIA STATE LAIIDS COMMISSION
The Califomia State Lands Commission (Comrnission) has jurisdiction and management control
over certain public lands ofthe State that were received by the State from the United States.
These lands are of two distinct types - sovereign and school lands.
9.1 Sovereign Lands
When Califomia became a state in 1850, it acquired approximately four million acres of land
underlying the State's navigable and tidal waterways. Klown as sovereign lands, these lands
include the beds of Catifornia's navigable rivers, lakes and streams, as well as the state's tide and
submerged lands along the State's more than 1,100 miles ofcoastline and offshore islands from
the mean high tide line to three nautical miles offshore.
The Commission holds its sovereign lands for the benefit ofall the people of the State, subject to
the Public Trust for water related commerce, navigation, fisheries, recreation, open space and
other recognized Public Trust uses. The Commission maintains a multiple use management
policy to assure the greatest possible public benefit is derived from these lands. The Commission
will consider numerous factors in determining whether a proposed use ofthe State's land is
appropriate, including, but not limited to, consistency with the Public Trust under which the
Commission holds the State's sovereign lands. Authorization from the Commission is required if
23
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
there are plans to build upon or otherwise occupy any lands described above, such activity may
be within the Commission's jurisdiction.
9.2 Applicability to Project
The project site is owned by the State of Califomia. On June 24, 2015 the Califomia State Lands
Commission (State Lands) issued a letter regarding the City of Burlingame's application for
General Lease-Agency Use of sovereign land in San Mateo County, California (File Ref:
W2669). The City has since been granted a lease agreement by the California State Lands
Commission.
10. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO WATERS OF THE T]NITED
STATES AND STATE
This section presents an overview ofthe criteria used by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, the
Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Boar4 the State Water Resources Conrol Boar4 and
CDFW to determine those areas within a project area that would be subject to their regulation.
f 0.l U,S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and General Permitting
IO.I.I SECTToN 404 oF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (33 U.S.C. $1251(a)). Pursuant to Section 404 ofthe
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the
disposal of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States" (33 CFR Parts 328 through
330). This requires project applicants to obtain authorization from the Corps prior to discharging
dredged or fill materials into any water ofthe United States.
In the Federal Register "waters ofthe United States" are defined as, "...all interstate waters
including interstate wetlands...intmstate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),
wetlands, [and] natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate
or foreign commerce..." (33 CFR Section 328.3).
Limits of Corps' jurisdiction:
(a) Territorial Seas. The limit ofjurisdiction in the territorial seas is measured from the baseline
in a seaward direction a distance ofthree nautical miles. (See 33 CFR 329.12)
(b) Tidal Waters of the United States. The landward limits ofjurisdiction in tidal waters:
(l) Extends to the mean high tide line, or
(2) When adjacent non-tidal waters of the United States are present, thejurisdiction
extends to the limits identified in paragraph (c) ofthis section.
(c) Non-Tidal Waters of the United States. The limits ofjurisdiction in non-tidal waters:
(l) In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary
high water mark, or
24
MON-K & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burtingame, Califomia
(2) When adjacent wetlands are present, thejurisdiction extends beyond the
ordinary high water mark to the limit of the adjacent wetlands.
(3) When the water of the United States consists only of wetlands the jurisdiction
extends to the limit of the wetland.
Section 4O4jurisdiction in "other waters" such as lakes, ponds, and streams, extends to the
upward limit of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or the upward extent of any adjacent
wetland. The OHWM on a non-tidal water is:
the "line on shore established by lhe fluctuations ofwater and indicated by physical
characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in
the character olsoil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence oflitter or debris;
or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics ofthe surrounding areas" (33
CFR Section 328.3 [e]).
Wetlands are defined as: "...those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration to support a prevalence ofvegetation adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions" (33 CFR Section 328.8 [b]). Wetlands usually must possess
hydrophyic vegetation (i.e., plants adapted to inundated or saturated conditions), wetland
hydrology (e.g., topographic low areas, exposed water tables, stream channels), and hydric soils
(i.e., soils that are periodically or permanently saturated, inundated or flooded) to be regulated by
the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
10.1.1.1 Sisnilicant Nexus of n butaries
On December 2,2008, the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issuedjoint
guidance on implementing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v.
lJnited States ard Carabell v. United States (herein referred to simply as "Rapanos") which
address the jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. In this joint
guidance these agencies provide guidance on where they will assert jurisdiction over waters of
the U.S.
The EPA and Corps will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
o Traditional navigable waters
. Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters
. Non-navigable tributaries oftraditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent
where the tributaries tlpically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least
seasonally (for example, typically three months).
. Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries.
The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume,
infrequent, or short duration flow); and
Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and
that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.
25
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
The agencies will apply the significant nexus standfid as follows:
. A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions ofthe
tributary itself and the functions perfomred by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to
determine ifthey significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
downstream traditional navigable waters; and
o Sigruficant nexus includes consideration ofhydrologic and ecologic factors
l0.l.l .2 Isolated Areas Excluded from Section 404 Jurisdiction
ln addition to areas that may be exempt from Section 404 jurisdiction, some isolated wetlands
and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result ofthe Supreme
Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northem Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States
Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 [2001]). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas
that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a navigable
"Waters of the U.S.," and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection.
10. l. 1.3 Permittinq Coms Jurisdictional Areas
To remain in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, project proponents and
property owners (applicants) are required to be permitted by the Corps prior to discharging or
otherwise impacting waters of the United States. In many cases, the Corps must visit a proposed
project area (to conduct a 'Jurisdictional determination") to confirm the extent ofarea falling
under theirjurisdiction prior to authorizing any permit for that project area. Typically, at the time
the jurisdictional determination is conducted, applicants (or thet representative) will discuss the
appropriate permit application that would be filed with the Corps for permitting the proposed
impact(s) to "waters of the United States."
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps normally provides two altematives for
permitting impacts to the type of "waters ofthe United States" found in the project area. The first
altemative would be to use Nationwide Permit(s) (NWP). The second alternative is to apply to
the Corps for ao lndividual Permit (33 CFR Section 235.5(2)0). The application process for
Individual Permits is extensive and includes public interest review procedures (i.e., public notice
and receipt ofpublic comments) and must contain an "altematives analysis" that is prepared
pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 13,14(b). The altematives analysis
is also typically reviewed by the federal EPA and thus brings another resource agency into the
permitting framework. Both the Corps and EPA take the initial viewpoint that there are practical
altematives to the proposed project if there would be impacts to waters of the U.S., and the
proposed perrnitted action is not a water dependent project (e.g. a pier or a dredging project).
Alternative analyses therefore must provide convincing reasons that the proposed permitted
impacts are unavoidable. Individual Permits may be available for use in the event that discharges
into regulated waters fail to meet conditions of NWP(s).
NWPs are a type of general permit administered by the Corps and issued on a nationwide basis
that authorize minor activities that affect Corps regulated waters. Under NWP, if certain
conditions are met, the specified activities can take place without the need for an individual or
26
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
regional permit from the Corps (33 CFR, Section 235.5[c][2]). [n order to use NWP(s), a project
must meet 27 general nationwide permit conditions, and all specifrc conditions pertaining to the
NWP being used (as presented at 33 CFR Section 330, Appendices A and C). It is also important
to note that pursuant to 33 CFR Section 330.4(e), there may be special regional conditions or
modifications to NWPs that could have relevance to individual proposed projects. Finally,
pursuant to 33 CFR Section 330.6(a), Nationwide perrnittees may, and in some cases must,
request fiom the Corps confirmation that an activity complies with the terms and conditions of
the NWP intended for use (i.e., must receive "verification" from the Corps).
Prior to finalizing design plans, the applicant needs to be aware that the Corps maintains a policy
of"no net loss" of wetlands (waters ofthe United States) from project area development.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon applicants that propose to impact Corps regulated areas to
submit a mitigation plan that demonstrates that impacted regulated areas would be recreated (i.e.,
impacts would be mitigated). Typically, the Corps requires mitigation to be "in-kind" (i.e., if a
stream charmel would be filled, mitigation would include replacing it with a new stream
channel), and at a minimum of a I :1 replacement ratio (i.e., one acre or fraction there of
recreated for each acre or fraction thereoflost). Often a 2: I replacement ratio is required. Usually
the 2: I ratio is met by recreation or enhancement of an equivalent amount of wetland as is
impacted, in addition to a requirement to preserve an equivalent amount of wetland as is
impacted by the project. In some cases, the Corps allows "out-of-kind" mitigation if the
compensation site has greater value than the impacted site. For example, ifproject designs call
for hlling an intermittent drainage, mitigation should include recreating the same approximate
jurisdictional area (same drainage widths) at an offsite location or on a set-aside portion ofthe
project area. Finally, there are many Corps approved wetland mitigation banks where wetland
mitigation credits can be purchased by applicants to meet mitigation compensation requirements.
Mitigation banks have defined service areas and the Corps may only allow their use when a
project would have minimal impacts to wetlands.
IO.I.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A wetland delineation was conducted by M&A biologists Hope Kingma and Tim O'Donnell on
July I 6, 20 I 3 . M&A submitted a Request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on
February 10,2015. The Corps conducted a site verification visit on March 5, 2015. On April 1,
2015 the Corps confirmed jurisdiction over 0.42-acre of waters of the U.S. on the project site.
The confirmed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Map is provided as Sheet l, Attachment
B-
The project as proposed will impact Clean Water Act defined Corps regulated areas. This would
be a sigrrificant impact that would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Since
the proposed project would result in less than 0.5-acre or 300 linear feet of impact, this project
would qualify to use NWP 42 (Recreational Facilities). A permit will be required from the Corps
for the proposed project, and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented (see Impacts
and Mitigation Section for further details).
27
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
10.2 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) / California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB)
IO.2.I SECTION 40I OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The SWRCB and RWQCB regulate activities in "waters of the State" (which includes wetlands)
through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. While the Corps administers a permitting program
that authorizes impacts to waters ofthe United States, including wetlands and other waters, any
Corps permit authorized for a proposed project would be inoperative unless it is a NWP that has
been certified for use in Califomia by the SWRCB, or if the RWQCB has issued a project specific
certification of water quality. Certification of NWPs requires a finding by the SWRCB that the
activities permitted by the NWP will not violate water quality standards individually or
cumulatively over the term of the permit (the term is typically for five years). Certification must be
corsistent with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act, the Califomia Environmental
Quality Act, the Califomia Endangered Species Act, and the SWRCB's mandate to protect
beneficial uses of waters of the State. Any denied (i.e., not certified) NWPs, and all Individual
Corps perrnits, would require a project specific RWQCB certification of water quality.
I0.2.2 APPLICABILITY To THE PROP0SED PROJECT
The Corps would regulate impacts to seasonal wetlands within thetjurisdiction pursuant to the
Clean Water Act. Any Section 404 permit authorized by the Corps for the project would be
inoperative without also obtaining authorization from the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act (i.e., without obtaining a certification of water quality). Since the RWQCB
does not have a formal method for technically defining what constitutes waters ofthe state,
M&A expect that the RWQCB should remain consistent with the Corps' determination.
Therefore, if the Corps determines there are a specified number ofacres of wetland or other
waters within the project site boundaries, the RWQCB will likely concur.
Any impacts to waters of the State would have to be mitigated to the satisfaction of the RWQCB
prior to the time this resource agency would issue a permit for impacts to such features. The
RWQCB requirements for issuance of a "401 Permit" qpically parallel the Corps requirements
for permitting impacts to Corps regulated areas pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The RWQCB will likely require that the applicant preapre an altematives analysis for the
proposed project to demonstrate that the proposed impacts are unavoidable, and that the
proposed project is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Altemative (LEDPA).
Please refer to the applicability section of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act below
for other applicable actions that may be imposed on the project by the RWQCB prior to the time
any certification of water quality is authorized for the project.
I0.2.3 PoRTER-COLOCNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Water Code $ 13260, requires that "any person
discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, that could affect the waters of the State to
file a report of discharge" with the RWQCB through an application for waste discharge (Water
Code Section 13260(a)(l ). The term "waters ofthe State" is defined as any surface water or
groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State (Water Code $
13050(e)). It should be noted that pursuant to the Porter-Cologrre Water Quality Control Act, the
28
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
RWQCB also regulates "isolated wetlands," or those wetlands considered to be outside of the
Corps' jurisdiction pursuant to the SWANCC decision (see Corps Section above).
The RWQCB generally considers filling in waters of the State to constitute "pollution." Pollution
is defined as an alteration of the quality ofthe waters of the state by waste that unreasonably
affects its beneficial uses (Water Code $13050(1)). The RWQCB litnus test for determining if a
project should be regulated pursuant to the Porter-Colop.e Water Quality Conrol Act is if the
action could result in any "threat" to water quality.
The RWQCB requires complete pre- and post-development Best Management Practices Plan
(BMPs) ofany portion ofthe project site that is developed. This means that a water quality
treatment plan for the pre- and post-developed project site must be prepared and implemented.
Preconstruction requirements must be consistent with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). That is, a Stormwater Pollution Pretention Plan
(SWPPP) must be developed prior to the time that a site is graded (see NPDES section below). In
addition, a post construction BMPs plan, or a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) must be
developed and incorporated into any site development plan.
I0.2.4 APPLICABILITY To PRoPoSED PRoJECT
If the Corps determines there are waters of the U.S. on the project site, the RWQCB would also
exert its jurisdiction over these areas pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Since any "threat" to water quality could conceivably be regulated pursuant to the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act, care will required be when constructing the proposed
project to be sure that adequate pre and post construction Best Management Practices Plan
(BMPs) are incorporated into the project implementation plans.
It should also be noted that prior to issuance of any permit fiom the RWQCB this agency will
require submittal of a Notice of Determination from the City of Burlingame indicating that the
proposed project has completed a review conducted pursuant to CEQA. The pertinent sections ol
the CEQA document (typically the biology section) are often submitted to the RWQCB for
review prior to the time this agency will issue a permit for a proposed project.
The project site does not have a stormwater drainage system. Development ofthe proposed
project would require compliance with the City of Burlingame Municipal Code which requires
that all storm drain systems shall be designed to remove stormwater from the area at a maximum
rainfall intensity of I inch per hour and that properties shall be graded to provide stormwater
removal at this rainfall rate (Municipal Code Section 26.16.090). The project will tie into the
existing stormwater system owned and operated by the City of Burlingame.
I0.2.5 NATIoNAL POLLUTANT DISCHARCE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
In 1972 the Clean Water Act was amended to state that the discharge of pollutants to waters of
the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with an
NPDES permit. The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act added Section 402(p) which
establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the
NPDES Program.
29
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
While federal regulations allow two permitting options for stormwater discharges (individual
permits and General Permits), the SWRCB has elected to adopt only one statewide Construction
General Permit at this time that will apply to all stormwater discharges associated with
construction activity, except from those on Tribal Lands, in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit,
and those performed by the Califomia Department of Transportation (CalTrans).
The Construction General Permit requires all dischargers where construction activity disturbs
qreater than one acre of land or those sites less than one acre that are part of a common plan of
development or sale that disturbs more than one acre ofland surface to:
Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which
specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction po[lutants
from contacting stormwater with the intent ofkeeping all products oferosion from
moving offsite into receiving waters.
Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters
of the nation. Achieve quantitatively-defined (i.e., numeric) pollutant-specific discharge
standards, and conduct much more rigorous monitoring based on the project's projected
risk level.
3. Perform inspections of all BMPs.
This Construction General Permit is implemented and enforced by the nine Califomia Regional
Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). It is also enforceable through citizens' suits and
represents a dramatic shift in the State Water Board's approach to regulating new and
redevelopment sites, imposing new affirmative duties and fixed standards on builders and
developers.
Tvpes of Construction Activitv Cov bv the Construction General Permit
o clearing,
o gading,
o disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil
disturbances ofat least one acre or more oftotal land area.
Construction activity that results in soil disturbances to a smaller area would still be subject to
this Ceneral Permit if the construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development
that encompasses greater tlan one acre of soil disturbance, or if there is significant water quality
impairment resulting from the activity.
Construction activity does not include:
routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade,
hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility,
nor does it include emergency construction activities required to protect public health
and safety.
30
I
2.
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
Project proponents (landowners) should confirm with the local RWQCB whether or not a
particular routine maintenance activity is subject to this General Permit.
The State Water Board's new quantitative standards (Order 2009-0009-DWQ) take a two-tiered
approach, depending on the risk level associated with the site in question. Exceedance ofa
benchmark Numeric Action Level ("NAL") measured in terms of pH and turbidity (a measure
related to both the amount of sediment in and the velocity of site runoff) triggers an additional
obligation to implement additional BMPs and corrective action to improve SWPPP performance.
New minimum BMPs include Active Treatment Systems, which may be necessary where
traditional erosion and sediment controls do not effectively control accelerated erosion; where
site constraints inhibit the ability to construct a corectly-sized sediment basin; where clay and/or
highly erosive soils are present; or where the site has very steep or long slope lenghs.
In addition, the Construction General Permit includes several "post-construction" requirements.
These requirements entail that site designs provide no net increase in overall site runoff and
match pre-project hydrology by maintaining runoffvolume and drainage concentrations. To
achieve the required results where impervious surfaces such as roofs and paved surfaces are
being increased, developers must implement non-strucrural off-setting BMPs, such as landform
grading, site design BMPs, and distributed structural BMPs (bioretention cells, rain gardens, and
rain cisterns). This "runoff reduction" approach is essentially a State Water Board-imposed
regulatory requirement to implement [ow Impact Development ("LID") design features.
Volume that cannot be addressed using non-structural BMPs must be captured in structural
BMPs that are approved by the RWQCB.
Improving the quality of site runoffis necessary to improve water quality in impaired and
threatened streams, rivers, and lakes (that is, water bodies on the EPA's 303(d) list). The
RWQCB prioritizes the water bodies on the 303(d) list according to potential impacts to
beneficial uses. Beneficial uses can include a wide range ofuses, such as nautical navigation;
wildlife habitat; fish spawning and migration; commercial fishing, including shellfish harvesting;
recreation, including swimming, surfing, fishing, boating, beachcombing, and more; water
supply for domestic consumption or industrial processes; and groundwater recharge, among
other uses. The State is required to develop action plans and establish Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) to improve water quality within these impaired water bodies. The TMDL is the
quantity ofa pollutant that can be safely assimilated by a water body without violating the
applicable water quality standards.
The uncontrolled discharge ofpollutants into impaired water bodies is considered particularly
detrimental. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), sediment is one
of the most widespread pollutants contaminating U.S. rivers and streams. Sediment runoff from
construction sites is l0 to 20 times greater than from agricultural lands and 1,000 to 2,000 times
greater than from forest lands (EPA 2005). Consequently, the discharge of stormwater from large
construction sites is regulated by the RWQCB under the federal CWA and Califomia's Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Pursuant to the CWA, the RWQCB regulates construction
discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The project
sponsor ofconstruction or other activities that disturb more than I acre ofland must obtain
3l
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
coverage under NPDES Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, administered by
the RWQCBT.
10.2.6 AppLrcABrl-rrr', ro THE PRoposED PRoJECT
The project applicant, before project approval, shall prepare the appropriate documents
consistent with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and
NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post-construction treatment and control of
sto[n water runoff from the site. Post-construction treatrnent measures must be designed,
installed and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project
plan submittals shall identifu the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing
inspection and maintenance ofthe post-construction stormwater treatrnent measure in perpetuity.
A maintenance agreement or other maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by
the City prior to the issuance ofa final constnrction inspection.
10.3 RWQCB Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program
The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). MS4 permits were issued in two phases.
Under Phase I, which started in 1990, the RWQCBs have adopted NPDES storm water permits
for medium (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large (serving 250,000 people)
municipalities. Most ofthese permits are issued to a group ofco-permittees encompassing an
entire metropolitan area. These permits are reissued as the permits expire.
As part of Phase II, the SWRCB adopted a Ceneral Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water
from Small MS4s (WQ Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ) to provide permit coverage for smaller
municipalities, including non-traditional Small MS4s, which are governmental facilities such as
military bases, public campuses, and prison and hospital complexes.
The MS4 permits require the discharger to develop and implement a Storm Water Management
Plan/Program (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable (MEP). MEP is the performance standard specified in Section 402fu) of the
Clean Water Act. The management programs specify what best management practices (BMPS)
will be used to address certain program areas. The program areas include public education and
outreach; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction and post-construction; and
good housekeeping for municipal operations. In general, medium and large municipalities are
required to conduct chemical monitoring, though small municipalities are not.
I O.3.I RWQCB PHASE II PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) must require
municipalities to reduce pollutants in their storm water discharges to the ''maximum extent
I CCP Order 2OO9-0009-DWQ remains in effect, but has been amended by CGP Order 2009-0014-DWQ, effective
February 14, 201l, and CGP Order 2009-0016-DWQ, effective July t7, 2012. The first amendment merely provided
additional clarification to Order 2009-0009-DWQ, while Order 2009-0016-DWQ eliminated numeric effluent limits
on pH and turbidity (except in the case ofactive treatment systems), in response to a legal challenge to the original
order.
32
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
practicable" (CWA $a02@)(3)(B).) M54 permits "shall require controls to reduce the discharge
ofpollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control
techniques and system, design and engineering methods." Under the Phase II Requirements
implemented by the RWQCB, permittees that operate an MS4 that serves 50,000 people or more,
or that serve an area of high gowth (which is defined as more than 25%o over l0 years), must
comply with the Supplemental Provisions contained in Attachment 4 of the Small MS4 General
Permit.
The General Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems WQO No. 2003-0005-DWQ (Small MS4 General Permit) requires that
dischargers develop and implement a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) that
describes the best management practices (BMPs), measurable goals, and time schedules of
implementation as well as assigns responsibility of each task. Also, as required by the Small
MS4 General Permit, the SWMP must be available for public review and must be approved by
the appropriate RWQCB, or its Executive Officer (EO), prior to permit coverage commencing.
This inforrnation is provided to facilitate the process of an MS4 obtaining Small MS4 General
Permit coverage.
The General Permit requires all Pemrittees to develop and implement a SWMP designed to
reduce the discharge ofpollutants through their MS4s to the maximum extent practicable. The
General Permit requires the SWMP to be fully implemented by the end of the permit term (or
five years after designation for those desigrrated subsequent to General Permit adoption).
Permittees must have a Post Construction SWMP for new developments and redevelopment
projects. The maximum extent practicable standard involves applying BMPs that are effective in
reducing the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. [n discussing the maximum extent
practicable standard, the State Board has said the following: "There must be a serious attempt to
comply, and practical solutions may not be lightly rejected. If, from the list of BMPs, a permittee
chooses only a few of the least expensive methods, it is likely that the maximum extent
practicable has not been met. On the other hand, if a permittee employs all applicable BMPs,
except those that are demonstrated to be not technically feasible in the locality, or whose cost
would exceed any benefit to be derived, it would have met the standard."
The MS4 municipality is required to develop and implement a program that provides local
oversight of construction projects within the municipality to ensure that pollutants being
discharged from construction sites into the MS4 are reduced. The program must include adopling
an ordinance requiring storm water quality controls at construction sites, reviewing site plans,
receiving comments from the public regarding the discharge ofpollutants from construction
sites, inspecting construction sites to ensure that pollutants are not being discharged in storm
water runoff, and taking enforcement when necessary. In contrast, the General Construction
Permit requires projects to have a site specific SWPPP and to implement BMPs specifrc to
activities at the construction site. The General Construction Permit directly regulates landowners
engaged in construction involving land disturbance ofone acre or more.
33
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
I0.3.2 APPLICABILIT To THE PRoPoSED PRoJECT
The City of Burlingame is a MS4 permittee. As an MS4 permittee the City of Burlingame would
be required to enforce implementation of a SWMP containing pre and post construction BMPs.
Stormwater falling on impervious surfaces in the city park will need to be treated onsite prior to
discharging into the City stomrdrain system. Because development ofthe proposed project
would include parking lots with more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, the project
would be required to meet Provisions C.3 and C.6 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
(MRP), Order No . R2-2O09-0O74 and Order No. R2-201 l- 0083, NPDES No. CAS612008.
10.4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Protections
I0.4.1 SECTIoN I602 oF CALTFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the Califomia Fish and Game Code, Califomia Department of Fish
and Wildlife (the Department) regulates activities that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or
substantially modify the bd channel, or bank of a stream which the Department typically
considers to include its riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity in a natural stream channel that
would substantially adversely affect an existing fish and/or wildlife resource, would require
entering into a Streambed Alteration Agreemant (53pq) with the Department prior to
commencing with work in the stream. However, prior to authorizing such permits, the Department
rypically reviews an analysis ofthe expected biological impacts, any proposed mitigation plans that
would be implernented to offset biological impacts and engineering and erosion control plans.
I0.4.2 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT
There are no streams or drainages that would likely be regulated by the Department. Hence, a
SBAA with the Department would not be necessary for this project.
11. CALIFORNIA EI{VIROIIMENTAL QUALITY ACT (C[,QA) REGULATIONS
A CEQA lead agency must determine ifa proposed activity constitutes a project requiring further
review pursuant to the CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA, a lead agency would have to determine if
there could be significant adverse impacts to the environment from a proposed project.
Typically, if within the city limits, the city would be the CEQA lead agency. If a discretionary
permit (i.e., conditional use permit) would be required for a project (e.9. an occupancy permit
must be issued), the lead agency typically must determine if there could be significant
environmental impacts. This is usually accomplished by an "lnitiaI Study." Ifthere could be
significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must determine an appropriate level of
environmental review prior to approving and/or otherwise permitting the impacts. In some cases,
there are "Categorical Exemptions" that apply to the proposed activity; thus the activity is
exempt from CEQA. The Categorical Exemptions are provided in CEQA. There are also
Statutory Exemptions in CEQA that must be investigated for any proposed project. Ifthe project
is not exempt from CEQA, the lowest level of review typically reserved for projects with no
significant effects on the environment would be for the lead agency to prepare a "Negative
Declaration." If a proposed project would have only minimal impacts that can be mitigated to a
level of no significance pursuant to the CEQA, then a "Mitigated Negative Declaration" is
typically prepared by the lead agency. Finally those projects that may have significant effects on
the environment, or that have impacts that can't be mitigated to a level considered less than
Jr+
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
significant pursuant to the CEQA, typically must be reviewed via an Environmental knpact
Report (EIR). All CEQA review documents are subject to public circulation, and comment
periods.
Section 15380 ofCEQA defines "endangered" species as those whose survival and reproduction
in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change
in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors. "Rare" species are
defined by CEQA as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if
their environment worsens; or the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered "threatened" as
that term is used in FESA. The CEQA Guidelines also state that a project will normally have a
significant effect on the environment if it will "substantially affect a rare or endangered species
of animal or plant or the habitat ofthe species." The significance of impacts to a species under
CEQA, therefore, must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat of extinction to that species
despite its legal starus or lack thereof.
I I.I.I APPLTCABTLTTY To THE PRoPoSED PRoJECT
This report has been prepared as a Biology Section that is suitable for incorporation into the
biology section ola CEQA review document such as a Mitigated Negative Declaration or
Negative Declaration. This document addresses potential impacts to species that would be
defined as endangered or rare pursuant to Section 15380 ofthe CEQA. This document is suitable
for use by the CEQA lead agency, the City of Burlingame, for preparation of any CEQA review
document prepared for the proposed project.
12. IMPACTS ANALYSIS
In this section we discuss potential impacts to sensitive biological resources including special-
status animal species and waters of the United States and/or State. We follow each impact with a
mitigation prescription that whan implemented would reduce impacts to the greatest extent
possible.
12.1 Signilicance Criteria
Below the criteria used in assessing impacts to Biological Resources is presented.
12.2 Significance Criteria
A significant impact is determined using CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA
$21068, a significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial,
adverse change in the environment. Punuant to CEQA Guideline $15382, a significant effect on
the environment is further defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in
any ofthe physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects ofhistorical or aesthetic significance. Other
Federal, State, and local agencies' considerations and regulations are also used in the evaluation
of signifrcance of proposed actions.
Direct and indirect adverse impacts to biological resources are classified as "significant."
"potentially significant," or "less than significant.'' Biological resources are broken down into
35
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
four categories: vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and regulated "waters of
the United States" and/or stream channels.
12.2.1.1 Plants. Wildlife. Waters
In accordance with Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines,
implementing the project would have a significant biological impact if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califomia
Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected "wetlands" as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsl5 vemal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological intemrption, or other means.
Interfere substantially with the movement ofany native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
12.2.1.2 Waters of the Unit States and State
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 13,14), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters ofthe United
States, which includes wetlands, as discussed in the bulleted item above, and also includes "other
waters" (stream channels, rivers) (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). Substantial impacts to Corps
regulated areas on a project site would be considered a significant adverse impact. Similarly,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and to the Porter-Cologrre Water Quality
Control Act, the RWQCB regulates impacts to waters of the state. Thus, substantial impacts to
RWQCB regulated areas on a project site would also be considered a sigrrificant adverse impact.
JO
MONK & ASSOCIATES
I2.2.I THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
12.2.1.3 Stream Channels
Pusuant to Section 1602 of the Califomia Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates activities that
divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modifr the be4 channel, or bank ofa stream
which CDFW typically considers to include riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity that would
result in substantial modifications to a natural stream charnel would be considered a significant
adverse impact.
13. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
13.1 Impact BIO-1. Development of the project would have a potentially significant impact
on tree nesting raptors and other nesting birds (Potentially Significant)
A1l raptors (that is, birds ofprey) and all migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) and their eggs and young are protected under Califomia Fish and
Game Codes Sections 3503, 3503.5. Any projectrelated impacts to nesting and migratory bird
species would be considered a sigtificant adverse impact. Potential impacts from the proposed
project could include disturbance to nesting bfuds, and possibly death ofadults and/or young. No
nesting raptors Oirds ofprey) have been identified on the proposed project site; however, no
specific surveys for nesting raptors have been conducted. As such, in the absence of survey results,
it must be concluded that impacts to nesting raptors and other bird species projected pursuant to the
Migratory Bird Act from the proposed project would be potentially significant pursuant to
CEQA. This impact could be mitigated to a level considered less than sigrificant.
13.2 Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Nesting Raptors and Other Nesting Birds (excluding
Burrowing Owl)
In order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and other bird species projected pursuant to the
Migratory Bird Act, nesting surveys shall be conducted prior to commencing with construction
work if this work would commence between February lst and August 3l't.The nesting surveys
shall include examination ofall trees within 200 feet ofthe entire project site, notjust trees slated
for removal on the project site.
An early survey should be conducted in February or March ilconstruction is proposed to
commence between February ltt and June lst. If construction has not commenced by the end of
March, a second nesting survey shall be conducted in April/May, whichever month is within 30
days of the commencement of construction. If construction would commence after May but
before September 1't, then the second survey shall be conducted within the 30 day period prior to
site disturbance.
If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline ofthe nest tree must be fenced
with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the project site), and a 200-foot radius
around the nest tree must be staked with bright orange lath or other suitable staking. If the tree is
located offthe project site, then the buffer shall be demarcated per above where the buffer occurs
on the project site . The size of the bulfer may be altered da qualified raptor biologist conducts
behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to dislurbance-
Ifthis occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to
prevent undue disturbance/harassment to the nesting raptors. No construction or earth-moving
activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor
37
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight
skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by July l5th. This date may be
earlier or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. Ifa qualifred
biologist is not hired to watch the nesting raptors then the buffers shall be maintained in place
through the month of August and work within the buffer can commence September lst.
If common (that is, not special-status) birds for example, Califomia towhee, western scrub jay, or
acom woodpeckers are identified nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance
buffer of50 feet should be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified omithologist.
The buffer should be demarcated with painted orange lath or via the installation of orange
construction fencing. Disturbance within the buffer should be posponed until it is determined by
a qualified omithologist that the young have fledged and have attained suffrcient flight skills to
leave the area or that the nesting cycle has otherwise completed. Typically, most passerine birds
in the region ofthe project site are expected to complete nesting by August l't. However, many
species can complete nesting by the end ofJune or in early to mid-July. Regardless, nesting
buffers should be maintained until August ln unless a qualifred omithologist determines that
young have fledged and are independent oftheir nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed
prior to August 1"t, the qualified biologist conducting the nesting surveys should prepare a report
that provides details about the nesting outcome and the removal ofbuffers. This report should be
submitted to the City of Burlingame prior to the time that nest protection buffers are removed if
the date is before August lst.
This mitigation measure would reduce impacts to nesting raptors and other nesting bird species
to a level considered less-than-significant pursuant to the CEQA.
13.3 Impact BIO-2. Development of the project would have a potentially significant impact
on Western Burrowing Owl
The westem burrowing owl is a Califomia Species of Special Concem. This raptor (that is, bird of
prey) is also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) and its nest, eggs.
and young are protected under Califomia Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5. The
closest known record for westem bunowing owl is located 2.3 miles southeast ofthe project site
in the City of San Mateo (CNDDB Occurrence No. I 106). There is a low potential for this
species to nest in the anthropogenic/ruderal habitat on the project site due to the overgrcwn
vegetation and a noticeable absence of burrowing mammals (e.g. ground squirrels). M&A did
not identift any suitable burrows within the project area during our surveys. M&A biologists
have not observed this owl on or adjacent to the project site.
While western burrowing owls are not currently known to occur on the site, this is a mobile
species that could move onto the project site in the future. Impacts to westem burrowing owls
from the proposed project could be potentially signilicant pursuant to CEQA. This impact could
be mitigated to a level considered less than significant.
13.4 Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Western Burrowing Owl
Based on the presence of this species in the project vicinity and the potential habitat found on the
project site, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls should be conducted 14 days prior or
38
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
less to initiating ground disturbance. As burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few
days, time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including
but not limited to a fmal survey conducted within 24 hours prior to gound distuibance to ensure
absence. Ifno owls are found during these surveys, no further regard for the burrowing owl
would be necessary.
a. Burrowing owl surveys should be conducted by walking the entire project site. Pedestrian
survey transects should be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage ofthe ground surface.
The distance between transect center lines should be 7 meters to 20 meters and should be
reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility.
Poor weather may affect the surveyor's ability to detect burrowing owls thus, avoid conducting
surveys when wind speed is greater than 20 kilometers per hour and there is precipitation or
dense fog. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied burrows should be
avoided by a minimum of50 meters (approximately 160 ft.) wherever practical to avoid flushing
occupied burrows. Disturbance to occupied burrows should be avoided during all seasons.
b. Ifburrowing owls are detected on the site, the lollowing restricted activity dates and
setback distances are recommended per CDFW's StaffReport (2012).
lmplementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls
to a level considered less-than-significant pursuant to the CEQA.
13.5 Impact BIO-3. Development ofthe proposed project would have a potentially
significant impact on Waters of the United States and/or State (Significant)
The proposed project will result in impacts to areas subject to Corps' and RWQCB jurisdiction
pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 ofthe Clean Water Act, respectively. Such impacts would be
regarded as significant impacts. Such impacts could be mitigated to a level considered less than
significant.
13.6 Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State
Impacts to waters of the United States and/or State can be reduced to less-than-significant levels
through various means, including avoidance, minimization of impacts, and mitigation
compensation.
39
From April I through October 15, low disturbance and medium disrurbance
activities should have a 200 meter buffer while high disturbance activities should
have a 500 meter buffer from occupied nests.
From October l6 through March 3 I , low disturbance activities should have a 50
meter buffer, medium disturbance activities should have a 100 meter buffer, and
high disturbance activities should have a 500 meter buffer from occupied nests.
No earth-moving activities or other disturbance should occur within the afore-
mentioned buffer zones of occupied burrows. These buffer zones should be
fenced as well. Ifbunowing owls were found in the project area, a qualified
biologist would also need to delineate the extent ofburrowing owl habitat on the
site.
MONK & ASSOCIATIs
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
Based on the Corps confirmed map, jurisdictional areas will be avoided by the project where
possible. Because firll avoidance of waters ofthe United States is probably not possible, potential
impacts shall be minimized to the extent feasible through changes to project design. Impacts
shall also be minimized by the use ofBest Management Practices to protect preserved features
and ensure water quality. These practices can include installing orange construction fencing, hay
or gravel waddles, and other protective measures. During project construction, a biological
monitor shall be on-site to monitor the integrity of waters and prevent impacts to the adjacent
San Francisco Bay.
The proposed project will fill all the wetlands mapped on this project site. For those wetland
areas that cannot be avoided, permits from the Corps and RWQCB shall be acquired that allows
the removal of specifred wetlands An Alternative Analysis will be prepared as part of the permit
applications for the RWQCB and the Corps. The City of Burlingame proposes to purchase
wetland mitigation credits from the San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank to satisfy the
wetland mitigation requirements for this project.
40
Implementation ofthe measures described above would reduce potentially sigrrificant impacts to
waters of the United States/State to a level considered less-than-signilicant pursuant to the
CEQA.
13.7 Impact BIO-4. Development of the proposed project would have a potentially
significant impact on BCDC Jurisdiction (Significant)
The project site is within BCDC jurisdiction. A portion of the park project will be within 100 feet
of the Bay shoreline. Impacts to BCDC jurisdiction would be regarded as a significant impact
This impact could be mitigated to a level considered less than sigrrificant.
13.8 Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Impact on BCDC Jurisdiction
A BCDC permit application will be required for this project. The project is in compliance with
BCDC policies since the proposed project will improve public access to the Bay, and will
incorporate mitigation requirements to offset the adverse environmental impacts ofthe project.
This mitigation measures would reduce impacts to BCDC jurisdiction to a level considered less-
than-significant pursuant to the CEQA.
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, California
14. LITERATUR.E CITED
Baldwin D.H, Goldman D.H., Keil D.J., Patterson R, Rosatti T.J., Wilken D.H. (ed.). 2012. The
Jepson Manual Vascular Plants of Califomia: Second Edition. Univenity of California
Press, Berkeley. 1568 pps.
Califomia Deparnnent of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation.
September 25, 1995. 8 pages and an attachment.
City of Burlingame. 2012. Burlingame Bayfront specific plan. As approved by the Burlingame city
council- Resolution No. 26-2004 and as amended by the city council. Resolution No. 58-
2006. August 21,2006. Resolution No. zt4-2012. June 18, 2012.
City of Burlingame. 1973. General Plan. Conservation Element. Adopted August 6, 1973 by
Resolution # 58-73. http://www.burlingame.orglindex.aspx?page I 5 I
CNDDB (Califomia Natural Diversity Data Base). 2013. RareFind 3.2. Computer printout for
special-status species within a 5-mile radius of the project site. Califomia Natural
Heritage DivisiorL California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
CNPS (Califomia Native Plant Society). 2001. lnventory of rare and endangered plants of
California (sixth edition). Rare plant scientific advisory committee, David P. Tibor,
convening editor. Califomia Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x+338 pps.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Departrnent of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Jepson Interchange Project. INTERNET: http://ucjeps.berkelev.edu/interchaneei index.html
Shuford, W.D. 1993. The Marin County Breeding Bird Atlas: A Distributional and Natural
History of Coastal Califomia Birds. Califomia Avifauna Series 1. Bushtit Books, Bolinas,
Califomia-
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways
Experiment Station. Technical Report, Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi. l00pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2). Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and
C.V. Noble. ERDCIEL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. September 2008.
4t
NRCS. 2013. Web Soil Survey. INTERNET: httn://websoilsurvev.sc.esov.usda.eov/Apo/
HomePaee.htm
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Analysis
Bayview Park Project
City of Burlingame, Califomia
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001 . Minimum Standards for Acceptance for Preliminary
Delineations. Regulatory Branch of the Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. November 30, 2001.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific
Division Regulatory Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program in South
Pacific Division. August 6, 2012.
42
MONK & ASSOCIATES
't2
t0t 77
'101
1
@@
No\ratoa
Bav Po'a int
Pin Maninez @ry*s
San AnsehoSan Rafael Hercules o
a
Sobrantea rd
a
Richma
a
LarksDura
Pleasa rll
d a
Mrll
Tamalpais-Homeslead
Vall ey a ul Creekaa
lbanya Onn
a a it le
nd BlackhawkCami
aa
Tassaraaa
O a @ Ramon
Saa Frahcisco
@ ro Dub,in
Castro Vai ley a
City a
a2
South san Frdnciscoa
c leasanlona
\"ry""
Pacmca \
Ean eru illbrae
\
a
a 84
San Mateoa Foster Citya 84 remonlNexarkaa
Belmonla
San Cados
r6i)Y Mer{o Parka \Haf Moon Bay kQ9
\
6)Paroam:/.
s
@@
@ nlain vier'
Los a
Jose
01
101 01
Project Site380
Saratta
campbel@ a
Monk & Associates
E[vironaenlal Coasulta s
I I .36 Saran4 Avcnue. Suite Q
wahul Cn€lq Califomia 94J95
(925t 14861
Figure 1. Bayview Park
Project Site Regional Map
Citv of Burlingame, Califomia
Coutrry : Satr Mateo
Map Preparation Datc: hne 28. 2013
1
@
Clavtona
{
@@
Senta Claraa
Rocrfii)av
@@
San
!
Moragaa
@
O
@
MONK & ASSOCIATES
\
.l
J/
\
C
)6
Project Site
g
(J
- s!!rO
-J9-SAN
&XUNGATIG
P
COUNTY PARK
T
E
3 .E
L
(
\\ GO'\\\\\\"1^
,4"
I
!.I
I
.$
02 oa 06 08
Figure 2. Bayview Park
Project Site Location Map
City of Burlingame, Califomia
o 01
A
R
4
.!.
,,i
Mook & Associates
Environmcolal Co{sultaats
I I 36 Saraoap Averuc. Suite Q
llalrur Crcck Califomia 94595
(9)5'r 9414W7
7.5-Minute San Matco qua&angle
Topography Source: http: gis.ca.gor'
Map PlepamtioD Date: Jutre 28. l0l3
-
-
o
r<I
€c,R-*o, F
E .r\ d,
PCJGI-rDa)
eEgd.i--Eo. Ea* Eo
E {.E^b*E
dit
o0 iJ
d,)
!'.1 .r
Tiei
a!Es
9;
= .9,
<i!
P
4
U
i{I
-4
r-
I
t
I
r
I
\
T
I
,
E
I
q-E
E
t,
..* .
1
r
J
lI
L
;{
I
I
EI
F,
Jl!
U
€g
Zoz
\'
I
,r-r
\
a
$
I
\
I./
-1
./!
\
\
I
I
\
-
/
t
ilFEE
F
\
\
\
E;,r
li z 2i
i.;:<vF,EE.IE< g F,ii: E;;3?:\o.5a
>!:==9,
sc)
o
s.9i oF
(Jtt&
:_q)ua;9',;
.Y -:z 6
- e =E2 = (',t!-..-'!o-l-
I! >rC
6I
3
cooo)
-3 or(tr(o
c
l
u)o
O)
(f)
o
l
o
t
o,(,
z(,
d
(9
zO
a
o6
+o
t!
4
if
It,o-o6
coo
oo-
N
o
o
i
@6,
Eo
po
E'6
(.,o
,r;
oa,io
Ec
-g
=oO-O 6*58
=\ro)
r 3:i,;l
=-;l---
ic.zli.9E;
€3d
.2?
-a.
2'=1
a.5aiai=
"-it-7 i ='i4< E =.E.14 i.7"=1
2i=a r_
Sanchez Creek Lagoon
G
@
o
,a
c(!
LL
c(!a
$(O
iI
-
4
IZ
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Project Site
1 Alamcda sont sparrow
2 Bay chcckcrspot buttertly
3 Eu.rowingowl
4 Californi. cl.pp.r reil
5 Glifornia red-letted trog
6 Doubla-arested cormoaant
7 Hoarybat
8 Ms3ion blue butte,fly
9 iibn.rdr butte.fly
10 i\ryrtle's silve6pot
11 P.llid bat
12 San Fr.nci5co dusky-footed woodrat
B
c
D
E
t
G
H
Alliu m peninsu lore vor. ftu ncisco num
Afisinc*io lunoris
Chbrupyron modtimum ssp. poh.tstre
Cho iz o nthe cuspkl o to v or. cus pido ta
Collinsio mufti@br
Dircd occilentolb
Erbphy um lotilobun
Fritillorb bifbto vot. heziohd
Fritihrb liio@o
Haperevox spasifloro vor. brevifolio
L Ho*elio modnensis
M Letsingb orochnoideo
N Moldcothamnus obo.ighum
O Malo@thdfinus dtcuotus
P Molocothomnut dovidsonii
Q Mdhcothotunts hollii
R Monolopio gtocilens
S Pentdchoeto bellidtbto
f Pole,nonium comeum
U frifoliun hydrophilun
U Triphysotioflotibundo
I
KIi San Fiancisco a snake linon estum
14 Westem pond turtle
15 Westem snowy plover
\
5
11
A4 9
12
6
F 13 3
o 7
1
N H
10 o
P
U
T 14 15
cJKB
G
2
A I
Monk & Associates
Environrienlal Consultarts
1136 Saran4 Avenuc. Suitc Q
Walnut Crcclq Califomia 94595
(925\ 14 7
0 05 I 2 3 1
Figure 5. Closest Known Special-Status Species
within 5 Miles of the
Bayview Park Project Site
5 M"p Prcparatio! Datc:
Dcccrubcr 23. 2014
-
$Mile Radius
Sourcc: CDFE
Califotuia Natur.l Dii'crsity Data Baic. 20 I 3
8
R
ir
L
E
M
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Table I
Plant Species Observed at the Bayview Park Project Site
Angiosperms - Dicots
Apiaceae
tFoeniculum v/lgare
Asteraceae
'Atub cotonopifolia
t H e hn in th o t he ca e c h io id e s
tloctuca seniola
Brassicrceae
'Izpidiun latiloliun
tRlphanus sativus
Chenopodiaceae
'Atripl.x prostrata
Convolvuhceae
'Convohalus anenslt
Fabacese
+Cyfisus s.opariw
*Cenbta nonspessuhla
?Lotus coniculans
+Trifoliun hinln
*trrcia sativa
M),rtaceae
' Eu cdl y p tus c onfe mh ina to
Orobanchaceae
aBellardio rrixago
Plantaginaceae
tPlantago coronoplt
*nanbgo lanceohta
Polygonaceae
'Rurfiex crbp,r't
Rosaceae
He te tu n e I e s ar bu tilo li a
tRubus ameniacus
Salicaceae
Salix lasiolepis
Angiosperms -Monocots
Broadeafpe!06u,eed
Wild 6di5h
Ha$ate orache
Bindwed
Brass.b{trons
Bridy ox{cague
Prickly hoce
scoah koom
Ferrch troom
Birdfoot aEfoil
Ro6e clov€r
Coflrfrr v€tch
Swe€t femel
Curly dock
Spid.r gun
N{editerran€an linseed
Cut-leafplantain
ErElish plantain
Toyon
Himalayan blackberry
Poaceae
'Avena barbdta
'Btumus diandrus
tcortaderia selloara
* Indicates a non-native species
Sl€n&r wild oat
Ripgut grals
Pampos grass
Page I of 2
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Table I
Plant Species Observed at the Ba)ryiew Park Project Site
tcyndon da.tylon
.Ddctylb glo erara
Dtttithlit spicaa
Elynt$ triticoide s subsp. lriticoidzs
'Festuca bromoides
'iHordeum morinum subsp. gtssoneanum
' Po lypogon nonrpe lie ns is
tstipo miliacea var. miliacea
B€lmudagrass
mlard grass
Sdigrass
Crcepirg wil&r
Brcrne fescuc
Italian ryegrars
MeditqEn€an badey
HardiDg Srass
Amual beard grass
Smilo erass
* Indicates a non-native species Page 2 of 2
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Table 2
Wildlife Species Observed at the Bayview Park Project
Reptiles
Westem fence lizard
Birds
Sce I o po rus occ id e n t a I i s
Turkey wlture
Califomiagull
Rock pigeon
Mouming dove
Anna's hummingbird
Northem flicker
Black phoebe
Ame call crcw
Cheshut-backed chickadee
Bushtit
Bewick's wren
European starling
Western meadowlark
House finch
Lesser goldfinch
House sparrow
Calhartes aura
Larus califomicus
Col&nba lieia
Zenaida dacroum
Calyple anna
Colaptes aurafus
Sat1,.mis nigicans
Corwts brachyrhyachos
Poecile rufescens
Psaltiparus minimus
Thryomanes bewiehi
Sturnus wlgais
Stumella neglecta
CarpodaaTlt meticanus
Spi,]/lt psaltia
Passer domesticus
Page 1 of 1
o,
5E
E- A
EoH-
-46;
9-aEq8+
.^2_{8
ea.r6
9d
t8
5o.
P€
o rz
2i
\.s
6R
SF
E=E "=:+
5 i P;.=9 aE: iEEE9;
d,!;;!b! EE; EE E E E? =-a a: b E x
3
iEz:"E2BE2
&
s32BE4
ZL
za-
:!E
?E i
=72
,E
-9.*E
.: :J
$E
SE
_dr
EEE€
i'"2 s .E*h€EE;= E=
5 HEgE
o
s.ETE9ns-e
PP
!!?
3E:
J3
za
EA
EEa
gE u
94 d.9.42
zai3
zi
6;ax.9-
E4 9
?
jj
e
E
E
?
a4
E
z2dE
za
*
E
g .u..
e a,zgs u
94'o
-9 "l
!E
'--og
e g-a.Ebiu9e
=
,i8
za
9
!E
vto
9'd
88
=a
C:G
a >z
E= 5
, R!;
2- =q
..!
'.6BE,?
*i
sf
*;
iFts
e8
F}.s E
i $:
'd
s.
!--.9
I
e
r
E
,3
E
z
ljlF
oo
.5
)Zzo a
Er
!
z
U)
a
a
i
?
c
q6
:
;;i 8=i E;I o-z
;OE94'.
>!
;AEQe2
9co
9t'.
z2
96
E€
9 >6
ij 9E
tz
EI,?G
a
e
q
lo
..6
E 9Z
2
..6'8E,2
..1
,.6i€2trdt)
s:
::s5;
!* >
rt
J
.!E
Si
$g
:!
ia;S Ei- =.J
.s9F9;s e
98-9a
z2
FE
! 8:
-Q a,9
.EE
62
.E€
ECio.= {;OFEi=
z2Z
e.a3, d-3
:>E,iE E
t 3G i
E=i;
E.E H;
+EE6
z2dE
za
'E.9
e.8
6:;
9E t
E
B'6
U 8-rl'ad
9E d
-9 ?.R
0-
aEz
..1
P
...^iiz
E
_9
E,!;
!:E
'E:E\ *
!l
Fhrl
€
,C
E
E
z
EE39 E
L:
irlF
0o
4
vzo U)
q)
L
,
q)
ae
2
ra.)
a
a
U)
E,=
yt
-9',a
!is
ZE
+g
eo
E99a
88
ba
2E
o >z
.9i
at
z;
!
EO
t a@
94 6! "l
za{,E
-gEE36qo
9.?
68
=a
PE
.93aa >z
E9EE
i;
9.q
Z-d
I
vt'6sB
.9 ',4.:
i a6
n€zhb s
!EE-eza
-9 ?,q
BE.z
iJ
EH2832
dB
za
!E
E3e6
9at8
6r
E,Ea:5
Q >Z
Ec
{r
SE
q
z3,iR
za
-9EE3
:!a
88
b6.
P€;:a
Q az
'-5
()'
3 d
,
c
..i
-- ,;;rE2
E
E
o
-t
iE2Bi2
c/)
E'iq.*
'i5
;s;!t;r N.9
!{.!EC;
qt -9
E-s!E
$-a
Eb
9:,
q
F
0o
d
Vzo
o)
rh
.]
ca
q)
2
ia
P,!L_6t =
Y
c)
q)
U)
(n
a
s
n'll=ZZ
E';
cdz
E3 s
g1'o
9
z2:i8
.-s!e
.1 0
Eg9at8
5e
;:6
o >z
(!
!E;
.9? E.9
- ..:. a
rE 5 T
e
..1
@
..6
i'aZti, 6 a)
3:!z
E! E
€igE(-{'
F
?iEE
2i
'd',.j
UA
nE>aa2dAt)
a5
?,gz
E
g*.=
zZti8E'F
E
9 0-
;OE9E 6! ?P
29q,
o€ 5
z2.rB
za
.:z ar
ia a
n:=
! ?,la
?E
oe
.
e
P6zi5t
s.E
Ei E
9= Es\J -'
dg
ht
g *a
=i d
9,€ d! ?PO BY
E"!e
:,99
i-a -
E
9E
9S EE:E
E+ P
s
*9r,-
=E+e
:s r
Eir.*s.E
clF
oo
4
Zo
(,
U)
tr!
c.
o
o
q)
z
:'.
L
)4
v)
o
(n
o-
E
6p
P € p-Ee E€ e_ii a
= o t+JJ r; EH:]a IE EEEEE ES 6EQ:: Y-,r ^pE;bb b: E9:EEE E -E E;E:55 E :
E EEicEEcE-ii E{*EEEEEE€
! -q;o E o o.E oEEP E 6 c! i;- ]()gg C E; Hrr Pr.s€g {E SEEEE:E-Et-E;fs**i€5;
ra P B : ; E e eA e 6 I
E{EFF4?f1f1F+E ---3 < (Ii aidi ': .t
-_N NC{NN(,(.J (' tY'v vvvvvx v v
ot EdEtrEx. E E
8E "Ht p gftq5 -E C'6 s 35e9 -EBo P aY
EH E:
ts- : o93 EE
8 9 5H
Es Ee"
E EEt E€
E OY 9=OE-'.rI-a c
9 ER E:;-
;f;sEEBE.E l;r; c:
X5E E E,€'
E E;gE 3E
e€Ef-a:E0- o- (/l ,r:, tL z =
': c,! c?<(D@ (D@qr::: : !
<)EGT EG,
b
oo
E
EB O:ESE E s
EEe?E
Etrtro(/,
5555!ETETEooo(JrJ
.lg ()!urFtro(,oooooo
EE
EgBplF,h P 6 6fi
P.E g gE
!E9PErE1q96G E P E
.fi$$$f
* L! l-
i5 lrJF(!oo
e
J
E
z
ce
EFd
t4F
o
4
vZo 0
.t
4)
q)
2
L
)a
a
o
oa
F
e
- =.2
Zla
:; E E
€ EE.3
?,E >1
E As g.
.E EX +
!3Ek
EE;E
o E-]E.
!
.'t a-6
Va-=
3,:Ei
I
U
i:(J
,9
Ei.9
;.? 3z 22
=o3-E
!!:ri-o!1 9tr3&
€E;
E3;
j'A Z
-o..9 E
o5.
F 5:e5azt5.
E-r:?
P ..9
-9o
,9
EE6
q?d
e; rg.
;9 E6
ETE!
a; Bi
E - 35
;E F5 Ea:?;*
_g ;: E.eF: E;€
EE i€.t
56
td6z
a,9i:tcE:
6 .94
E- E
: E E 9:
o 9;> a
6.Za c9:E E};.EE ia E=;EE,E E
9.9:;€
s a;i;
g;e.!E
E
'EES
;!
=r
si
_uX
l -q
ge
a+9:
Ja9
Ec-i9E'a
Ei.
! E-d; ,E ,I'
€d-e
.:
:
>:
E6
--z
-E
iP
EE
EF
a:,g:-O d
E E,I '6'
€E H9
;=
t:.
5;os
3G
EO
o9
ll ii
to
i;a9E
2;si9
3seE
?.
E>
6 >'?!:E E
qlF
-==
bi
a-
a
o
A
v)
1
llJF
0o
4
vzo
(,
4)
tr
l0
q)
!n
v
U)
v)
v)
=
J
()
2.9
#9E
->E o
4 a.?r_?Le--
9€.!.9F: ETl
z=n 6
E-
9ii
t6
;a
!o
E.eEE
oP -E dii
tYa
!-z=€:.8
^EEo- a
OI
;
o
EieEEz.!e
999ii9o-
oEE!6E
a2g
oB!
!!3 E
oi; pgg *
i': i.'
}V
E-
E3
9a
o5
E, g i5r';.?9i:
Ei 2=E
:3d,I
E d;! ri
.e::;.oE
E 3 b zard g,E g; E
E:
q!
!s€s
A
- E,!
i.9+=!
zii
'i gEe!5 r I
E .€ ?
F ,; !';; E 5+
ar-: E
P{r-6':;rfrS?EE
.9 0 'a€
!E 2 9
!.!t
s' i"
!S:s
o
_. i i
ql,.'1,>
a;6
it'3
:t6
=98
toe
-9.9:-o; q
dt:aEYza-
9- I
C
s
E3
3*'6-
EE
;Ei
9::5
? Ee 3
1i- E
H: 5U
; Fi€ -._i t !.= a
;.9 d !;
'E;9 !a i,J
i H 9c s
E, { f g
E:= ne
;E;€:
Eii39C
= E2=S
I,a
9:.Z
U:
YE;
:o!,
io!?
s.9:
z i-'eEY
3
:t^
;r-iEh ot2:2
:9
91
j
EAO
(J
IU
:99tr;,0
Y
o
E
c.
o
J
Q
,b
t!
U
od e)
>0
L
L
q)
EA
.J
z
ra
.=a
-QL
!
a)
a
Q
a
8'a
3E
9ii
3AE a3
€ 9.;
e-z=
-eEe; E!63.jjz 9-o
d- !2
n-
3d
,rg
90
E.g
cE
AE
z
'69
Is5
€ F-=E d,
EN:
ol d
iB 9
= ig
z;3
;: ti; F -!'-d6, c:J "EEsEE **EE-.eE;uE og_-;
;;EE!* 35fiE>i ie! E i4e
EatEeE f EgE
iiE!:?i i;sr:f ::gT fEtE
!EE ::I E;€i
(.)
€
ss
9d
Bd
Eo
"eB-99ii
E.9
9E.E
o. (.)
i
'ail
ar
AE
eZ 4
aEF
z Ea
EEEz:a
=A
-z
EENE
at;Yte
u!r
'; " -E.i:E€
ag & a
6 ilEE=P'
9 sE E
E C E,=
!2';;
i= E E
"1 ;
9;t
394
-9 ?:
a
;n
5o
s+,
IU
(,)
!()
:
=,(.
=EsS
E*
IIJF
oo
4
vZo
a
c.
.
cl
o
a)
2
ra
)1
c)
t)a,
a
o)
a
ag
oo
a
t
F
E
E :.€ EZ; - 9 8.*. I = ;EEe:€ '.eE;ri es e ;2E
Ei AEEE Es?
;E!;€g FgE:E6EE: SFEgtE E E H ;,i !!iBHr: ?iE:+EEB& EE€
B EE€ E-i 3 Ei
3
i;9
€ gi
EaoI! tx< "-idq
- 6.-
i?s
9(,.> q
EEE.E.FE€E
E+",,
zEt! o
EsEE
EE.q 3
E pI8
E 3 E.s
E p€eao-9=o >= o]io oi_E65
€ B EirE6 E *P;aE:E
F€ E€-e "o
LIJ(-)Eo
5E
9'e.!Q
oD
^ oziEB a,t.9
SE Er HESePt;
EiEO(,*6 - o 6 8.9
EE555E
58583s
i,; ' ' ' ,'. '
-EUJFEO(,J(,oooo(JS
P
66 5
€E :p-fif i
E,EEEE i;i o x llE o
EEEEEi;?'66EE*{fs*t
.;liLitLEEr
EIu-rroF .PHEftT8ft
o-
a
E
a
aJ
a
a.)
..2
g
!!t*
0o
4
zo
ID
c)
tr
L
o
ca
0)
a.)
z
ra
.J
ct)
a
((
q)aa
s
I
F
ffi
::
;Eit:
r:
-!9!aa\
: E ';' r l:i T :;: I 3r
3
8
I
!:i5t!
la
o
"d
t{
BI
,
FcIxul
lrJ(.)
(Lazt!(L
06
oa
lrJoo
o
J
d)fIoz
z)
t
lrJF
U)
)
lF(L
uJo2
a
!
a
o
I
I
3!
ft
I
I
q:E
e
6B
li
oo
I
tr
:!
E
)r.
!
.L
B
I
Yu
c
=ul
o
*
I
Jd4
L.,.
e
a
e
e
-./
L
lt
t;
;
a
't'..!
i:
a
3
L
4A
3;3 3 B 3 3 3 a B
Ei
;z 3 ;3
JgE::r r 5'11
ttelH
Ie:! i! Fa:at::
""a*.94
:=-€-t
I
.t
:€
E,E
=.Lt
-tt a
Y5
^t
Eil=i.S9ZE--
IEe;E<!E,E,!sEi!e, i-: i.
F
5Uo
4
*z
I
t-
I
!
-!
\
LF.
!
r
\
t
\
\
\
N
!
\
TL. r
't
I
I
L]
f
\-trI
4s
.F-
t(
rII
o
.B
I
-'-^^ ^-rdF.t..f'tRRTIEEIeL
B
Ea
g'"
!t
'*
E
g*
9".d
a
7
F
B{
,
t
t't.
q
E
t-.
g
g
I
)
a
t_
t
I
I
E
,
I
a
(oII
6'
^.qEJ
<E'c.r i=
o .q,-: --
;E 5EAE
FE=E;gEc6c o bat>a n
IU
\^
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govemor
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 1oo-South
Sacramento, C A 95825-8202
JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executlve Offtcer
(916) 574-180o Fox (9161574-1810
CaliJornia Rel(ry SeNice TOD Phone taOO-735-2929
lrcm Volce Phone 1-EOO-735-2922
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1890
Contact FAX: (916) 57+1885
Aa//z/./a, rg"a
January 11,2016
File Ref: SCH # 2013022038
City of Burlingame Community Development Department
Attn: William Meeker, Community Development Director
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Subject: lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MNDI for the 430-- 45.0 -Airport Boulevard-Lease of State Lands Parcel for Use as a Public Park
(Project) in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County
Dear Mr. Meeker:
The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) staff has reviewed the subject MND for
the 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard - Lease of state Lands Parcel for Use as a Public
park (Project), which is being prepared by the city of Burlingame (cM. The city, as the
public agency proposing to Carry out the project, is the lead agency under the Califolia
Environirental'euatity Act (CEOA) (Pub. Resources Code, S 21000 et seq.). The CSLC
is a trustee agency for projects that could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands
and their accompinying Public Trust resources or uses. Additionally, because the
Project involves work on sovereign lands, the csLC will act as a responsible agency.
\
GSLC Jurisdiction and Public Trust Lands
The csLC has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands,
submerged lands, and the beds of navigable lakes and wateMays. The csLC also has
certain iesidual and review authority for tidelands and submerged lands legislatively
granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Pub. Resources Code' SS 6301, 6306)' All
iidelands and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable lakes and
waterways, are subject to the protections of the Common Law Public Trust'
As general background, the state of california acquired sovereign ownership of all
tidelands and submerged lands and beds of navigable lakes and wateryays upon its
admission to the United States in 1850. The State holds these lands for the beneftt of all
people of the state for statewide Public Trust purposes, which include but are not
iimiied to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water-related recreation, habitat
preservation, and open space. on tidal waterways, the state's sovereign fee ownership
extends landward to ihe mean high tide.line, except for areas of fill or artificial accretion
\Mlliam Meeker Page2 January 11,2016
or where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a court. On navigable non-.tidal .
wateruays, including lakes, the State holds fee ownership of the bed of the wateruay
landward to the ordinary low water mark and a Public Trust easement landward to the
ordinary high water mark, except where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a
court. Such boundaries may not be readily apparent from present day site inspections.
After reviewing the information contained in the MND for this Project, CSLC staff has
determined that the proposed 9.401 acres of the Project site located at 410, 430, and
450 Airport Boulevard (8.8-acre parcel at 430 and 450 Airport Boulevard and 0.601-acre
parcel at410 Airport Boulevard), is State-owned sovereign land underthe jurisdiction of
the CSLC. The 410 Boulevard site was the address for the old Sherman Restaurant
and parking lot that appears to be included in the site plan. Therefore, a lease will be
required from the CSLC for Project construction and operation. Please contact Al
Franzoia, Public Land Management Specialist (see contact information below), to
further discuss the Project and for further information about the CSLC leasing process.
Proiect Description
The Project proposes to create a park on the 9.401 acres of filled CSLC sovereign land
at 410, 430, and 450 Airport Boulevard. These parcels were originally all tidal areas and
marshlands. ln the 1960s, this sile and the sunounding land were reclaimed from the
San Francisco Bay by constructing perimeter barriers of concrete rubble from the old
San Mateo Bridge structure. Subsequently, additional fill and rubble were placed behind
these perimeter baniers. The proposed Project site is an undeveloped and vacant lot
with overgrown vegetation that would be cleared and developed into a City park. The
overall Project vicinity is primarily developed with offce, hotel, and restaurant uses.
From the Project Description, CSLG staff understands that the Project would include the
following components:
. Decorative metal fence (4-foot-high with steel cables) on waterfront side of the
asphalt path (shown on Figure 3, page 11);
r 8- to 1O-foot-wide asphalt public access pathway with benches and landscaping
along San Francisco BaY;o Public access pathways leading from Airport Boulevard to the Bay Trail;
. Two parking lots on botJr sides of the park with 133 parking spaces and lighting;
. Group and accessible picnic areas;. Restroom facility;. Automatic inigation, lawn open space, and omamental landscaping; and
o Perimeter fencing along Airport Boulevard and Bayview Place.
Environmental Review
CSLC staff requests that the City consider the following comments in the final MND.
General Comme nts
1. Prior MND: The CSLC staff submitted prior comments on the proposed Project on
March 22,2013 (copy enclosed), in response to the original MND the City circulated
William Meeker January 11,2016
6. Clarifica tion on Level of lmoacts: Several res ponses to environmental resource
questions appear to contradict their checklists a nd should be resolved in the final
MND. See for example:
a.
b.
d.
Pege-3q:
Paqe 38:
PssE-4L:WE:
Geology and Soils questions 'a.ii", "a.iii', "c", and "d"
Hydrology and Water Quality questions "e" and "f'
Land Use and Planning question "a"
Noise questions "a" and 'c."
7. Possible ln consistencv in De ption of Constructio Activities : On page 8, the
"Project Description" states that the 'proposed projecl includes construction of a park
with associated parking lots, concrete pathways, a restroom facility, picnic tables
Page 3
for the Project. The MND currently being circulated does not mention the prior
document, changes made to the Project since 20'13, or reasons for recirculation (see
State CEQA Guidelines S 15073.5). CSLC staff believes such a discussion would
provide helpful context for the reader and recommends the addition of a summary of
the entire environmental review and documentation effort, including reasons for
revision and recirculation, in the final MND.
2. Proiect Description: A complete and thorough Project description should be provided
in the final MND that includes not only the proposed structures and improvements,
but also specific details on howthe improvements will be construited, during what
season, using what equipment, and how they would be maintained. Page 1 of the
MND states "[t]he shoreline improvements include an asphalt bay trail with benches
and landscaping;" however, there is no mention of the decorative metal fence (as
shown on Figure 3 "Conceptual Master Plan and Public Access & Open Space
Exhibit" on page 1 1), which staff understands would be installed to keep pedestrians
away from the 2:1 slope of the shoreline protective structure. Without the above
referenced details, the MND analysis may not adequately identify and discuss the
full range of impacts that could occur. Therefore, CSLC staff requests that a more
detailed "Project Description" covering all the proposed Project-related activities be
included, so that tho public is able to independently analyze impacts to
environmental resources and potential hazards.
3. Fiqure2: LocationMap: CsLCstaffrequeststhatthe,final MNDclearlyidentifythe
Project location to include 9.40'l acres of State-owned sovereign land.
4. Fiqure 3: Conceptual Master Plan and Public Access & Open Soace Exhibit: This
exhibit on page 11 should address the following missing features in the final MND:
a. lnclude a stand-alone legend for a reader unfamiliar with such plans to be
able to understand the proposed Project;
b. Show "sea wall and levees" (referenced on page 41 , response to question "k",
paragraph 2); and
c. Show "Bayfront Channel" on the east boundary of the Project.
5. Environmental Resource Checklist: Staff notes that on page 19, two boxes, not one,
are checked identifying the level of impact for Biological Resources question "a".
William Meeker Page 4 January 11,2016
1 The Califomia Supreme Court, on December 17,2015, ruled nanowly on certain BAAQMD thresholds
perEining to projects bringing more users or residents to a location with existing pollution sources; the
validity of the GHG thresholds was not under examination and the case was remanded to the lower court
to address the remaining issues (Cal. Building lndustry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (Dec. 17,2015, 5213478)_Cal.4s_ htto://www.courts.ca.qov/opinions/documonts/S213478. PDF).
and benches. However, on page 13, the "Aesthetics' analysis states that the only
construction will be a small, one story restroom facilities." CSLC staff recommends
that this inmnsistency be resolved.
Climate Chanqe
8. Greenhouse Gases: ln its analysis of potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, the
City does not estimate either the construction or operation emissions, instead
discussing the significance of the Project's GHG impacts in the context of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management Dishict (B'AAQMD) 2010 thresholds of significance
and consistency with the emission reduction targets in the Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32). CSLC notes that the BAAQMD's CEQA
Guidelines remain the subject of litigationl and as such, recommends the thrbsholds
be applied with caution, and only if supported by factual, context-specific evidence.
\Mile CEQA provides for lead agencies to "considef the extent to which the project
complies with adopted standards, as cunently.presented, the MND does not appear
to meet the direction in State CEQA Guidelines section 1506/.4 that lead agencies
"...describe, calctlate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting
from a project." ln order for the City to more fully comply with this provision, CSLC
staff recommends the City include in the final MND additional support for its GHG
conclusions including a quantification of GHG emissions expected to result from the
Project for both construction and operation phases, using accepted models or
methodologies, based on the equipment expected to be used, duration of use of this
equipment, and vehicle trips from all Project+elated construction activities.
Additionally, because the Project's expected GHG emissions are not estimated, it is
unclear to CSLC staff how the Project fits into the discussion of the City's overall' emission reduction target for 2020 (estimated to be a minimum reduction oi 50 '542
metric tons as compared to 2005 base year emissions, or 122,378 metric tons as
compared to a hypothetical 2020 'business-as-usual' scenario). \Mile a
characterization of the amount of emission reduction that is needed to meet the 15
percent reduction target is helpful context, the MND stops short of discussing or
providing a conclusion based on substantial evidence, as to whether the expected
project emissions would conflict or be consistent with achieving this target.
9. Sea-Level Rise: CSLC staff notes that the State of California released the final
"safeguarding Califomia: Reducing Climate Risk, an Update to the 2009 California
Climate Adaptation Shategy" (Safeguarding Plan) on July 31, 2014,1o provide policy
guidance for state decision-makers as part of continuing efforts to prepare for
climate risks. The Safeguarding Plan sets forth 'actions needed" to safeguard ocean
and coastal ecosystems and resources as part of its policy recommendations for
state decision-makers. ln addition, Govemor Brown issued Executive Order 8-30-15
in April 2015, which directs state govemment to fully implement the Safeguarding
William Meeker Page 5
Plan and factor in climate change preparedness in planning and decision making.
Please note that when considering lease applications, CSLC staff will (1) request
information from applicants concerning the potential effects of sea-level rise on their
proposed projects, (2) if applicable, require applicants to indicate how they plan to
address sea-level rise and what adaptation strategies are planned during the
projected life of their projects, and (3) where appropriate, recommend project
modifications that would eliminate or reduce potentially adverse impacts from sea-
level rise, including adverse impacts on public access.
On page 41 (response to question'k"), the MND states "[m]easurements taken in
the Bay indicate that the current rate of sea level rise is about 3.5 inches per century
at Alameda and 8.4 inches per century at San Francisco. Climate change effects on
sea levels could lead to even higher rates of sea level rise (accelerated sea level
rise)." While CSLC staff appreciates the City discussing sea-level rise in the MND,
we note that the references cited are not recent (ranging from 1981 to 2012). More
current sources of information include the 20'12 report from the National Academy of
Sciences, Sea-Leve/ Rlse for the Coasts of Califomia, Oregon, and Washington,2
and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) "Adapting to
-Rising Tides'prog ram. Additionally, San Mateo County has initiated a sea-level rise
vulnerability assessment ://seachan to address the challenge of
sea-level rise for the Cou nty and develop proactive resiliency recommendations;
CSLC staff recommends the City incorporate the data, modeling, and analyses from
the SeaChange effort as a means of evaluating the Project's vulnerability to
inundation, overtopping, storm damage, and other seaievel rise effects.
The proposed Project site is at low elevation within the Bay at approximately 8 feet
or less, and is protected at the edge by a rubble barrier. With the combination of
storms/wave action, high tides, events such as El Nifio, and incremental sea-level
rise, it can be expected that the Project site would be inundated absent additional
shoreline protection. Page 42 of the MND states that the "... perimeter barriers along
the shoreline have experienced erosion and are not designed and/or protected to
withstand the higher dynamic forces associated with the higher tides could fail under
the sea level rise scenario and expose people to increased risk from flooding and
erosion. However, since there are no structures proposed other than the restroom
facility, the impact is expected to be less than signifiiant." csLC staff notes that in
addition to the restroom, the City proposes several other ifiprovements, including
benches, fencing, lighting, pathways, and stormwater drainage facilities. Should
inundation occur, these facilities could be damaged, creating a hazard, and public
safety and/or access could be compromised. ln addition, water quality impacts could
result from flooding of the restroom and its associated septic systbm/sewage
treatment. csLC staff recommends the city discuss what preventative and safety
measures are planned for potential inundation and how the City would ensure that
any damage would be repaired or remedied to ensure the State's trust assets are
not impacted, and that public access is maintained,
h
2 This report, available at www.oDc.ca.oov/2013/04/uodate-to-the-sea-level-rise-quidance-documenY, is
widely considered the best cunent science on sea-level rise.
January 11,2016
William Meeker Page 6 January 11,2016
Cultural Resources
10.Title to Resources: Please note that "M itigation Measure 5b" on pages.28 and 6
should list CSLC Assistant Chief Counsel Pam Griggs (see contact information
below) as the point of contact should any cultural resources on state lands be
discovered during construction of the proposed Project. ln addition, CSLC staff
requests that the following statement be included in "Mitigation Measure 5b" on
pages 28 and 6: "The final disposition of archaeological, historical, and
paleontological resources recovered on State lands under the jurisdiction of the
CSLC must be approved by the Commission.'
Recre ation
1'1 .D Metal Fence lm ino Public Access to Water: There is no discussion of
the decorative metal fence in the MND besides showing it on the "Conceptual
Master Plan and Public Access & Open Space Exhibif' on page 1 1. CSLC staff
requests that the final MND include detailed information addressing the following:
a. Design of the fence, including identification and description of any gates or
openings to allow public access to the shoreline;
b. How far would it be from the shoreline;
c. What kinds of signs would be placed on the fence;
d. How it would be maintained;
e. How the current shoreline condition and potential future erosion would be
addressed to keep the public safe during high tides and over time due to sea-
level rise; andf. How this may or may not exclude public access to the water.
"12. Public Measures : The final MND in the "Recreation' discussion on page 52
should also include, but not be limited to, the following measures to protect the
public using this park:
a. Park access hours;
b. Daytime and nighttime public safety measures;
c. High tide seasonal public safety measures;
d. Emergency phones made available to the public along the trails and park;
e. Security cameras monitoring the site; and
f. On-site security made available to the public.
13. Publ ic Notification of the Park: The final MND on page 52 should explain the tyPes of
recreational opportun
how the public would
identifying potential n
itied that would be available to the public in the new park and
be notified of this new park. CSLC staff recommends
otification opportunities in the final MND, for example:
a. Community and public outreach efforts through social media networking,
website linkages, press releases, etc.; and
b. Signs posted from the freeway exits and on the main roadways leading to the
park with maps and clear messages that these trails and improvements are
for public use.
William Meeker Page 7 January 11,2016
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Project. As a responsible
and trustee agency, the CSLC will need to rely on the final MND for the issuance of any
new lease as specified above and, therefore, we request that you consider our
comments prior to adoption of the MND.
Please send copies of future Project-related documents, including electronic copies of
the final MND, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and Notice of
Determination (NOD), when they become available, and refer questions concerning
environmental review to Afifa Awan, Environmental Scientist, at (916) 574-1891 or via
e-mail at Afifa.Awan@slc.ca.qov. For questions concerning CSLC leasing jurisdiction,
please contact Al Franzoia, Public Land Management Specialist, at (916) 574-0992, or
r questions conceming archaeological or historic
resources under CSLC jurisdiction, please contact Assistant Chief Counsel Pam Griggs
at (9'16) 574-1854 or via email at Pamela.Griqqs@slc.ca.qov.
re
via email at Al.Franzoia slc.ca.oov. Fo
Cy R. Oggi NS;
Division of Environmental Planning
and Management
Enclosure: CSLC March 22, 2013, Comment Letter
cc: Office of Planning and Research
A. Awan, CSLC
L. Calvo, CSLC
J. Deleon, CSLC
A. Franzoia, CSLC
E. Gillies, CSLC
P. Griggs, CSLO
C. Hezog, CSLC
lVilliam Mccker,
Conrnrunity Developnlent Dircctor
City of Burlingame
501 Prinrrose Road,
Burlinganrc, CA 9401 0
RECEIVED
, ,sG
]ITY OF SUSLINGAiT5
aDD.PLANNING DiL/
Dear Mr- Mecker,
Regarding tlrc docurnent dated Deccnrbcr 4'r,, 20lS NOTTCE OF INTI:NT 1.O ADOPT A ITIITICATED
NEGATIVI: DECLARATIoN, I understand that a 'nritigatcd negative declaration' nreans rhat your
initial study completed by Monk and Associates on November 9rh. 2015 has detL'rmined that no
significant environnrcntal effects will rcsult fronr thc devclopnrent of the land at 430-4so Airport
Eoulevard for usc as a putrlic park.
I rvould like to knorv rvlrat rvill be involved in the nlitigation of thc lyetlancls and more inlportantly,
rvhat arc the costs? Does this mcan thatthere rvill be no enginecling study or environntent.ll inlp.tct
rcport? lf not, lvhy not?
Thc document indicates that th(] City of Bnrlinganle iDtends to acquir-e the land fr.ont the Statc by ryay
o[ a gr?nt by the Statc. lf the Statc does not grant thc land ivhat rvill th.' cost to lease or huy thc land
and horv rvill that b!. paid for?
The study mentions that there rvill bc a cost to dcal with the rock and ruhble that is used along thc
shotelinc - I believc it's referrcd to as 'the riprap' - is tlrerc a study that outlines the costs associated
!r,ith this problenr? Burlinganrc rcsidents rcquire a cost outlinc.
lVhich cntity rvill prepare the structural, architcctural and enginecring plans for City approval of all
inrprovtmcnts and developnrcnt, which lvill include an outline of thc fccs involved? what are the
cost for building thc park field and fol thc city serviccs rhat will be rcquired and the annual upkeep
cost? tlow lvill the City pay for this?
Whilc. more parks for the conlmunity is laudablc what has bcen the feedback fi orn the lesponse to
the Decernbor 4,h,2015 NoTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITICATED NF:GATIVE DECLARATION in
having the park in this location?
Thc financial, cnvironntental and safety quL,stiotrs for tlre ploject need to be ansrvcred, llut it sccms
likc this ploject is going fonvard rvithout the oversi8ht required. I feel there are otlret'proiects that
are in need ofconrplcting first like paying fol the nerv city hall-
nrd t Lll t'cs ponsc
TI ary rll
Reside
33 Park Road, #1
Burlingame, CA 94010
lanuar), 6rh, 20 l6
430 - 450 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
cALtFORNTA ENVTRONMENTAL QUALTTY ACT (CEaA)
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
The Notice of lntent to Adopt a Mitigated Declaration was posted on December 4, 2015, and the public review
period extended through January f7, 2OL6. Persons having comments concerning this project, including
objections to the basis of determination set forth in the lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, were
invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments.
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Revised lS/MNO is
presented below. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the
corresponding response.
State Agencies
California State Lands Commission
lndividuals
Mary Murphy
ln accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of
Burlingame, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Final lS/MND for the project , and
has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Responses to Comments document
becomes part of the Final IS/MND for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.
1
lnital Study 430 - 450 Aimon Boulevard
Responses to Comments
STATE AGENC!ES
Response to Comment Letter 1 - California State Lands Commission, dated January lL,ZOLG
Comment 1.1: Prior MND - The CSLC staff submitted prior comments on the proposed Project on March 22,
2013 (copy enclosed), in response to the original MND the City circulated for the Project. The MND currently
being circulated does not mention the prior document, changes made to the Project since 2013, or reasons for
recirculation (see State CEQA GuidelinesS 15073.5). CSLc staff believes such a discussion would provide helpful
context for the reader and recommends the addition of a summary of the entire environmental review and
documentation effort, including reasons for revision and recirculation, in the final MND.
Response 1.1: An lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was previously prepared for this
project in February 2013. The Notice of lntent to Adopt a Mitigated Declaration was posted on
February 20,2013 and the comment period extended from February 20 through March 22,2Ot3.fwo
comment letters were received: a letter from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
commission (8CDc) dated March 4, 2013, and a letter from the california State Lands Commission
(CSLC) dated March22,2013 (copies attached).
The letter from BCDC advised that the project would be located within the Commlssion's 1oo-foot
shoreline band jurisdiction, thereby requiring authorization through a Commission permit. The letter
further noted that the Commission's primary issues in reviewing the project will be to evaluate how
best to provide diverse and interestinB experiences for users, prevent significant adverse effects on
wildlife, and how to design the park site and public access so it may adapt or be resilient to sea level
rise and flooding.
The letter from CSLC had a number of concerns and requests, including a request for a more detailed
project description, concern over the biological resources analysis, concern with underwater noise
should the shoreline be disturbed during construction, clarification of cultural resources, Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) Emissions, public trust concerns, and cumulative impacts. ln response, a biological resource
analysis was prepared for the project, the project design was refined and the ls/MND was
comprehensively revised to address the range of items raised in the CSLC letter. The intent of the
additional study and the revised IS/MND was to fully address the issues outlined in the CSLC le$er.
Given the extent of the revisions to the lS/MND and the addition of the biological resource analysis,
the revised lS/MND was recirculated for public comment on December4,2015. The comment period
extended from December 4, 2015 through January 11, 2015.
2
Thls summary of the environmental review and documentation effort, including reasons for revision
and recirculation, has been added to the Final MND on page 2, item 12.
Comment 1,2: Project Description - A complete and thorough Project description should be provided in the
final MND that includes not only the proposed structures and improvements, but also specific details on how
the improvements will be constructed, during what season, using what equipment, and how they would be
maintained. Page I of the MND states "[t]he shoreline improvements include an asphalt bay trail with benches
and landscaping;" however, there is no mention of the decorative metal fence (as shown on Figure 3
"Conceptual Master Plan and Public Access & Open Space Exhlbit" on page 11), which staff understands would
Responses to Comments 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
be installed to keep pedestrians away from the 2:1 slope of the shoreline protective structure. Without the
above referenced details, the MND analysis may not adequately identify and discuss the full range of impacts
that could occur. Therefore, csLc staff requests that a more detailed "Project Description" coverinB all the
proposed Project-related activities be included, so that the public is able to independently analyze impacts to
environmental resources and potential hazards.
Response 1.2: lt is estimated that the construction work for the park project will be completed
between May 15 and October 15, 2017. Anticipated construction equipment that will be needed for
construction of the park facilities and parking lots includes:
. 2 Bulldozers
o 1 Front end loader
. 3 end dump trucks (on site at a time)
. l grader
. 1 water truck
. 2 rollers (compacters)
. l excavator
o l backhoe
. l concrete truck (on site at a time)
. l asphalt paving machine
. 8 pickup trucks
. l flatbed truck
The decorative metal fence indicated on the plan will be located parallel and adjacent to the Bay trail
(on the Bay side of the trail) and will also be located on the eastern property line, parallel and adjacent
to the Bay channel. No gates will be required, as it will not prevent or impede public access to the trail
or park open space. The fence will be 4'-d' high and will be constructed of 2"x2" ,11 gauge galvanized
square steel posts at 8'-0" on center with 3/8" stainless steel cables. The design is intended to be
visually unobtrusive, open and is consistent with other fences already in place at several locations
along the Bay trail.
Comment 1.3: Figure 2: Location Map - CSLC staff requests that the final MND clearly identify the Project
location to include 9.401 acres of state-owned sovereign land.
Response 1.3: Figure 2: Location Map has been revised to clearly identify the Project location to
include the parcel size and that the property is State-owned sovereign land. However per the County
assessor records the subject property (APN 025-363-600) as shown in the property line boundaries is
8.82 acres 1384,22L square feet).
Comment 1.4: Figure 3: Conceptual Master Plan and Public Access & Open Space Exhibit -This exhibit on page
11 should address the following missing features in the final MND:
a. lnclude a stand-alone legend for a reader unfamiliar with such plans to be able to understand the
proposed Project;
b. Show "sea wall and levees" (referenced on page 41, response to question "k", paragraph 2); and
c. Show "Bayfront Channel" on the east boundary ofthe Project
This information has been added to the Final MND in an expanded Project Description on page 8, and
in the Air Quality section on page 16.
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airpo( Boulevard
Response 1.4: Figure 3: Conceptual Master Plan and Public Access & Open Space Exhibit has been
revised to include:
a. A stand-alone legend;
b. lndication of "sea wall and levees"; and
c. "Bayfront Channel" indicated on the east boundary ofthe Project
Comment 1.5: Environmental Resource Checklist - Staff notes that on page 19, two boxes, not one, are
checked identifying the level of impact for Biological Resources question "a".
Response 1.5: The checkbox indicating Less Ih on Significont with Mitigotion lncorpordtion should be
checked for question "a" consistent with the discussion that follows for that question. The correction
has been made in the Final lS/MND.
Comment 1.6: Clarification on Level of lmpacts - Several responses to environmental resource questions
appear to contradict their checklists and should be resolved in the final MND. See for example:
a. Page 30: Geology and Soils questions "a.ii", "a.iii", "c", and "d"
b. Page 38: Hydrology and Water Quality questions "e" and "f'
c. Page 44: Land Use and Planning question "a"
d. Page 47: Noise questions "a" and "c."
Response 1.6: The checklists should be revised to be consistent with the discussion responses.
Therefore:
a. Page 30: Geology and Soils questions "a.ii", "a.iii", "c", and "d" checkboxes should all be
checked tess Thon Significont with Mitigotion lncorporotion
b. Page 38: Hydrology and Water Quality questions "e" and "f' checkboxes should be checked
Less Thdn Signilicont lmpoct
c. Page 44: Land Use and Planning question "a" checkbox should all be checked Less Thon
Signilicant lmpoct
d. Page 47: Noise questions "a" and "c" checkboxes should be checked Less Thon significont with
M iti g oti o n I n cor po rot i o n
The corrections have been made in the Final IS/MND
Comment 1.7: Possible lnconsistency in Description of Construction Activities - On page 8, the "Project
Description" states that the "proposed project includes construction of a park with associated parking lots,
concrete pathways, a restroom facility, picnic tables and benches. However, on page 13, the "Aesthetics"
analysis states that "the only construction will be a small, one story restroom facilities." CSLC staff
recommends that this inconsistency be resolved.
Response 1.7: The proposed park will indeed include associated parking lots, concrete pathways, a
restroom facility, picnic tables and benches as outlined in the project description. The discussion on
page 13 in the "Aesthetics" analysis is specific to whether the project would have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista, so the focus on the response was on built structures that could affect a scenic
vista rather than all park improvements. The restroom facilities would be the only building
constructed, therefore was specified in the analysis.
The parking lots, concrete pathways, picnic tables and benches would not be expected to affect a
scenic vista. For clarification, the "Aesthetics" analysis on page 13 has been revised to include parking
lots, concrete pathways, picnic tables and benches as well as the small single-story restroom facility
building.
4
Responses to Comments 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Comment 1.8: Greenhouse Gases - ln its analysis of potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, the City does not
estimate either the construction or operation emissions, instead discussing the significance of the Project's
cHG impacts in the context of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2010 thresholds of
significance and consistency with the emission reduction targets in the Global Warming Solutions
Act of2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32). CSLC notes that the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidellnes remain the subject of
litigation and as such, recommends the thresholds be applied with caution, and only if supported by factual,
context-specific evidence. While CEQA provides for lead agencies to "consider" the extent to which the project
complies with adopted standards, as currently presented, the MND does not appear to meet the direction in
State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4 that lead agencies " ... describe, calculate or estimate the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project." ln order for the City to more fully comply with this
provision, CSLC staff recommends the City include in the final MND additional support for its GHG conclusions
including a quantification of GHG emissions expected to result from the Project for both construction and
operation phasel using accepted models or methodologies, based on the equipment expected to be used,
duration of use of this equipment, and vehicle trips from all Project-related construction activities.
Additionally, because the Project's expected GHG emissions are not estimated, it is unclear to csLc staff how
the Project fits into the discussion of the City's overall emission reduction target for 2020 (estimated to be a
minimum reduction of 50,542 metric tons as compared to 2005 base year emissions, ot 722,378 metric tons as
compared to a hypothetical2020 "business-as-usual" scenario). While a characterization of the amount of
emission reduction that is needed to meet the 15 percent reduction target is helpful context, the MND stops
short of discussing or providing a conclusion based on substantial evidence, as to whether the expected
project emissions would conflict or be consistent with achieving this target.
Response 1.8: GHG emissions have been estimated for the construction and operation of the proposed
park utilizingthe California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod.2013.2.2) (Table 2) to provide
factual, context-specific evidence to support the conclusions. calEEMod is a statewide land use
emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use
planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions associated wlth both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.
The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operations (including vehicle use), as well
as Indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from enerBy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation
planting and/or removal, and water use.
. 2 Bulldozers
. 1 Front end loader
r 3 end dump trucks (on site at a time)
. l grader
. 1 water truck
. 2 rollers (compacters)
. l excavator
o l backhoe
. l concrete truck (on site at a time)
. l asphalt paving machine
. 8 pickup trucks
. l flatbed truck
5
For construction, it is estimated that the construction work for the project will take approximately six
months and involve the following construction equipment:
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Ai.pon Boulevard
Construction of the project would generate more GHG emissions than operation of the park. Assuming
the six-month construction timeframe utilizing the equipment listed above, the annual emission of
CO2e is estimated to be 428.80 metric tons per year (MT/yr). These emissions would be a one-time
event, however, and as a point of reference would be below the BAAQMD threshold 1,100 metric tons
per year (MT/yr) of CO2e for the operations of a land use development project.
For operations, the 8.8 acre park was modeled as shown in Figure 3, with landscaping consisting of a
lawn open space, ornamental landscaping, and approximately 100 new trees. With these parameters,
the annual emission of CO2e is estimated to be 21.55 metric tons per year (MT/yr), which is
significantly below the BAAQMD threshold 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e for a land use
development project.
Table 2 - Estimated GHG Emissions for Pro
Source: CalEEMod .2013.2.2
ln terms of operations, the proposed park offers benefits In air quality, water quality, recreational, and
other social benefits that are consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan. Urban green space
provides the opportunity to not only sequester substantial quantities of carbon pulled from the air and
soil, but also reduce local energy consumption by providing cooler surfaces. As the trees and
vegetation grow, they will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the form of
biomass carbon in the leaves, roots, branches, and trunk. With the sequestration of many trees put
together as proposed, the trees can be a significant sink for carbon dioxide. ln this respect the park can
assist the City in its near- and medium-term solutions to reduce its emissions.
Comment 1.9: Sea-Level Rise: CSLC staff notes that the State of California released the final "Safeguarding
California: Reducing Climate Risk, an Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy'; (Safeguarding
Plan) on July 31, 2014, to provide policy guidance for state decision-makers as part of continuing efforts to
prepare for climate risks. The Safeguarding Plan sets forth "actions needed" to safeguard ocean and coastal
ecosystems and resources as part of its policl recommendations for state decision-makers. ln addition,
Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15 in April 2015, which directs state government to fully
implement the Safeguarding Plan and factor in climate change preparedness in planning and decision making.
Please note that when considering lease applications, CSLC staff will (1) request information from applicants
concerning the potential effects of sea-level rise on their proposed projects, (2) if applicable, require applicants
to indicate how they plan to address sea-level rise and what adaptation strategies are planned during the
projected life of their projects, and (3) where appropriate, recommend project modifications that would
eliminate or reduce potentially adverse impacts from sea- level rise, including adverse impacts on public
access.
On page 41 (response to question "k"), the MND states "[m]easurements taken in the Bay indicate that the
current rate of sea level rise is about 3.5 inches per century at Alameda and 8.4 inches per century at San
Francisco. Climate change effects on sea levels could lead to even higher rates of sea level rise (accelerated sea
level rise)." while CSLC staff appreciates the City discussing sealevel rise in the MND, we note that the
references cited are not recent (ranging from 1981 to 2012). More current sources of information include the
2012 report from the National Academy of. Sciences, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of Callfornia, Oregon, and
Washington,2 and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) "Adapting to Rising Tides"
6
CO2e (Mr/yr)
428.80Mitigated Construction
2L.66Mitigated Operations
Responses to Commenb 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
program. Additionally, San Mateo County has initiated a sea-level rise vulnerability assessment
(http://seachaneesmc.com/) to address the challenge of sea-level rise for the county and develop proactive
resiliency recommendations; CSLC staff recommends the City incorporate the data, modeling, and analyses
from the Sea Change effort as a means of evaluating the Project's vulnerability to inundation, overtopping,
storm damage, and other sea-level rise effects.
The proposed Project site is at low elevation within the Bay at approximately 8 feet or less, and is protected at
the edge by a rubble barrier. With the combination of storms/wave action, hi8h tides, events such as El Nino,
and incremental sea-level rise, it can be expected that the Project site would be inundated absent additional
shoreline protection. Page 42 ofthe MND states that the " ... perimeter barriers along the shoreline have
experienced erosion and are not designed and/or protected to withstand the hlgher dynamic forces associated
with the higher tides could fail under the sea level rise scenario and expose people to increased risk from
flooding and erosion. However, since there are no structures proposed other than the restroom facility, the
impact is expected to be less than significant." CSLC staff notes that in addition to the restroom, the City
proposes several other improvements, including benches, fencing, lighting, pathways, and stormwater
drainage facilities. Should inundation occur, these facilities could be damaged, creating a hazard, and public
safety and/or access could be compromised. ln addition, water quality impacts could result from flooding of
the restroom and its associated septic system/sewage treatment. CSLC staff recommends the City discuss what
preventative and safety measures are planned for potential Inundation and how the City would ensure that
any damage would be repaired or remedied to ensure the State's trust assets are not impacted, and that public
access is maintained.
Although the Project Site is relatively low in elevation, it is generally protected from 100-year flood
hazards by sea walls and levees along the Bay edge of about 7 to 9 feet in elevation. The tidal flood
elevation is listed as 7 feet and does not include wave run-up. However, the majority of the central
portion of the site is subject to shallow floodlng from a soo-year flood event.
7
Response 1.9: The respective sections ofthe MND have been revised accordingly, with revised data
and discussion glglg!!1991:
The qlobal mean sea level is rising due to increased global temDeratures. sea-level rise is not
uniform and is sipnificantlv affected bv local factors. For the west coast south of Caoe Mendocino,
which includes the San Francisco Bav Area, land subsidence is occurring at an averaEe rate of 1 mm
oer vear creating a rise in relative sea-level annuallv. lntesratinq local oroiections for sea-level rise
into the oroiect desiqn will mitiqate impacts.
With 2OOO as the base vear. the National Research Council oredicts that sea-level rise in the San
Francisco Bav Area will increase 2 to 12 inches bv 2030 and rise 5 to 24 inches at mid-centurv. Thev
also oroiect sea-level to rise 17 to 56 inches bV 2100. Future El Niffo events make the resion
vulnerable to storm surRes and high astronomical tides that can raise current sea levels above
oroiected sea levels for 2100.
The current mean higher tide near the Project Site is about 3.5 feet above the current sea level. An
increase in sea-level rise of l foot would result commensurate increase in the mean higher high
tide level. When combined with astronomical tides, a 1-foot increase in sea level would result in
the 1oo-year event high tide peak occurring at the 1o-year event frequenry. ln other words, the
frequency of a current 100-year high tide (about 5.54 feet above msl at the san Francisco Presidio
station) could occur 10 times more often when sea levels increase to l foot above the current msl.
As a result of these conditions, lesser storms and tides may be sufficient to result in more frequent
and severe flooding, erosion, and structural stresses compared to existing conditions. such
lnitialStudy 430 - 45O Airpoft Boulevard
changes are predicted regardless of whether the Project is implemented. Some erosion and
damage to levees and channel banks have already occurred along the waterfront in BurlinBame, so
sea-level rise could exacerbate the problem.
Water surface elevation gradients (slopes) are primary drlvers of flow conveyance within streams
and storm drains. The higher the gradient, the faster water can flow. lf the downstream outlet of a
stream or storm drain is controlled by the water surface elevation of the Bay or Ocean, rising sea
levels can affect the flow within those drainages; a higher water surface elevation at the outlet
reduces the gradient and slows down flow. This could result in reduced storm flow conveyance
capacity and cause or contribute to backwater flooding effects.
Higher sea levels could also reduce the available coastal floodplain storage volumes. However,
because the Project Site is protected by levees and sea walls, there ls currently relatively little
coastal floodplain storage that could be affected.
Currently, the Project Site is protected from flooding by a shoreline barrier, but the barrier has
experienced some erosion since it was constructed in the 1960s. As explained above, sea levels are
predicted to rise, and this could increase the frequency offlood events, reduce storm flow
conveyance capacities, result in over-topping of the existing barriers, contribute to shallow
groundwater rise flood effects, increase high tide elevations, and create more stress on the
shoreline and flood protection features. Such changes are expected to occur regardless of whether
the Project is implemented. During flood events, the oark would be closed to the public, consistent
with Parks and Recreat ion Deoartment standard oDeration procedur s to control hazardous
conditions in oark facilities.
Because the Project Site is not subject to tsunami inundation, it can be expected that the tsunami
run-up elevation is not greater than the 100-year tidal elevation of 7 feet. As such, even in the
event of sea-level rise, the majority of the Project Site would be above the 100-year flood
elevation, and the potential for inundation durinB the 100-year flood event in would not be
substantial.
Furthermore, the shoreline and features located adjacent to the shoreline would be subject to
higher tides. As noted above, the mean higher tide near the Project Site is about 3.5 feet above the
current msl. A a5:bq! increase in sea level would result in a mean higher tide of at least 8.1 feet
above current msl. There would be no structures within the 100-foot setback from shoreline areas,
which would reduce the potential for flood risks. However, the perimeter barriers along the
shoreline have experienced erosion and are not designed and/or protected to withstand the
higher dynamic forces associated with the higher tides could fail under the sealevel rlse scenario
and expose people to increased risk from flooding and erosion. However, since there are no
structures proposed other than the restroom facility, the impact is expected to be less than
significant.
8
Overall, the Project is not expected to result in substantial flood risks to people and above-ground
structures because the current site elevation would be above the expected 100-year peak tide
elevation and the only structure proposed on the site is a restroom facility. As noted in the above,
a QQi4g[ seal-level rise (which is the maximum predicted to occur by 2100) would result in
inundation of a majority of the Project Site, with a potential 100-yea r flood elevation of about !l!
feet above msl (existinB tidal base flood elevation plus 65-inch sea-level rise). However this
forecast extends bevond the exoected useful life of the oark.
Responses to Comments 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Comment 1.10: Title to Resources: Please note that "Mitigation Measure 5b" on pages 28 and 6 should list
CSLC Assistant Chief Counsel Pam Griggs (see contact information below) as the point of contact should any
cultural resources on state lands be discovered during construction of the proposed Project. ln addition, CSLC
staff requests that the following statement be included in "Mitigation Measure 5b" on paBes 28 and 6: "The
final disposition of archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on State lands under the
jurisdiction of the CSLC must be approved by the Commission."
Response 1.10: Contact information for CSLC Assistant Chief Counsel Pam Griggs has been added to
"Mitigation Measure 5b" on pages 28 and 5, and the statement "The final disposition of
archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on State lands under the
jurisdiction of the CSLC must be approved by the Commission" has been added to "Mitigation Measure
5b" on pages 28 and 5.
Comment 1,11: Decorative Metal Fence lmpeding Public Access to Water-There is no discussion of the
decorative metal fence in the MND besides showing it on the "Conceptual Master Plan and Public Access &
Open Space Exhibit" on page 11. CSLC staff requests that the final MND include detailed information
addressing the following:
a. Design of the fence, including identification and description of any gates or openings to allow public
access to the shoreline;
b. How far would it be from the shoreline;
c. What kinds of signs would be placed on the fence;
d. How it would be maintained;
e. How the current shoreline condition and potential future erosion would be addressed to keep the
public safe during high tides and over time due to sea level rise; and
f. How this may or may not exclude public access to the water.
Response 1.11: The decorative metal fence indicated on the plan will be located parallel and adjacent
to the Bay trail (on the Bay side of the trail) and will also be located on the eastern property line,
parallel and adjacent to the Bay channel. No gates will be required, as it will not prevent or impede
public access to the trail or park open space. The fence will be 4'-0" high and will be constructed of
2" x2" ,l! gauge galvanized square steel posts at 8'-0" on center with 3/8" stainless steel cables. The
design is intended to be visually unobtrusive, open and is conslstent with other fences already in place
at several locations along the Bay trail.
Signage will be posted on the fence or adjacent to the fence to advise the public to stay on the trail.
The fence and the signage are intended to convey that the park is not intended for the public to access
the water at this location. The fence will be maintained by Parks and Recreation personnel consistent
with the rest of the park facilities.
Standard operating procedure for the Parks and Recreation Department is to close a facility or effected
portion of a facility if there are any conditions that could be hazardous to the public. The proposed
park would be closed to keep the public safe during high tides or during times where erosion could be
a concern.
Comment 1.12: Public Safety Measures - The final MND in the "Recreation" discussion on page 52 should also
include, but not be limited to, the following measures to protect the public using this park:
a. Park access hours;
b. Daytime and nighttime public safety measures;
c. High tide seasonal public safety measures;
d. Emergency phones made available to the public along the trails and park;
9
lnitialstudy ,130 450 Ai.port Boulevard
e. Security cameras monitoring the site; and
f. On-site security made available to the public
Response 1.12: The "Recreation" discussion on page 52 has been updated to reflect that the park
would be open during daylight hours and closed at night, consistent with other city park facilities. The
restroom facilities will be locked at night. Standard operating procedure for the Parks and Recreation
Department ls to close a facility or effected portion of a facility if there are any conditions that could
be hazardous to the public, which would include high tides which could threaten public safety. City of
Burlingame parks do not typically include phones or security cameras, however all park facilities are
regularly monitored during police patrols. The Parks and Recreatlon Department also has a field
monitor who periodically monitors conditions at each park facility.
Comment 1.13: Public Notification of the Park- The final M N D on page 52 should explain the types of
recreational opportunities that would be available to the public in the new park and how the public would be
notified of this new park. CSLC staff recommends identifyinB potential notification opportunities in the final
MND, for example:
a. Community and public outreach efforts throu8h social media networking, website linkages, press
releases, etc.; and
b. Signs posted from the freeway exits and on the main roadways leadin8 to the park with maps and clear
messages that these trails and improvements are for public use.
Response 1.13: The City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department has a robust public outreach
program including a website, activity guide, weekly City email newsletter and social media presence.
Press releases will be provided to local publications to inform the public of the project, both during
planning and once the park is open for use.
Roadway signage at the freeway exits and on the main roadways leading to the park will be installed to
familiarize the public with the park and its location. The park will include signage identirying it as a City
of Burlingame public park, consistent with the city's other park facllities. Signage will also be included
to provide direction to the Bay Trait and clarify that the trail is for public use.
INDIVIDUALS
Comment 2.1: I would like to know what will be involved in the mitigation of the wetlands and more
importantly, what are the costs? Does this mean that there will be no englneering study or environmental
impact report? lf not, why not?
Response 2.1: The project proposes purchase of wetland mitigation credits from the San Francisco Bay
Wetland Mitigation Bank to satisfy the wetland mitlgation requirements for this project.
lmprovements associated with the proposed project would result in impacts to 0.42 acres (18,128
square feet) of jurisd ictiona I seasonal wetlands mapped on the park project site. Corps Nationwide
Permit 42 (NWP 42) authorlzes the construction of recreationalfacilities, including playing fields, trails
and supporting facilities. The discharge must not cause the loss ofgreater than 0.50 acres of non-tidal
waters of the U.S. Mitigation requirements for these impacts will include replacement of impacted
jurisdictionalwaters at a 1:1 ratio. Only a 1:1 mitigation ratio is required since there is no temporal loss
of functions and services of wetlands when a pplicants purchase mitigation credits from a mitigation
10
Response to Comment Letter 2 - Mary Murphy, email dated January 5, 2016 and letter dated January 6,2OL6
Responses to Comments 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
bank that is approved by the RWQCB and Corps. An Alternative Analysis for the wetlands to be filled
on the site shall be prepared as pa rt of the permit applications for the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
The project team has included a civil engineer in the planning and conceptual design phases (Wilsey
Ham Engineering). A civil englneer will be on the project team during development of construction
documents, and during construction.
The analysis prepared for the lnitial Study found that implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures described above would reduce potentially signlficant impacts to waters ofthe United
States/State to a level considered less-than-significant pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). With regards to the seasonal wetlands, the seasonal wetlands occur in the
topographic lows on the highly compacted fill and gravel of the project site. The biological resource
analysis determined that the site did not include any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The mitigation measure will
compensate for wetland impacts through the purchase of miti8ation credits from the San Francisco
Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank that have greater biological and habitat value than the seasonal wetlands
found on the project site, resulting in net increases in aquatic functions.
Under CEQA, if a project has significant environmental impacts but has incorporated mitigation
measures to reduce those impacts to a level considered less than significant, an Environmental lmpact
Report (ElR) is not necessary, but a Mitigated Negative Declaration must be prepared. Therefore a
Mitlgated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. An Environmental lmpact Report
(ElR) would be required only if the project would have significant environmental impacts.
Comment 2.2: The document indicates that the City of Burlingame intends to acquire the land from the State
by way of a grant by the State. lf the State does not grant the la nd what will the cost for leasing or buying the
land and how will that be paid for?
Response 2.2: The document notes that the project will require approval of a lease agreement by the
California State Lands Commission (CSIC), but does not specifically suggest a financial grant by the
State. Under a lease agreement with the CSLC, the City of Burlingame would lease the land from the
State Lands Commission for a given duration and cost to be determined by the terms of the lease. City
staff has been coordinating with CSLC on potential terms for a lease; such terms will be presented for
consideration as part ofthe project decision process.
The scope ofthe lnitial Study and Mitigated Negatlve Declaration is to assess potential environmental
impacts associated with the project under the CEQA. The costs of improvements to build the park and
any costs associated with the lease ofthe site from the CSLC would be consldered capital project costs,
subject to the City's budget planning process. As such, the specific arrangements to fund the park
improvements and expenses are beyond the scope of the environmental review under CEQA, but will
be considered as part of the project decision process.
11
The total area of seasonal wetlands on the park site is 0.42 acre (assuming there is no work on the
shoreline). lf all wetlands are impacted/filled for the project, the mitigation will be 0.5 acre x 585,000
per 1/10th acre = 5425,000. This assumes a 1:1 mitigation ratio would be approved by the resource
agencies.
lnitial Strrdy 430 - 450 Aimod Boulevard
Comment 2.3: The study mentions that there will be a cost to deal with the rock and rubble that is used along
the shoreline - | believe it's referred to as 'the riprap'- is there a study that outlines the costs associated with
this problem? Burlingame residents require a cost outline.
Response 2.3: The shoreline improvements include an asphalt bay trail with benches and landscaping
set back from the shoreline behind a decorative metal fence. An earlier design concept had considered
the feasibility of building a new shoreline revetment, but was ultimately not pursued and was removed
from the project description. ln the proposed project no changes are planned to the concrete rubble
and other monolithic slabs of concrete that comprise the shoreline itself - the shoreline will be left in
its current condition.
The scope of the lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is to assess potential environmental
impacts associated with the project under the CEQA. Costs for the asphalt trail, benches, landscaping
and decorative metal fence would be included in of the overall costs for constructing the park, subject
to the City's budget planning process. As such, the specific arrangements to fund the park
improvements are beyond the scope of the environmental review under the CEQA, but will be
considered as part of the project decision process.
Comment 2.4: Which entity will prepare the structural, architectural and engineerin8 plans for City approval of
all improvements and development which will include an outline of the fees involved? What are the cost for
building the park field and for the city services that will be required and the annual upkeep cost? How will the
City pay for this?
Response 2,4: The project will be commissioned by the City's Parks and Recreation Department. The
Parks and Recreation Department has contracted the design and environmental review of the park,
which to date has included John Cahalan, Landscape Architect; Monk & Associates, Environmental
Consultants; and Wilsey Ham EnBineering. Construction of the park may be contracted, and/or with
Public Works resources consistent with other capital projects.
The scope ofthe lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is to assess potential environmental
impacts associated with the project under the CEQA. The costs and funding for the construction and
maintenance of the park are beyond the scope of the environmental review under the CEQA, but will
be considered as part of the project decision process.
comment 2.5: While more parks for the community is laudable what has been the feedback from the response
to the December 4th, 2015 NOTICE OF INTENTTO ADOPTA MITIGATED NEGATTVE DECLARATION in having the
park in this location?
Response 2.5: Two letters were received in response to the December 4th, 2015 Notice of lntent to
Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration: the subject letter, and a letter from the California State Lands
Commission (cSLC) dated January 71,20!6. Responses to the CSLC letter are provided in the section
for "Comment Letter 1" in this document.
Comment 2.5; The financial, environmental and safety questions for the project need to be answered, but it
seems like this project is going forward without the overslght required. I feel there are other projects that are
in need of completing first like paying for the new city hall.
Response 2.6: The scope of the lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is to assess potential
environmental impacts associated with the project under the CEQA. 11l"
"nr'ronmental
review is a
component ofthe project decision process, but does not represent the extent ofthe decision process.
r2
Responses to Comments 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Like any capital project, the merits of the proposed park will need to be considered in relation to other
community objectives, including funding and prioritization relative to other projects.
1.3
430 - 450 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CALTFORNTA ENVTRONMENTAL QUALTTY ACT (CEQA)
1, Pro,ect Title:430 - 450 Airport Boulevard - Lease of State Lands
Property for use as Public Park
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
William Meeker, Community Development Director
Telephone: (650) 558-7250
E-Mail: wmeeker@burlingame.org
430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Burlingame, CA
026-363-600
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. san Mateo County Assesso/s Parcel Numbers:
5. Project Sponso/s Name and Address:City of Burlingame
Parks and Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue
BurlinBame, CA 94010
7. General Plan Designation:General Plan - Waterfront Commercial
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan:
. Hotels, Restaurants and Recreationa I Uses
8. Zoning:AA (Anza Area)
9. Description of Project: The project site is approximately 8.8 acres located at 430450 Airport Boulevard,
Burlingame, California (Figures 1 and 2).
The project site is located on "reclaimed" land on the edge of the San Francisco Bay. The project site is
undeveloped ruderal land comprised primarily of fill material. Along the northern edge of the site there is
a gravel pedestrian trail, and concrete rubble provides erosion protection along the edge of the bay. To the
west of the project site there is a restaurant, parking lot, and Anza Lagoon, and to the east there is a
parking lot and the Sanchez Creek Lagoon. The southern project site boundary is defined by Bayview Place
and Airport Boulevard, and there are office buildings with additional parking lots further to the south.
The proposed project includes construction of a park with associated parking lots, concrete pathways, a
restroom facility, picnic tables and benches. The park improvements include automatic irrigation, lawn
open space, ornamental landscaping, and perimeter fencing along Airport Boulevard and Bayview Place.
The only lighting proposed will be in the parking lots. The shoreline improvements include an asphalt bay
trail with benches and landscaping. Construction of the park will require stripping and grubbing the site,
rough grading, and a storm drainage system. The proposed project is illustrated on the attached
Conceptual Master Plan and Public Access & Open Space Plan, dated July 31, 2015 (Figure 3).
I
ldtialstudy 430 - 450 Airporl Eoulevard
The proposed project will fill all the wetlands mapped on this project site. An Alternative Analysis will be
prepared as part of the permit applications for the Regional water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The City of Burlingame proposes to purchase wetland mitigation
credits from the San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank to satisfu the wetland mitigation requirements
for this project.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proiect site is within the Bayfront area in the City of Burlingame.
Existing adjacent land uses include office buildings, hotels and restaurants. The site is adjacent to San
Francisco Bay and the Bayfront Channel, which drains the Sanchez Creek watershed.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.t., permits, financing approval, or participation
atreementl: The proposed public park does not require discretionary approval from the City of
Burlingame, since public parks are a permitted use in the AA (Anza Area) zoning district. A building permit
will be required from the City of Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division, for
construction of the new restroom facilities. The project will require approval of a lease agreement by the
California States Land Commission. A permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC) is required for the Bay Trail improvements within 100 feet of the San Francisco Bay edge. Permits
from the U.S. Army Corps of EngineeB and Regional Water Quality Control Board will be required for the
proposed impacts to seasonal wetlands on the project site. There is no building demolition involved with
this project so there is no permlt required from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
2
12. Prior environmental review: An lnitial Studv and Mitiqated Neeative Declaration was previouslv Dreoared
for this oroiect in Februarv 2013. The Notice of lntent to Adopt a Mitisated Declaration was posted on
Februarv 20, 2013 and the comment oeriod extended from Februarv 20 throuqh March 22. 2013. Two
comment letters were received: a letter from the San Francisco Bav Conservation and Develooment
Commission (BCDC) dated March 4, 2013. and a letter from the California State Lands Commission (CSLC)
dated March 22,2013 (copies attached).
The letter from BCDC advised that the oroiect would be located within the Commission's loo-foot
shoreline band iurisdiction, therebv reouirinq authorization throuqh a Commission oermit. The letter
further noted that the Commission's orimarv issues in reviewinq the oroiect will be to evaluate how best to
provide diverse and interestinq exDeriences for users. orevent siqnificant adverse effects on wildlife. and
how to site design and oublic access so it mav be adeot or resilient to sea level rise and floodins.
The letter from CSLC had a number of concerns and reouests, including a reouest for a more detailed
proiect descriotion, concern over the biolopical resources analvsis, concern with underwater noise should
the shoreline be disturbed durins construction, clarification of cultural resources. Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions, oublic trust concerns. and cumulative imoacts. ln resoonse a bioloqical resource analvsis was
prepared for the oroiect, the proiect design was refined and the IS/MND was comorehensively revised to
address the ranse of items raised in the CSLC letter. The intent of the additional studv and revisions was to
fullv address the issues outlined in the c5LC letter.
Given the extent of the revisions to the ls/M ND a nd the addition of the biolosical resource analvsis, the
revised ls/MND was recirculated for oublic comment on December 4. 2015.
lnitialStudy
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant lmpact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics I Agriculture and EJ Air Quality
Forestry Resources
I cuhural Resources [l Geology / SoilsX Biological Resources
! Greenhouse Gas Emissions
! Land Use / Planning
! Population / Housing
E Transportation / Traffic
Hazards &
Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
X Hydrology / water Quality
I t'toise
! Recreation
! Mandatory Findings of significance
x
tr
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Signature
lfind that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
lfind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a siSnificant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
lfind that the proposed pro.iect MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
lfind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECTARATION pursuant to applicable standards,
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed proiest, nothing further is required.
Date
Printed Name For
3
430 - 450 Airport Boulovard
tr
tr
tr
hitalStudy 430 - 450 Aimon Boul€vard
4
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airpo.t Boulevard
Summary of Mitigation Measures
430'450 Airport Boulevard
Environmental Fador Mitigation Measure
Air Quality Mitigation Measure 3a: During construdion, the project sponsor shall require the
construction contractor to implement the following measures required as part of BAAQMD's
basic and enhanced dust control procedures required for all construction sites. These
include:. water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site. lncreased watering frequency may be necessary
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour, Reclaimed water should be used
whenever possible.
. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the
top ofthe load and the top ofthe trailer).
. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
. sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
. Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) attheend ofeach
day ifvisible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
. Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible. ln addition, building
pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4a: In order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and other bird species
projected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Act, nesting surveys shall be conducted prior to
commencing with construction work if this work would commence between February 1st
and August 31st .The nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees within 200 feet of
the entire project site.
Mitigation Measure 4b: A preconstruction survey for burrowing owls should be conducted
14 days prior or less to initiating ground disturbance. As burrowing owls may recolonize a
site after only a few days, time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take
avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior
to ground disturbance to ensure absence. lf no owls are found during these surveys, no
further regard for the burrowing owl would be necessary.
Mitigation Measure rk: The City of Burlingame proposes to purchase wetland mitigation
credits from the San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank to satisfy the wetland mitigation
requirements for this project. An Alternative Analysis for the wetlands to be filled on the site
shall be prepared as part of the permit applications for the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
Mitigation Measure 4d: A BCDC permit application will be required for this project. The
project is in compliance with BcDc policies since the proposed project will improve public
access to the Bay, and will incorporate mitigation requirements to offset the adverse
environmental impacts of the project.
Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 5a: ln the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural
resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the
resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified
archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. City
staff shall also notify California State Lands Commission staff u n discoveri unexpected
5
lnitial study 430 - 450 Ai@ortBoulevad
Summary of Mitigation Measures
430-450 rt Boulevard
cultural resources con tact: CSLC Assistant Chief n IP m G 915 574-1854
Pamela.Grises@slc.ca.pov). lf any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines
1506a.5lal[3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California
Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet
to determine the appropriate course of action. ln considering any suggested mitigation
proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical
resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether
avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, proied
design, costs, and other considerations. lf avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate
measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the
project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is
carried out.
Mitigation Measure 9a: The proiect applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site At a
minimum, the SWPPP shall include the followinS:
. A construction schedule that restricts use of heaw equipment for excavation and grading
activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October l thru
April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff The
construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and
stabilization of disturbed soils;
. Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term
biodegradable erosion control blankets;
wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at. Silt fences, compost berms,
Hydrology and Water
Quality
5
Mitigation Measure 5b: lf paleontological resources/ such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell,
tracks, trai15, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities,
work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can
assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment
measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame. City staff shall also notify California
State Lands Commission staff upon discovering unexpected cultural resources. fX!:li!!]
disoosition of archaeological, historical, and oaleontolosical resources recovered on State
lands under the iurisdiction of the CSLC must be aooroved bv the Commission
Mitigation Measure 5c. lf human remains are discovered at any project construction sites
during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing adivity 100 feet of the resources
shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified
immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Sedion
7050.5 of California's Health and Safety code. lf the remains are determined by the county
coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be
notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the
treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a
professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field
investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendanl if any,
identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance
to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains.
The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it
deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA
Guidelines section 15054.5(e) and Public Resources Code sedion 5097.98. The proiect
applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame,
before the resumption of Sround-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains
were discovered. City staff shall also notify California State Lands Commission staff upon
discovering unexpected cultural resources.
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airpod Boulevard
Summary of Mitigation Measures
43H50 Airport Boulevard
downstream storm drain inlets;
. Good site management practices to address proper management of construction
materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products,
hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and
. The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage
structures of debris and sediment.
Mitigation Measure 9b: The project applicant before project approval, shall prepare the
appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post-construction
treatment and control of storm water runoff from the site. Post-construction treatment
measures must be designed, installed and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of
runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenan€e
party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post-construction
stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other
maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance
of a final construction inspection.
Noise Mitigation Measure 12a: The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to
implement the following measures:
. Equipment and trucks used for project construdion shall use the best available noise
controt techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake
silencers, ductt engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds,
wherever feasible).
. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and
they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation
barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.
7
lnif,al Study
Prorect Description
The City of Burlingame proposes to create an 8.8 acre public park on an undeveloped site located at 430-450
Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, California (Figures 1 and 2), on the San Francisco Bay margin (Park Site). The
site is owned by the State Lands Commission and has never been developed. The site is flat, except for slight
depressional topography where ground settling has occurred over the years. The site is perched approximately
8 to 10 feet above the mean high water line of the San Francisco Bay. An existing 2:1 slope along the shore of
the Bay is covered with concrete rubble and other monolithic slabs of concrete. No changes are proposed to
the shoreline.
The proposed project includes construction of a park with associated parking lots, concrete pathways, a
restroom facility, picnic tables and benches. The park improvements include automatic irrigation, lawn open
space, ornamental landscaping, and perimeter fencing along Airport Boulevard and Bayview Place. The only
lightinB proposed will be in the parking lots. The shoreline improvements include an asphalt bay trail with
benches and landscaping. Construction of the park will require stripping and grubbing the site, rough grading,
and a storm drainage system. The proposed project is illustrated on the attached Conceptual Master Plan and
Public Access & Open Space Plan (prepared by John Cahalan Landscape Architect, dated July 31, 2015 - Figure
3).
The decorative metal fence indicate d on the olan will b e located oarallel and adiacent to t he Bav trail (oo the
Bav side of the trail ) and will also be located on the e astern orooertv line. oarallel and a iacent to the Bav
channel. No sate s will be reouired. as it will not prev ent or imoede oublic access to the trail or Dark ooen
soace. The fence ll be 4'-0" hish and will be constru ed of 2"x2" ,ll eause galvanized sq uare steel oosts at
8'-0" on center w ith 3/8" stainless steel cables. The de sisn is intended to be visuallv unobt rusive. ooen and is
consistent with other fences alreadv in ce at several locations alon the B traav il.
The proposed project will fill all the wetlands mapped on this project site. An Alternative Analysis will be
prepared as part of the permit applications for the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The City of Burlingame proposes to purchase wetland mitigation credits
from the San Franclsco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank to satisry the wetland mitigation requirements for the
project.
It is estimated t the construction work for the Dark roiect will be comoleted betwee n Mav 15 and October
75. 20L7 .
Project Approvals
The project site is located within the City of Burlingame. The City of Burlingame is the Lead Agency responsible
for approval of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project would require the
following approvals and permits:
Approval of a Lease Agreement by the California State Lands commission.
permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission for construction of the bay trail and
amenities within the 100-foot wide 5an Francisco Bay shoreline band.
Building Permit for construction of the new restroom facility.
Permits from the U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water
Quality control Board.
8
/$0 - 45O ArDo.r Bqrevl d
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airpod Bouleva.d
FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map - Regional Location
\
MARIN
San
Half
Moon
Bay
Concord
Walnut
Creek
San
a
SAN
MATEO
remont
an
se
Richmond
Berke
Hayward
Pa
Alto
9
80
4
Val
13
80 Oakland
S. F.
'l 01
Burlinga
7
lnilialStudy 430 - 450 Aieort Boulevard
FIGURE 2: Location Map
..'., ,. .
t
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
430 - 450 Airport Blvd
APN 026-363-600
384,221 sq ft (8.82 acres)
State-owned sovereign land
^
!
flq
a
.,
\.'1
J
LLIzz
-U
Fzottt
co
10
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
FIGURE 3: Conceptual Master Plan and Public Access & Open Space Plan
I
IIt!
a
I
I
a
;I
f
a
=!I
iu
o
tt
o
UJo
!l
dll
t)-
o2
z
c
g.
t:
=
l
I
ozoo
i
i
,
iBiEttEilI
Yt
a-
=UJ
=
dl
I ':t
!D
e
i!,
i1:
I
I
1t
a
sf
!
!!
i{
o€I
9a
:l
.
iF
T
S'
6A
c.
i
*$
J
lnitialStudy 43O - 45O AiDort Boulevard
t2
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Eouleva.d
lssues (ond suppotting lnlonation so!rces):
1.
a)
b)
tr
n
nc)
AESTHETICS-Would the p.oiect:
Have a substantialadverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damaSe scenic resources, includin&
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the exi5ting visual character
or quality ofthe site and its surroundings?
Create a new source ofsubstantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
!!
tr
d)
Discussion
a)No lmpoct. The proposed project is located along Airport Boulevard and adjacent to the San Francisco
Bay. The Scenic Roads and Highways Element of the City of Burlingame Generol Plon identifies Airport
Boulevard between Broadway and Coyote Point Drive as a local scenic connector route. There are
scenic vistas ofSan Francisco Bay from Airport Boulevard acrossthesite. The proposed project will not
interfere with these views, since the only construction will be a small, one story restroom facilities
tosether with parkins lots, concrete p hwavs. low oicnic tables and benches. The proposed
landscaping and trails will enhance the views to the Bay, since the site is now surrounded by a chain
link fence which obscures views of the bay. Therefore, there will be no impact on scenic vistas.
b) No lmpod. fhe project site is currently vacant, and does not contain any scenic resources or historic
buildings. The site is not located adjacent to a state scenic highway. The project will not result in
damage to scenic resources.
c) No lmpoct. The proposed project would place attractive landscaping and open space amenities on a
site which is currently vacant and surrounded by a chain link fence. The project would improve the
existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings.
d) No tmpoct. Fhe use of the site is expected to occur primarily during dayliBht hours, and minimal safety
lighting is proposed. The project would be required to comply with exterior lighting regulations of
Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 18.16.030, which requires that the cone of light be kept entirely
on the property and requires the use of shielded light fixtures. Therefore, the proiect would have no
impact on light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
rhe city ol Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, california, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame , Municipol Code, Title 25 - zoning, Burlingame, California, 2011 edition.
City of Burlingame, Municipol Code, Title 18, Chopter 18.16 - Eledricol Code, Burlingame, California, 2010
edition.
't2
Environmental Impacts
Lets Thon
Signili.ontq Signilicont
Potentio y with LessThdn
Signili.ont Mkigdtion Signilicont
lmpod lncorporotion hnpod No lfipoct
xx
xtr
lssuet lond supporting lnlomotion sources):
2. AGRN'LTURERESOURCES
ln determinint whether impacts to agricuhural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricuhural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared bythe California
Department of Conservation as ao optional model to use in asiessing impact5 on agricuhure and farmland.
Would the prolect:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or n tr tr X
Farmland of Statewide lmportance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared purruantto the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
u5e?
b) Conflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluse,orD!trX
a Williamson Act contract?
c) lnvolve otherchanges in th€ existing envi.onment ! ! ! X
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion
a-c) No lmpoct. The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site
does not include active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the
proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on
farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City ol Burlingome Generul Plon, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments
City of Burlingame .2003. City of Burlingame Mitigdted Negotive Declorotion, File No. ND-531 P, Updote of the
Boyfront Specilic Plon. December 8, 2003
74
lnitlal Study 430 - ,(50 Anpod aolrlevad
,,ss fhon
slgnltkonto' slgnlfto,t
Potantio//y yilh Ltt fr'd,n
Si,nificont MinEodon Sig,,ifiEont
lrnpoct lncoryordtlon lmpocl No lmr,ocl
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airpod Boulevard
SignifKont or
Pot ntio y
Signficont
Leas Thdn
Signiriccnt
Mitigotion
Lass ftlon
Sbnificont
lmWtIssues lond Supporting lnlofinotion soutces):
3. AR qUAUTY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. would the prolect:
a) Conflictwithorobstructimplementationofthe!!X!
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any airquality standard or contribute ! X tr !
substantiallyto an existing or proiected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase tr El ! f1
of any criteria pollutant for which the proiect
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federalor state ambient air quality standard
(including .eleasint emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ! tr X !
concentrations?
e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a tr ! X tr
5ubstantial number of people?
Discussion
a)Less Thon Significont. A project would have a significant effect on air quality if air pollutant emissions
would cause the exceedance of ambient air quality standards, contribute to existing or proiected air
quality exceedances, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
The project area is located in San Mateo County, which is part of the san Francisco Bay Area Basin.
The regional agency primarily responsible for developing the regional ozone plans is the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is also the agency with permit authority over most
types of stationary sources in San Francisco Bay Area. BAAQMD exercises permit authority through its
Rules and Regulations. Both federal and state ozone plans rely heavily upon stationary source control
measures set forth in BAAQMD's Rules and Regulations. The overall stationary source control program
that is embodied by the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations has been developed such that new stationary
sources can be allowed to operate in the Bay Area without obstructing the goals of the regional air
quality plans.
The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards
and as a nonattainment area for the state particulate matter (PMro and PM2 s) standards. The Boy Areo
2OO5 Ozone Strotegy has been prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues. No PMle or PM25
plan has been prepared or is required under state air quality planning law. The 2005 ozone Strategy
was developed in order to bring the area into attainment of federal and State ambient air quality
standards for ozone and particulate matter violations- As noted below, the proposed project
would not result in a significant increase in emissions of particulate matter or ozone precursors
during operation. Construction emissions, with implementation of the mitigation measures below,
would also not result in significant emissions of particulate matter or ozone precursors. Therefore,
the proposed proiect would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD'S air
quality plans to bring the Air Basin into attainment for particulate matter and ozone, resulting in a
less-than-significant impact.
15
lnitialStudy 43O - 450 Airpo.t Boulevard
Construction activities at the proiect site would involve use of equipment and materials that would
emit ozone precursor emissions.
It is estimated that the construstion work for the park proiect will be completed between Mav 15 and
October 15, 20L7. Anticipated construction eouipment that will be needed for construction of the park
facilities and parkins lots includes
2 Bulldozers
1 Front end loader
3 end dump tru (o n sit eatat tme
rader
1 water truck
2 rollers (compacters)
l excavator
r l backhoe
l concrete truck on site at a time)
l asphalt vinp machine
8 pickuo trucks
l flatbed truck
.1
with respect to the construction phase of the project, applicable BAAQM D regulations would relate to
portable equipment (e.9., Portland concrete batch plants, and Sasoline- or diesel-powered engines
used for power generation, pumps, compressors, pile drivers, and cranes), architectural coatings, and
paving materials. Project construction would be subject to the requirements of BAAQMD Rules and
Regulations.
With respect to the operational-phase of the proiect, emissions would be Senerated primarily from
motor vehicle trips to the project site. lt is expected that the park facility will be used by people who
work in the area and those staying in local hotels, as well as local residents who may drive to the site
to use the park and to access the adjacent bay trail. According to the ITE Trip Generation, the
proposed park facility is expected to generate approximately 12 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
The minor increase in vehicle trips generated by the project would only marginally increase daily
emissions of ozone precursors and PM16 and would be well below BAAQMD established thresholds for
consideration of a significant impact. Consequently, the pro.lect would not affect air quality in the
region or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plans. Any
stationary sources on site would be sub.lect to the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Compliance with
BAAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensure that the project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plans.
b, c) Less Thon Signilicont with Mitigotion The proposed project includes construction of a new restroom
facility, two parking lots, public access pathways, picnic areas and benches, as well as landscaping of
the site. The project would affect local pollutant concentrations in two ways. First, during proiect
construction, the project would affect local particulate concentrations by generating dust. Over the
long term, the project would result in emissions due to motor vehicle trips associated with the park
use proposed by the project, and the motor vehicle trips would affect carbon monoxide concentrations
along the local road network.
During construction, the project would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including
suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. Project-related
15
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airpon Boulevard
construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, earthmoving, and general
construction activities. Construction-related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day,
depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. ln the absence of
mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local
visibility and PMo and PM25 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and
intermittent basis during the construction period. ln addition, the fugitive dust generated by
construction would include not only PM1o, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the
atmosphere within several hundred feet of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts.
Mitigation Measure 3a: During construction, the project sponsor shall require the
construction contractor to implement the following measures required as part of BAAQMD's
basic and enhanced dust control procedures required for all construction sites. These include:
Water all active construction areas daily. watering should be sufficient to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site. lncreased watering frequency may be necessary
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used
whenever possible.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access
roads, parkinB areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of
each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible. ln addition, building
pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
Once complete and in use, the proposed project would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants,
primarily as a result of motor vehicle traffic. The project could affect localized carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations at nearby intersections. However, CO levels have been declining for a number of years
and are expected to continue to do so in the future, and the relatively small number of vehicle trips
t7
The BAAQMD considers any proiect's construction related impacts to be less than significant if the
required dust-control measures are implemented. Without these measures, the impact is generally
considered to be significant, particularly if sensitive land uses are located in the proiect vicinity.
BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children,
the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include
residences, school playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals
and medical clinics. ln the case ofthis proiect, there are no sensitive receptors located adiacent to the
project site. The proposed project would be subject to the measures recommended by the BAAQMO
(listed below in Mitigation Measure 3a), which would reduce construction-related PMto and PMz 5
emissions to a less than significant level.
Cover all trucks haulinB soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the
top of the load and the top of the trailer).
lnitial study 430 - 450 Aiport Boulevad
that the project would generate, would not violate the state CO standard at any local intersections
Therefore, the projea would not result in a violation of the state or federal standards for CO.
d)Less Thon Significont. BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor
population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located.
These land uses include residences, school playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes,
convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. There are no facilities where sensitive receptor
population groups are likely to be located adjacent to the project site. ln any event, the pro.iect is not
expected to generate pollutants in sufficient concentrations to impact sensitive receptors. Therefore,
the proposed project would not be considered to expose sensitive receptors to significant risks from
emissions of diesel particulate matter.
During construction, occupants of the surrounding businesses may experience occasional odors from
diesel equipment exhaust and the application of architectural coatings during construction. This effect
would be intermittent, would be contingent on prevailing wind conditions, and occur only during
construction activities. The generation of diesel odors during construction would occur during daytime
hours only and would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity, and
these emissions would not affect a substantial amount of people; therefore, the impact is considered
less than significant.
e)Less Thon Significont. As a general matter, the types of land use development that pose potential odor
problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, composting facilities, and transfer
stations. No such uses would occupy the project site. Therefore, the project would not create
objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people' Also, there are no existing
odor sources in the vicinlty of the proiect site that would impact future occupants of the project site.
Project odor impacts are therefore considered to be less-than-significant.
Sources
The City of Burtingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, Califo ,nia, 2O!O,2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments
City of Burlingame .2O03. City of Burlingome Mitigdted Negotive Declorution, File No. ND-531 P, Updote ol the
Boyfront Specific P/on. December 8, 2003
Bay Area Air Quality Management oisttict, RAAQMD CEQA guidelines, Assessing the Air Quolity lmpocts of
Projects ond Plons. December, 1999.
18
California Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board (CARB). Air QuoliU ond Lond Use
Hondbook: A Community Heolth Percpective. Aptil,2005.
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Itsues ldtd Suppotting lnlonct:ton Sources):
4. BIOLOGICAIRESOURCES-
would the prored:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or reSional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in localor regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.5. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by S€ction 404 of
the Clean WaterAd (including, but not limited to,
march, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)or state-protected
wetlands, through direct removal, fillin&
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) lnterfere substantially with the movement ofany
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or mitratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildllfe nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
0 Fundamentally conflict with the provisions ofan
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conseNation plan?
tr
tr atr
tr
tr x tr
tr
x
Nestint Raptors and other Nesting Eirds (excluding BurrowinB Owll
All raptors (that is, birds of prey) and all migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (50 CFR 10.13) and their eggs and young are protected under California Eish and Game Codes
Sections 3503,3503.5. Any project-related impacts to nesting and migratory bird species would be
considered a significant adverse impact.
ln order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and other bird species projected pursuant to the Migratory
Bird Act, nesting surveys shall be conducted prior to commencing with construction work if this work
would commence between February 1st and August 31'r. The nesting surveys shall include
examination of all trees within 2OO feet of the entire project site, not .lust trees slated for removal on
the pro.iect site.
An early survey should be conducted in February or March if construction is proposed to commence
between February 1't and June 1st. lf construction has not commenced by the end of March, a second
nesting survey shall be conducted in April/May, whichever month is within 30 days of the
19
Discussion
al Less Thon Significont with Mitigotion lncorporotion.
Lets fhon
Signiflcootot S,grrulccnt
Potanahlty wlth Less fhan
Signt'lkdnt Mldgotton Slgnifrcant
hnpoct lncorpotuaion tmpoct No,mpoct
x tr tr
trtr
trtr
tr
lnilal Stridy 43O - 450 Airporl Boulevard
commencement of construction. lf construction would commence after May but before 5eptember li,
then the second survey shall be conducted within the 30 day period prior to site disturbance.
lf common (that is, not special-status) birds for example, California towhee, western scrub iay, or
acorn woodpeckers are identified nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer
of 50 feet should be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The buffer
should be demarcated with painted orange lath or via the installation of orange construction fencing.
Disturbance within the buffer should be postponed until it is determined by a qualified ornithologist
that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the area or that the
nesting cycle has otherwise completed. Typically, most passerine birds in the region of the project site
are expected to complete nesting by August 1't. However, many species can complete nesting by the
end of lune or in early to midJuly. Regardless, nesting buffers should be maintained until August 1't
unless a qualified ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests
at an earlier date. lf buffers are removed prior to August 1't, the qualified biologist conducting the
nesting surveys should prepare a report that provides details about the nesting outcome and the
removal of buffers. This report should be submitted to the City of Burlingame prior to the time that
nest protection buffers are removed if the date is before August 1st.
Potential impacts to nesting raptors and other nesting bird species would be reduced to a level
considered less-than-significant pursuant to the CEQA through Mitigation Measure 4a.
Mitigation Measure 4a: ln order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and other bird species
pro.jected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Act, nesting surveys shall be conducted prior to
commencing with construction work if this work would commence between February 1st
and August 31st.The nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees within 200 feet
of the entire project site.
Western Burrowint Owl
The closest known record for western burrowing owl is located 2.3 miles southeast of the project site
in the City of San Mateo (CNDDB Occurrence No. 1105). There is a low potentialfor this species to nest
in the anthropogenic/ruderal habitat on the proiect site due to the overgrown vegetation and a
noticeable absence of burrowing mammals (e.g. ground squirrels). M&A did not identify any suitable
burrows within the proiect area during our surveys. M&A biologists have not observed this owl on or
adiacent to the project site.
20
lf nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree must be fenced with
orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the project site), and a 200-foot radius around the
nest tree must be staked with bright orange lath or other suitable staking. lf the tree is located off the
pro.iect site, then the buffer shall be demarcated per above where the buffer occurs on the pro.iect
sile. The size of the bufier moy be oltered if o qualified roptor biologist conducts behaviorol
obseNotions ond determines the nesting roptors ore well occlimoted to disturbance.lf this occurs, the
raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue
disturbance/harassment to the nesting raptors. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur
within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have
fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction
zones. This typically occurs by July 15th. This date may be earlier or later, and would have to be
determined by a qualified raptor biologist. lf a qualified biologist is not hired to watch the nesting
raptors then the buffers shall be maintained in place through the month of August and work within the
buffer can commence September I't.
lnitial Study
While western burrowing owls are not currently known to occur on the site, this is a mobile species
that could move onto the project site in the future. lmpacts to western burrowing owls from the
proposed project could be potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. This impact could be mitiBated to a
level considered less than significant pursuant to the CEOA through Mitigation Measure 4b.
MitiFtion Measure 4b: Based on the presence of this species in the project vicinity and
the potential habitat found on the project site, a preconstruction survey for burrowing
owls should be conducted 14 days prior or less to initiating ground disturbance. As
burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, time lapses between proiect
activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final
survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to ensure absence. lf no
owls are found during these surveys, no further regard for the burrowing owl would be
necessary,
b. lf burrowing owls are detected on the site, the following restricted activity dates and setback
distances are recommended per CDFw's Staff Report (2012).
From April l through October 15, low disturbance and medium disturbance activities
should have a 200 meter buffer while high disturbance activities should have a 500 meter
buffer from occupied nests.
From October 16 through March 31, low disturbance activities should have a 50 meter
buffer, medium disturbance activities should have a 100 meter buffer, and high
disturbance activities should have a 500 meter buffer from occupied nests.
No earth-moving activities or other disturbance should occur within the afore-mentioned
buffer zones of occupied burrows. These buffer zones should be fenced as well. lf
burrowing owls were found in the project area, a qualified biologist would also need to
delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site.
Less Thdn Significont with Mitigdtion lncorporotion. A Request for a Ju risdictional Determination was
submitted to the Corps of Engineers (Corps) on tebruary 10, 2015. The Corps conducted a site
verification visit on March 5, 2015. On April 1, 2015 the Corps confirmed jurisdiction over 0.42-acre of
waters of the U.5. on the project site. The confirmed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Map is
shown on Figures 4 and 5.
lmpacts to waters of the United States and/or State can be reduced to less-than-significant levels
through various means, including avoidance, minimization of impacts, and mitigation compensation.
b)
2t
430 - 450 Airport Boulevad
a. Burrowing owl surveys should be conducted by walking the entire project site. Pedestrian
survey transects should be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface.
The distance between transect center lines should be 7 meters to 20 meters and should be
reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility.
Poor weather may affect the surveyo/s ability to detect burrowing owls thus, avoid
conducting surveys when wind speed is greater than 20 kilometers per hour and there is
precipitation or dense fog. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied
burrows should be avoided by a minimum of 50 meters (approximately 150 ft.) wherever
practicalto avoid flushing occupied burrows. Disturbance to occupied burrows should be
avoided during all seasons.
Based on the Corps confirmed map, iurisdictional areas will be avoided by the project where possible.
Because full avoidance of waters of the United States is probably not possible, potential impacts shall
lnif,al Study 430 - 450 Ailporl Bouleva.d
be minimized to the extent feasible through changes to project design. lmpacts shall also be minimized
by the use of Best Management Practices to protect preserved features and ensure water quality.
These practices can include installing orange construction fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and other
protective measures. During project construction, a biological monitor shall be on-site to monitor the
integrity of waters and prevent impacts to the adjacent San Francisco Bay.
The proposed project will fill all the wetlands mapped on this project site. For those wetland areas that
cannot be avoided, permits from the Corps and RWQCB shall be acquired that allows the removal of
specified wetlands An Alternative Analysis will be prepared as part of the permit applications for the
RWQCB and the Corps.
Potential impacts to waters ofthe United States/State would be reduced to a level considered less-
than-significant pursuant to the CEQA through the measures described above, as summarized in
Mititation Measure 4c.
Mitigation Measure rk: The City of Burlingame proposes to purchase wetland mitigation
credits from the San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank to satisfy the wetland
mitigation requirements for this pro.iect. An Alternative Analysis for the wetlands to be
filled on the site shall be prepared as part of the permit applications for the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the U.S. Army corps of Engineers (Corps).
The pro.iect site is within BCDC jurisdiction. A portion of the park project will be within 100 feet of the
Bay shoreline. lmpacts to BCDC jurisdiction would be regarded as a significant impact. This impact
could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Potential impacts to BCDC.lurisdiction
would be reduced to a level considered less-than-significant pursuant to the CEQA with Mitigation
Measure 4d.
Mitigation Measure 4d: A BCDC permit application will be required for this project. The
project is in compliance with BCDC policies since the proposed pro.iect will improve public
access to the Bay, and will incorporate mitigation requirements to offset the adverse
environmental impacts of the proiect.
22
FIGURE 4: Confirmed Wetland Delineation Map
430 - 450 Ajrport Boulevard
c 3
T
s a3
]E
EI:tiB
ii!
=l
d
:Etroo5,l
I
li ;i f 3 '
9i a ;
Jt t-;
ilii:til, i
irt
E,:!;5
4telE B'ji 1
tr rETi;YU
I
cirli
,l ii
:iiiii!:li
23
lnitialStudy
3
J
r
!
I
a
i
a
T
t,
I
]r:-
11
i1
E
\
-4
{<.
,
{il.s
4
I
7
o
I
C
o-
.D
a
i
I
:
t.
lnilialStrxly 43O - 450 Aarpo( Boulevad
FIGURE 5: Confirmed wetland Delineation Map
Ili:lililr
;1: Ii'iill
,t'
III
I
I
I
aA
?,o
irs
lE=E9Jirlritri:et
;;
,trii
,i !l!liii:!lii,i=i4
a
/.I
ltNI
t,
ii
ii!l:t
iiI
?I
^l!a!ra:iiDfI
ll.r'
t!iiilr"
e:li
g s 3
r-r
a
E
6
af,Eo
o .grJ5
-gst5s.5i
_=;A
F € ?;*;3€ou>=
i ;'
2
B i ]]
24
I
!
*-Jr--146=ar;-- --r-- := --
- =:-- -' fi
,
t
8.
E q
E
,
,
.E
Er
,-
E
,ir
E
F.
r
I
in
\'!
rl"*
8Gft
e
E
d
. r.!
t
I4E
i
F ./
.3.
"'Q
a
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Eoulevard
d)Less Thdn Signilicart. Wildlife corridors are linear and/or regional habitats that provide connectivity
to other natural vegetation communities within a landscape fractured by urbanization and other
development. Wildlife corridors have several functions: 1) they provide avenues along which wide-
ranging animals can travel, migrate, and breed, allowing genetic interchange to occur; 2) populations
can move in response to environmental changes and natural disasters; and 3) individuals can
recolonize habitats from which populations have been locally extirpated (Beier and Loe 1992). All
three of these functions can be met if both regional and local wildlife corridors are accessible to
wildlife. Regional wildlife corridors provide foraging, breeding, and retreat areas for migrating,
dispersing, immigrating, and emigratinB wildlife populations. Local wildlife corridors also provide
access routes to food, cover, and water resources within restricted habitats.
No lmpoct. Chapter 11.06 (Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection) of the Burlingame Municipal
Code calls for the preservation of trees and vegetation, which are considered a vital part of the
City's character. The City defines a "Protected Tree" as any tree with a circumference greater than
48 inches when measured 54 inches above natural grade. There are no protected size trees on the
project site.
With this application, extensive landscaping is proposed alonB the perimeter of the site, with a large
grass area covering the remainder ofthe site. Landscaping would also be provided along the proposed
Bay trail. The proposed pro.iect would not conflict with the local Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protection Ordinance calling for the preservation of any existing trees and adding new trees.
The City's Generol Plon - Conservation Element, encourages the planting of "indigenous materials .
While the planting of non-native, ornamental species in landscaping the project site would not violate
any policies, the project sponsor should give preference to planting species native to the project site.
No lmpoct. No natural communities exist in the vicinity of the proposed project area and there are no
Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plans that apply to this part of Burlingame.
Sources
The City of Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, 2OLO,2OO2,1985 and 1984 amendments.
Biologicol Resource Anolysis, Boyview Pork Project, November 9,2015, prepared by Monk & Associates
Environmental Consultants.
f)
The proposed project will not interfere with the movement of native wildlife. The pro.iect site is
located on "reclaimed" land on the edge of the San Francisco Bay. The project site is undeveloped
land comprised primarily of ruderal (weedy) vegetation growing on highly compacted fill material
mixed with gravel. Along the northern edge of the site there is a gravel pedestrian trail, and concrete
rubble provides erosion protection along the edge of the San Francisco Bay. Adjacent to the west is a
vacant, compacted gravel parking area and a restaurant with a parking lot. The southern project site
boundary is defined by Bayview Place and Airport Boulevard. Power lines are located along Airport
Boulevard, and there are office buildings and a high rise hotel with additional parking lots adjacent to
the south. To the east there is a parking lot and the Sanchez Creek Lagoon. The surrounding land uses
effectively isolate the project site from wildlife movements. Therefore, development of this project
site would not impact wildlife movement. No mitigation for wildlife corridors should be required.
e)
25
lnilial Study 430 - 450 AjDort Boulevad
Revised Request for Jurisdictional Determinotion Bowiew Pork Proiect, February 10, 2015, prepared by Monk &
Associates Enviro nmental Consu lta nts.
Preliminory Jurisdictionol Determinotioo U.5. Army Corps of Engineers, June 1, 2015
Response Letter: City ol Burlingome, Applicotion Ior Generol Leose-Agency Use of Sovereign lond, 50n Mateo
county, Californio (File Ref: w2669), August 11,2015, prepared by Monk & Associates Environmental
Consultants.
Mop of Areos of Speciol Biologicol lmportonce, Son Froncisco ond Son Moteo Counties, Colifornio, Slale
Department of Fish and Game.
Biologicol Constroints Anolysis for the Burlingome Boylront Specific Plan, September 13, 2002, prepared by
Environmental Collaborative
City of Burlingame .2003. City ol Burlingome Mitigated Negotive Declorotion, File No. ND-531 P, Updote ofthe
Boylront Specilic Pldn. December 8, 2003
26
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lssues (ond Suppoftlng lnlormoti.m Sources):
tr tr tr
Discussion
o)
D'
n
tr
tr
tr
!
tr
x
x
tr
Less Thon Signilicont with Mitigotion The project site is vacant, and is partofthe larger Bayfront area
which is primarily developed with office, hotel and restaurant uses in the general vicinity of the project
site. Originally, the project site and surrounding area was a tidal area and marshland, which was built-
up with imported fill in the 1950s and 1960s. There has been no development on this site since it was
filled. Therefore, there is no record of historic resources on this site.
California State Lands Commission staff maintains a Shipwreck Database of known shipwrecks and
potentia I vessels located on the State's tide and submerged lands. However, the location of many
shipwrecks remains unknown. Please note that any submerged archaeological site or submerged
historic resource that has remained in State waters for more than 50 years is presumed to be
significant.
Title to all abandoned shipwreck, archaeological sites, and historic or cultural resources on or in the
tide and submerged lands of California is vested in the State and under the jurisdiction of the CSLC. lf
any cultural resources are discovered on state lands during Project implementation, City staff will
consult with Senior Staff Counsel at the CSLC.
Less Thon Significont with Mitigdtion- Archeological resources are the physical remains of the human
occupation and/or use of a location. These resources include both prehistoric (Native American) and
historic-aBe artifacts, such as projectile points, shell beads, glass, ceramics, and metal and features,
such as shellmounds, fire hearths, bedrock mortars, and building foundatlons. Shellmounds are
generally prehistoric features composed of discarded dietary remains and utilized artifact remains
includinB marine shell, bone, and stone implements.
For Eastern San Mateo County, archaeological resources are generally situated near 5an Francisco Bay
and on terraces adjacent to intermittent or perennial creeks or springs, along ridges, and on broad or
moderately wide mid-slope terraces. Archaeological resources in the vicinity of the City of Burlingame,
such as prehistoric shellmounds, have been found adjacent to the Bay shore and inland areas adjacent
to creeks. Areas associated with these environmental characteristics are suggestive of areas with high
archaeological sensitivity.
27
k$fhdngts,tiftccrrt& SErnfkont
Pd.ntlo y wtt lEss fhan
slgnlffc.at Mltlgotion Signitkont
hnpd lncorpototion lrnpcca Nolrnwa
5. CULTURAI.RESOURCES_
Would the proiect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as detined in
915064.5?
b) Guse a substantialadverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to 51509.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique Seologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
x
n
lnitialstudy 430 - 45O Airrtort Boulevard
Proiect related constructlon activities involving ground-disturbance during construction could resuft in
significant impacts, if any unknown culturally significant sites are discovered. lf remains were
unearthed durinB project construction, damage to or destruction of significant archaeological remains
would be a potentially significant impact. Potential impacts to archeological resources would be
reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5a.
Mitigation Measure 5a: ln the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural
resources are discovered during Bround disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the
resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified
archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. City
staff shall also notify California State Lands Commission staff upon discovering unexpected
cultural resources contact: CSLC Assistant Chief Counsel Pam Gr 9t6-57 4-L854
Pa m e la. G rigqs @ slc. ca.gov)lf any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines
150il.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California
Publlc Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to
determine the appropriate course of action. ln considering any suggested mitigation proposed
by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique
archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and
feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, pro.iect design, costs, and other
considerations. lf avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.9., data recovery)
shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for
historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out.
Less Thon Signit'icont with Mitigotion. PaleontoloBical resources are the fossilized remains and/or
traces of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains, such
as bones, teeth, shells, and wood, are found in geologic deposits (rock formations). The pro.iect vicinity
has been developed and no known paleontological resources have been recorded. Because the
proposed project would result in minimal excavation in bedrock conditions, significant paleontologic
discovery would be unlikely. However, significant fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of
supposed low sensitivity. ln the event a paleontologic resource is encountered during project activities,
implementation of Mititation Measure 5b would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 5b: lf paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell,
tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities,
work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can
assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures
in consultation with the City of Burlingame. City staff shall also notify California State Lands
Commission staff upon discovering unexpected cultural resources. The final disoosition of
archaeolosical, historical, and paleontolosical resources recovered on State lands under the
iurisdiction of the csLC must be aporoved bv the Commission
Less thon Signilicont with Mitigation The site has no known human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries. Howevet it is impossible to be sure about the presence or absence of
human remains on a site until site excavation and grading occurs. The proposed project requires
minimal excavation and grading, therefore there is a low likelihood that human remains will be
encountered. with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5c, however, the impact is considered less-
than-significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure 5c. lf human remains are discovered at any project construction sites
c)
d)
28
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airpo.t Boulevard
during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall
be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately,
according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Sectlon 7050.5 of
California's Health and Safety Code. lf the remains are determined by the County coroner to be
Native American, the Native American HeritaBe Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24
hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of
the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native
American burial experience to conduct a field investiSation of the specific site and consult with
the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist
may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation
and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of
recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State
law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section
5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitiBation, to be verified by the City
of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where
the remains were discovered. City staff shall also notify California State Lands Commission staff
upon discovering unexpected cultural resources.
Sources
Sanborn Map Company, City of Burlingame, 1965.
City of Burlingame .2@3. City of Burlingdme Mitigoted Negotive Declorotion, File No. ND-531 P, Updote of the
Bayfront SpeciJic Plon. December 8, 2003
The City ol Burtingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, 2OLO,2W2,1985 and 1984 amendments'
29
lnitjalSludy 430 - 450 Airport Eoulevard
lssues (ond Suppotting lnlormotion sottc.s):
5. GEOTOGY ANDSOILS-Would the proie€t:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, iniury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist forthe area or based on other
substantialevidence of a known fault? Refer to
Divirion of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related Sround failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) 8e located on geolotic unit or soil that is unstable,
o.that would become unstable as a result ofthe
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreadint, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive roil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Euilding Code (1994, as
it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable ofadequately supporting the
u5e of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
trE
XE
tr
tr!trtr
tr
tr
tr
D
xx n
tr
EIE] nEl
XE
Oiscussion
a. i)Less Thon significont. The site is approximately three miles from the san Andreas Fault, but is not
within the Alquist-Priola zone or on or immediately adjacent to an active or potentially active fault.
The active faults nearest to the project site are the San Andreas, located approximately three miles
southwest of the proiect site, the Serra Fault, a minor thrust fault considered to have common roots
with the san Andreas Fault located approximately 2.5 miles from the project site, and the Hayward
Fault, located approximately 16 miles northeast. As the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone nor on or immediately adjacent to an active fault, fault rupture hazards
associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant.
a.ii,iii) tess Thon Signilicont with Mitigotion. The City of Burlingame is located in a seismically active region.
Recent studies by the USGS indicate that there is a 63 percent mean probability of a Richter
magnitude 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the Bay Area within the next 30 years, and a 21
percent mean probability that one or more earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.7 or greater will
occur on the San Andreas fault within the next 30 years. The pro.iect site could experience a range of
ground shaking effects during an earthquake on one of the aforementioned Bay Area faults. An
uake on the San Andreas fault could result in very strong ground shaking intensities. Ground
trtr
ea rthq
30
LE s fhon
Slgnif6ontor signffl.ont
Pdenticly sith L.ss thon
Significont Mitigctlon sDntlcont
lmpod htcot?otc$on lfipoct tlo,mpod
!tr
!
!trB
n
!
tr
trtr!
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
shaking of this intensity could result in moderate damage, such as collapsing chimneys and falling
plaster. Seismic shaking of this intensity can also trigger ground failures caused by liquefaction,
potentially resulting in foundation damage, disruption of utility service and roadway damage. The
project site is underlain by materials that can cause moderately high shaking amplification, and is
immediately adjacent to an area considered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to
have a low to moderate potentialfor liquefaction (ABAC, 2008).
The California Geological Survey (CGS) Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment Program estimates
peak ground accelerations in the atluvium at the site would be 0.7429 and short term (0.2 seconds)
would be 1.601g. The 2010 California Building Code (CBC) incorporates attenuation relationships
developed by the CGS's Program and considers vibration contributions from multiple seismic sources,
including those generated by the nearby 5an Andreas fault and those of more distant, potentially
damaging, faults in the South and East Bay. The resultant map (Figure 16f3.5(3) of the 2010 CBC) of
short term (0.2 second) ground response provides peak ground acceleration values for the San
Francisco Bay Area. The 2010 CBC requires the design earthquake (i.e., the maximum considered
earthquake acceleration response for a given site) to be calculated using 2/3 of the mapped
acceleration value. Adherence to CBC Section 1613 would ensure that construction at the project site
would be capable of withstanding the maximum considered groundshaking.
The Proiect could experience a range of groundshaking effects during an earthquake on a Bay Area
fault, particularly the san Andreas fault. A characteristic earthquake on the San Andreas fault could
result in very strong (Modified Mercalli lntensity Vlll) groundshaking intensities.' Groundshaking of this
intensity would result in heavily damaged or destroyed masonry, damage to foundations, and shifting
of frame structures (if not bolted down) off their foundations. Development at the project site would
be required to comply with construction standards and seismic desiSn criteria contained in the CBC as
adopted by the City.
Although the potential for seismic groundshaking to occur at the site is unavoidable, the risk of
excessive, permanent damage to the building is anticipated to be relatively minor because the
structural design would be required to adhere to the Building Code standards. Therefore,
groundshaking hazards are considered less than significant.
a.iv) Less Thon Significont. The project site is relatively level. Because the site is not a steep or unstable
slope and does not have irregular surface, natural slope instability is not a concern. Therefore,
because the ground surface at the project site is flat with no steep or unstable adjacent slopes, there
would be no impact from landslide hazard.
b)Less Thon Significont. The proposed project is not expected to create substantial erosion or loss of
topsoil because most of the pro.iect site will be landscaped or paved at the completion of
construction. Construction activities would be required to comply with the California Buildin8
Code, which regulates drainage and erosion control activities for excavations. Soil erosion after
construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans, as
needed. conformance with city grading standards and the county's stormwater Management
plan would ensure that substantial erosion would not occur as a result of construction and
implementation of the proposed project. Consequently, this potential impact would be less than
significant,
Less Thon Significont with Mitigotion. The site is relatively level and does not have a history of
landslides. The Project site is mapped as urban Land-orthents (65 percent urban Land, 30 percent
Orthents and similar soils, and 4 percent minor components) by the Natural Resources Conservation
c,d)
31
lnilial Study 43O - 45O AiDort Boulevad
Service. The underlying soil forming materials (native soils) are mapped by the U.5. Geological Survey
as alluvial fan and fluvial deposits less than 10,000 years old. Under seismic conditions most
Burlingame soils are reasonably stable. This site is in an area of moderate to low (0.1- 1% probabilityl
liquefaction susceptibility.
The project will be required to be designed to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards,
of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for
structural stability. The proiect would conform to the city's Building Code requirement that a site-
specific soils report identify any potentially unsuitable soil conditions and incorporate design
recommendations accordingly. Grading and foundation workwould be required to comply
with the CBC, which specifies the safety requirements to be fulfilled for site work, including the
protection of adjacent properties from damage during excavation. This would include the
prevention of subsidence of pavement or foundations caused by dewatering. Consequently, the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with soil or slope instability
related to subsidence or expansive, liquefiable, or collapsible soils.
The site was reclaimed from San Francisco Bay by constructing perimeter dikes of concrete rubble and
filling behind the dikes with soil and rubble. The surrounding soil and geological materials form a
buttress that would prevent the lateral movement of soil during liquefaction or lurching caused by an
earthquake. The soils and/or geologic materials supporting the building foundation at the site would
be required by the Building Code to be engineered to prevent liquefaction and to resist the lateral
forces imposed by earthquakes. Adherence to the requirements of the CBC would ensure the
maximum practicable stability of the pro.iect site and would reduce the potential for lateral spreading
and liquefaction to a less-than-significant level.
e)No lmpact. The proposed project would dispose of wastewater using existing wastewater
infrastructure operated by the City of Burlingame. There are no septic or alternative wastewater
systems proposed as part ofthe proposed project; therefore, no impact would result.
Sources
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps,
http://sis.aba ca.eov/website/liquefactionsusce Dtibilitv/, accessed October, 2012.
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. gonilla, Londslide Susceptibility in Son Mdteo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulotive Domage Potential lrom Eorthquake Ground Shoking, U.S.G.S- Map
MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987.
ABAG, Shaking lntensity Map, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/mapsba.html, accessed February 18,
2011.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey of San
Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. Website: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.
usda.gov/app/Websoilsurvey.aspx, accessed February 16, 2011.
Brabb, E. E., R.W. Graymer, and D. L. Jones, Geology of the onshore part of San Mateo County, California: A
Digital Database, United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-137, 1998.
32
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lssuei (ond suppodtng lnrormotion
Signiricdnt
Lett Thdn
SiEnifkdnt
Mitigotion Sisnilicont
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissiont-Would the proi€<t:
a) 6enerate greenhouse gas emis5ions, either diredly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflid with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducingthe
emissionr of greenhou5e gaset?
tr !
tr
Discussion
a,b) Less Thon Signilicont Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases because
they transform the liBht of the sun into heat, similar to the glass walls of a greenhouse. Common
greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides,
chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, ozone, and
aerosols. However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity
production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere
beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly since the late 18'h century as a result
of human activities and now far exceed pr+ industrial values. The Sreenhouse gas emissions from
an individual proiect, even a very large development project, would not individually generate
sufficient greenhouse gas emissions to measurably influence global climate change. However,
climate change has an irreversible, significant cumulative impact on a global scale. Consideration
of a project's impact to climate change, therefore, is essentially an analysis of a proiect's
contribution to a cumulatively significant global impact through its emission ofgreenhouse gases.
Localjurisdictions, such as the City of Burlingame, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air
pollution through their police power and decision-making authority. The city released a climate
Action plan (BCAP) in June 2009. The BCAP serves as a guiding document to identify methods that
the City and community can implement to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. lt is an
important first step toward meeting the requirements mandated by new California legislation, known
as Assembly Bill 32, california's Global warming solutions Act of 2006, which requires emissions to be
reduced 15% below current levels (as measured in 2OO5) by the year 2020 and to be reduced by 80% by
the year 2050.
Burlingame's community emissions inventory provides a baseline of emission levels against which
future reductions can be measured. The analysis showed that the community of Burlingame released
33G,944 metric tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) in the base year of 2005. The transportation
sector accounted for 60% of the emissions and the commercial sector accounted fot 22%. These two
sectors were the largest sources of emissions from the Burlingame community. Emissions from the
residential sector accounted for 14%, and the waste sector accounted for 4% of the emissions.
55
To maintain consistency with the AB 32 emission reduction targets, the Task Force recommended that
Burlingame reduce emissions by 15% below the base year by 2020 and 8oo/o by the year 2050.
Burlingame's 2005 base year emissions were 336,944 metric tons of CO2e. To reduce emissions to 15%
below 2OO5 baseline levels by 2020, the community would need to reduce emissions by 50,542 metric
tons to 286,402 metric tons during that period.
a
lnitalStudy 430 - 450 Ajrpo{t Eoirlevad
Table 1 identifies the 2005 base year emissions, the target year reduction and the estimated annual
required emissions to meet the 2020 reduction target. A total of 50,542 metric tons is the minimum
reduction needed for Burlingame to meet the 2020 target and the needed reduction in tons could be as
high as 122,378 metrics tons if Burlingame consumption trends continue. The estimated annual
reduction is in the range of 5,054 tons to 12,238 tons per year to meet the target year. These
reductions are challenging but are in line with the goals of many Bay Area cities.
Table 1- Burli me GHG Emissions
Burlingame's Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term solutions to reduce its
emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful consideration of
the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major sources of
emissions from Burlingame's Community Greenhouse lnventory. The five major focus areas include:
energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal
programs.
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for
state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards.
SFBAAB'S nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history, Past, present and
future development prorects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative
basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulatlve impact. No single project is sufficient in
size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. lnstead, a project's
individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. lf a
project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the proiect's impact on air quality
would be considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT
CoZelSP/vr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential,
commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
2005 Base Year 2020 "Business-
as-Usual"
336,944
286,402 286,4022020 Target Year Reduction (15% below 2005 levels)
(s0,s42)(722,378].Emissions Reductions Necessary to Meet Target
29.9%75.O%Required Percentage Emissions Reduction
(s,0s4)(L2,238\Required Annual Emissions Reductions (2010-2020)
34
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project
would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce
statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. lf a project would generate
GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a
cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.
408,7802005 Base Year Emissions (metric tons CO2el
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of COze.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and
equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. lf
annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed proiect would
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively
significant impact to global climate change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. lf a
project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the
screening criteria, then the proiect's air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Below
are some screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/20]:0
(Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening LevelSizes).
Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size *'
Single-family
Apartment, low-rise 78 du
Apartment, mid-rise 87 du
Condo/townhouse, general 78 du
City park 600 acres
Day-care center 11,000 sf
General office building 53,000 sf
Medical office building 22,000 sf
Office park 50,000 sf
Quality restaurant 9,000 sf
**lf project size is => screening size, then it is considered significant
As noted in the above table, a City park would require operational GHG screening if it is 600 acres or
more. The proposed 8.8 acre site is well below the operational screening criteria. Therefore, the project
would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment nor would it conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
2 Bulldozers
1 Front end loader
3 end dump t rucks (on site at a time)
l grader
1 water truck
35
56 du
To further supoort these conclusions. GHG emissions have been estimated for the construction and
operation of the oroposed park utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod.2013.2.2)
(Table 2). CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model desisned to provide a uniform
platform for government agencies, land use olanners. and environmental orofessionals to ouantifv
ootential criteria oollutant and qreenhouse sas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and
oDerations from a varietv of land use oroiects. The model ouantifies direct emissions from construction
and ooerations (includine vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions. such as GHG emissions from energv
use, solid waste disoosal, veqetation Dlantinq and/or removal, and water use.
For construction, it is estimated that the construction work for the oroiect will take aooroximatelv six
months and involve the followinq construction eouiDment:
lnilhlStudy 430 - 450 Airpo( Boul€vad
. 2 rollers (comoacte6)
. l excavator
L backhoe
l concrete truck on site at a time)
l asohalt avi ns ma ch ine
. 8 Dickuo trucks
. l flatbed truck
Construction of the oroie would senerate more GHG emissions that operat ion of the oark. Assumins
the six-month construction ti meframe utilizins the equipment listed above, the annual emission of CO2e
tim a ted to be 428.80 m Ptria fons oP r MT . These emissio lll.l hc a o n ime event
however. and as a Doint of reference would be below the BAAQMD threshold 1 .100 metric tons oer vear
(MT/vr) of CO2e for the ooerations of a land use d ment oroiect
Table HG Emissions P
428.80Mitisated C onstruction
2L.66MitieatedODerations
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
City of Burlingame , climote Action Plon, Burlingame, california, June, 2009.
BAAQMD CEQA Air Qudlity Guidelines, OO|aOLo
For operations, the 8.8 acre oark was modeled as shown in Figure 3, with landscaDinP consisting of a
lawn open sDace, ornamental landscaoinq. and aooroximatelv 100 new trees. With these oarameters,
the annual emission of CO2e is estimated to be 21.66 metric tons oer vear (MT/vr). which is sienificantlv
below the BAAOMD threshold 1,100 metric tons oer vear (MT/vr) of CO2e for a land use develooment
proiect.
Source: Ca IEEM od.2013.2.2
ln terms of ooerations, the orooosed oark offers benefits in air oualitv. water oualitv. recreational. and
other social benefits that are consistent with the CiW's Climate Action Plan. Urban sreen soace orovides
the oooortunitv to not onlv seouester substantial ouantities of carbon oulled from the air and soil, but
also reduce local energv consumDtion bv providinq cooler surfaces. As the trees and vesetation qrow,
thev will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the form of biomass carbon in the
leaves, roots, branches, and trunk. With the seouestration of manv trees out toPether as orooosed. the
trees can be a sipnificant sink for carbon dioxide. ln this resoect the park can assist the Citv in its near-
and medium-term solutions to reduce its emissions.
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod.2013.2.2)
CO2e (MT/vr)
36
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lstu.s lond Supporting lnlormotion Sout .s):
8. HAZARDS ANO HAZARDOUS MATERIAI.S
Would the proiecl:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe
environment thaough the routine transport, use, oa
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through rea sona bly foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involvinB the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile ofan existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a li5t of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 55962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the projed area?
f) Fo.a project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard fo.
people residing or working in the pro.iect area?
g) lmpair implementation ofor physically inte.fere
with an adopted emerSency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death irwolving wildland fires, including
wherewildlands are adjacentto urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
a-c)
x
tr
!
tr x
trx
tr tr
tr
trtr
!
No lmpoct. The proposed proiect is the development of a public park with picnic facilities, turf area,
landscaping, a restroom facility and a public trail along the san Francisco Bay. The proposed park use
would not involve the transport, use, storage or disposal of reportable quantities of hazardous
materials, and therefore is not expected to expose people to health hazards, nor is it expected to
create a health hazard. The subject site is currently vacant. Since the project does not involve
demolition of any existing buildings, the project will not release hazardous materials into the
environment during construction activities.
No lmpoct. The project site is not listed on the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department's
list of fuel leak sites, nor is it listed on the State of California's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites
list. The prorect site is vacant, and is part of the larger Bayfront area which is primarily developed with
office, hotel and restaurant uses in the general vicinity of the project site. Originally, the project site
and surrounding area was a tidal area and marshland, which was built-up with imported fill in the
d)
Ltts Thon
SigrfKontor Signitkdnt
Poaentiolly wlth lcstlhcn
Shntfkont Mftlgotioo Signifkont
l poct lncorpotution lmpoct No hpact
tr
n
tr
trtr
trtr
tr
!
c)
lnilialStudy 430 - 45O Aieort Boulevad
1950s and 1960s. There has been no development on this site since it was filled in the 1950s and
1960s. There is no indication that there has been any uses which could have contaminated the site.
e-f) No lmpoct. The project is approximately seven miles southeast of San Francisco lnternational Airport
and is subject to the policies set forth in the Son Moteo County Comprehensive Airport Londscope
Plon (ALUP). The Project would result in air traffic safety impacts if the height of the proposed
building would result in interference with air traffic. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is
responsible for determining whether the projed would result in a safety hazard for air traffic. The
FAA sets forth guidelines in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, to determine if an object is
an obstruction to air navigation. The regulations address the potential light, glare, and air emissions
that could distract aircraft operators. For this location, the ALUP has set a height restriction of about
163.2 feet above mean sea level. The proposed one-story restroom facility is well below this height
limitation, with a maximum height at the roof pitch of about 15 feet. Therefore, the pro.lect would not
conflict with the height restrictions set forth by the San Mateo County ALUP and would not interfere
with air traffic. No impact resulting from the proximity to the San trancisco lnternational Airport
would occur. The pro.iect site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, no impact on safety
related to proximity to a private airstrip would occur.
h)No lmpoct. Fire hazards in the City of Burlingame are considered slight to moderate. The project site is
in a developed urban area and is not adjacent to, or intermixed with wildlands. Based on a review of
the County's Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire) Map (CDF,2000), the proposed proiect site is located
over three miles from the nearest fire sensitive wildland area and would not result in a significant risk
with regard to wildland fires. The project site is not connected to any open space or forested urban
area that could qualify as a wildland area. Thus, the proposed project would not result in exposure of
people or structures to wildland fires.
MitiBation Measures: None Required.
Sources:
The City of Burlinqome GenerolPlon, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame , Municipol Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2011 edition.
Stote of Colifornio Hozordous Woste ond Substonces Sites [,sf, February 16,zotz
List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites by County and Fiscal Year from Water Board GeoTracker
database
Son Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Lond use Plon, San Francisco lnternational Airport, February, 2012.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, San Mateo County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire), Map
NHD-41, January 05, 2000.
38
Less Thon Significont lmpoct. By its nature, this project will not interfere with any emergency response
or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. The City of Burlingame General
Plan Safety Element does not designate emergency evacuation routes. Therefore, there would be a
less-than significant impact related to emergency response or evacuation plans.
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Ai.pon Boulevard
lssuet (ood Supporttng lnlondtion sou.ces):
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY-Would tho
proioctl
a) Violate any water quality standards orwaste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater 5upplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharSe
suchthatth€re would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a loweringofthe local groundwater table
level(e.g., the produdion rate of pre-existinS nearby
wellswould dropto a levelwhich would not support
existinS land uses or planned uses for which permitj
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alterthe existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the courte of a stream or river, in a mannerwhich
would .esult in substantialerosion ofsiltation on- or
off-5ite?
d) Sub5tantially alterthe existing drainage pattern ofthe
site or area, including through the aheration ofthe
cou6e ofa stream or river, or Substantially increase
the rate or amount ofsurface runoffin a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoffwaterwhich would
exceed the capacity ofexisting or planned
stormwater drainage rystems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.)
f) Otherwise substantially deSrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood lnsurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
kh) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ttructures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a si8nificant risk of
loss, injury ordeath involving flooding, including
flooding as a result ofthe failure of a levee or dam?
j) lnundation of seiche, tsunami, o. mudflow?
k) Subject to flooding risks resulting from sea level
rise?
Discussion
a)
x !
tr
-trltrE!
trtr 8E]trx
tr
tr
tr
xtr
tr
!
tr
trxtr
tr
a!
Less Thon Siqnificont with Mitigotion The project site is located on the shoreline of the San Francisco
Bay, is currently vacant and is covered with vegetation. The project site and surrounding land was
reclaimed from the San Francisco Bay in the 1960s by constructing perlmeter barriers of concrete
rubble. The perimeter of the area was created by using pieces of the old San Mateo bridge structure,
and additional fill and rubble were placed behind the pieces of the San Mateo bridge structure. The
project would have a potential impact on hydrology and water quality related to surface water runoff
and the potential impact from contaminants in the runoff on water quality within the San Francisco
Bay.
39
Less lhon
ltgnlfrcoat Sigrit/rcna
Pokntloltf wlth lztsTho0
SbniFrcona Mitigotion Stgniftco.tt
lnpoct lncorpotutlon hnpoct No,mpoct
tr x
x
tr
tr
n
trtrtr
!
tr
tr
lniltal Study (10 - 450 Aiaori Boulevad
Development of the proposed project would require compliance with the City of Burlingame Municipal
Code which requires that all storm drain systems shall be designed to remove stormwater from the
area at a maximum rainfall intensity of 1 inch per hour and that properties shall be graded to provide
stormwater removal at this rainfall rate (Municipal Code Section 26.16.090). A grading permit would
be required (Municipal Code Section 18.20.030) and runoff from the project site would be evaluated
for its potential to cause erosion (Municipal Code Section 18.20.060). Additionally, the city engineer or
building official would inspect the project site after rough grading to ensure compliance with the
grading permit (Municipal Code Section 18.20.080). Consequently, the on-site flooding impacts
associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
Because development of the proposed project would include parking lots with more than 10,000
square feet of impervious surfaces, the project would be required to meet Provisions C.3 and C.6 of
the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), Order No. R2-2009-0074 and Order No. R2-2011-
0083, NPDES No. CA5612008.
Current construction practices commonly employ Best Management Practices (BMPS) that minimize
the discharge of pollutants from the site. BMPS are proven means to effectively control site runoff and
run-on during construction and should be applied at the project site. lmplementation of MitiSation
Measure 9a would reduce potential construction-related impacts to less-than-significant.
Miti8ation Measure 9a: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the proiect site. At a
minimum, the SwPPP shall include the following:
a) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading
activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru
April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction
schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed
soils;
b) Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term
biodegradable erosion control blankets;
c) Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at
downstream storm drain inlets;
d) Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials
and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials,
litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and
e) The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage
structures of debris and sediment.
Following construction, the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces.
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollutants are washed by rainwater from roofs, streets, parking areas, and
landscape areas into the local drainage network. Pollutant concentrations in site runoff are dependent
on a number of factors, including land use conditions; site drainage conditions; intensity and duration
of rainfall; the climatic conditions preceding the rainfall evenu rooftop materials and implementation
of water quality BMPs. Due to the variability of urban runoff characteristics, it is dlfficult to estimate
pollutant loads for NPS pollutants. Without proper mitigation, the proposed project could contribute
40
lnatialStudy 430 - 450 Ajrport Boulevard
to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering the San Francisco Bay, potentially causing adverse
effects on aquatic life and human health. Since the project proposes construction of two parking lots
which will result in more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces on the site, the proiect will be
required to adhere to the Provision C.3 requirements of the countywide NPDES permit for post-
construction stormwater runoff management. Fulfilling the requirements of Provision C.3 would
address the post-construction stormwater controls for water quality. lmplementation of MitiBation
Measure 9b would reduce post construction-related water quality impacts to less-than-significant
levels.
Mitigation Measure 9b: The project appllcant, before project approval, shall prepare the
appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo Countywide water Pollution Prevention
Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.5 requirements for post-construction
treatment and control of storm water runoff from the site. Post-construction treatment
measures must be designed, installed and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of
runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance
party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post-construction
stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other
maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a
flnal construction inspection.
No lmpoct. The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not
provided by groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for
the project, and no dewatering of the site is anticipated. The proposed project may result in a slight
increase in infiltration due to enhanced on-site stormwater containment and treatment, but this
increase is considered minor and would not significantly increase groundwater recharge.
Less Thon Significant. No streams or rivers flow through the project site; thus the proposed project
would not affect any waterways. The storm drainage management will adequately handle the storm
water Best Management Practices that will meet the requirements of the San Mateo Countywide
Water Pollution Prevention Programs "C.3" and "C-6" requirements underthe regional permit. This will
include provision of source control and/or stormwater treatment measures included within the design.
With these improvements, no significant impacts to the drainage system would occur with
implementation of the proposed prorect.
Less Thon Significont. The project will not result in significant increases in storm water flows suchthat
new systems would be required. The existing storm drain system which serves the area has adequate
capacity to accommodate any additional runoff which will occur as a result of the project. Therefore,
stormwater generated on the proposed project site is not expected to significantly impact existinB
stormwater drainage facilities.
The Public Works Department requires Best Management Practices (BMPS) to be implemented both
during and post construction to control and prevent discharge of sediment, debris, and other related
wastes to the storm drainage system. The proposed project will require a stormwater runoff permit
(C3). Review of the proposed pro.,ect by engineering staff will mitigate soil erosion, the loss of topsoil
and minimize stormwater runoff. Construction activity may result in short term erosion and lack of
sediment control. Construction related erosion and resulting potential sedimentation impacts would
be reduced to a less than significant level through the project's compliance with standard best
management practices applied as conditions of project approval.
b)
c,d)
e)
41
lnital Study 430 - 450 AjDo.l Boulevad
Less Thdn Significant. The proposed park will not degrade existing water quality. The storm drainage
system will incorporate the storm water Best Management Practices that will meet the requirements
of the San Mateo Countywide water Pollution Prevention Programs "C.3" and "c.5" requirements
under the regional permit. This will include provision of source control and/or stormwater treatment
measures included within the design. These elements will not only reduce the speed at which
stormwater enters the City's drainage system, but in certain cases biologically clean some of the
contaminants associated with stormwater runoff, thus, further reducing any impacts to water quality.
No lmpoct. The project site is located in Flood zone x, areas subject to inundation by a 500-year flood.
The site is not within the 100-year flood zone and therefore there would be no impact associated with
100-year flood hazards.
The project site is located along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, which may be sub.lect to tsunamis
entering through the entrance to the Bay at the Golden Gate bridge. The Tsunami lnundation Map for
Emergency Planning, prepared by the California Emergency Management Agency, indicates that a
potential tsunami could inundate the channels adjacent to the proiect site. The pro.iect would not
result in direct changes in tsunami or seiche risk. Other portions of the Bay shoreline have been
identified as being within potential wave run-up areas, but the map does not indicate that the
property where park activities would occur would be vulnerable to this risk. Therefore, the impact is
considered to be less than significant
f)
8-i)
1 seo-Level Rise thP Coosts ol Colifonio. Oreo ond Woshinoton: Post Prcsent Future. PreDoted bv the Com on Seo Level
Rise in Colifornio.. oreoon. ond woshinotoni goa on Earth Sciences and Resou : Ocean Studies Board; Division Earth and Life
Studies: National Research Council 2012- htto://www.nao edu/cataloq.ohD?record id=13389.
42
k) Less thon 5ignifrcont lmpact.
etrange effe€ts en sea
Bifferent s€enarios and medels ssed te prediet sea leyel rise resslt in different ettimates ef the
matnitude ef sea level rise, The plobal mean sea level is rising due to increased alobal temoeraturesl.
Sea-level rise is not uniform and is sipnificantlv affected bv local factors. For the west coast south of
Cape Mendocino, which includes the San Francisco Bav Area. land subsidence is occurring at an
average rate of 1mm oer vear creatinq a rise in relative sea-level annuallv. lntesratinq local oroiections
for sea-level rise into the proiect desiqn will mitiqate imoacts2.
Although the project Site is relatively low in elevation, it is generally protected from 100-year flood
hazards by sea walls and levees along the Bay edge of about 7 to 9 feet in elevation. The tidal flood
elevation is listed as 7 feet and does not include wave run-up. However, the majority of the central
portion of the site is subject to shallow flooding from a 500-year flood event.
The €alifernia Glimate ehange Center predi€ts that a€€elerated sea level rise €auld result in a &ea leYel
rise in €alifernia ef ,1,3 te e7,5 in€hes aboye the existing msl by a099, The Califernis €limate A€tion
Team Breie€ts that eea leyels €eslC rise te +6 in€hes at mid €entury and te between 2€ and 55 in€hes
by+h€.r/e€+:€gEi.With 2O0rO as the base vear, the National Research Council predicts that sea-level rise
in the San Francisco Bav Area will increase 2 to 12 inches bv 2030 and rise 5 to 24 inches at mid-
centurv. Thev also oroiect sea-level to rise 17 to 66 inches bv 2100. Future El Nifio events make the
2 Stote ofCdriforrio Seo-teye, Rbe Guidorce Doaument. PreDared bv the Coastal and Ocean Workins Grouo of the California Climate
Action Team (CO-CAT); March 2013.
htto://www.opc.ca.rovlwebmaster/fto/odf/docs/2013 SLR Guidance UDdate FlNAL1.Ddf
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
reeion vulnerable to storm surses and hish astron mtca Iti des t hat can ra tse cu rent sea levels above
proiected sea levels for 21.00
The current mean higher high tide near the Project Site is about 3.5 feet above the current msl. An
increase in sea level rise of l foot would result commensurate increase in the mean higher high tide
level. When combined with astronomical tides, a l-foot increase in msl would result in the 100-year
event high tide peak occurring at the 10-year event frequency. ln other words, the frequency of a
current 100-year high tide (about 5.54 feet above current msl at the 5an Francisco Presidio station)
could occur 10 times more often when sea levels increase to l foot above the current msl. As a result
of these conditions, lesser storms and tides may be sufficient to result in more frequent and severe
flooding, erosion, and structural stresses compared to existing conditions. Such changes are predicted
regardless of whether the Project is implemented. Some erosion and damage to levees and channel
bank have already occurred along the waterfront in Burlingame, so sea level rise could exacerbate the
problem.
Water surface elevation gradients (slopes) are primary drivers of flow conveyance within streams and
storm drains. The higherthe gradient, the faster wate r ca n flow. lf the downstream outlet ofa stream
or storm drain is controlled by the water surface elevation of the Bay or Ocean, rising sea levels can
affect the flow within those drainages; a higher water surface elevation at the outlet reduces the
gradient and slows down flow. This could result in reduced storm flow conveyance capacity and cause
or contribute to backwater flooding effects.
Higher sea levels could also reduce the available coastal floodplain storage volumes. However,
because the Project Site is protected by levees and sea walls, there is currently relatively little coastal
floodplain storage that could be affected.
Currently, the Project Site is protected from flooding by a shoreline barrier, but the barrier has
experienced some erosion since it was constructed in the 1960s. As explained above, sea levels are
predicted to rise, and this could increase the frequency of flood events, reduce storm flow conveyance
capacities, result in over-topping of the existing barriers, contribute to shallow groundwater rise flood
effects, increase high tide elevations, and create more stress on the shoreline and flood protection
features. Such changes are expected to occur regardless of whether the Proiect is implemented.
Durins flood even ts. the Dark would be closed to the oublic. consistent with Pa rks and Recreation
DeDartment stand ard ooeration orocedures to control hazardous conditions i n oark facilities
overall, the Project is not expected to result in substantial flood risks to people and above- ground
structures because the current site elevation would be above the expected 100-year peak tide
elevation, and the only structure proposed on the site is a restroom facility. As noted in the above, a
55ff-inch sea level rise (which is the maximum predicted to occur by:e99219O would result in
inundation of a majority of the Project Site, with a potential 100-year flood elevation of about 4l-6115
feet above msl (existing tidal base flood elevation plus 5559-inch sea level rise). !91ggyg1g[!{9199991
extends beyo nd the exoected useful life of the Dark
Because the Project Site is not subiect to tsunami inundation, it can be expected that the tsunami run-
up elevation is not greater tha n the 1oo-yea r tida I elevation of7 feet. Assuch, even in theeventofsea
level rise, the majority of the Proiect Site would be above the 100-year flood elevation, and the
potential for inundation during the 100-year flood event in would not be substantial.
Furthermore, the shoreline and features located adjacent to the shoreline would be sub.iect to higher
tides. As noted above, the mean higher high tide near the Project site is about 3.5 feet above the
43
lnitialStudy 43O - 450 Airpo.t Boulevad
current msl. A 4-55-5-foot increase in sea level would result in a mean higher high tide of at least 8.1
feet above current msl. There would be no structures within the 100-foot setback from shoreline
areas, which would reduce the potential for flood risks. However, the perimeter barriers along the
shoreline have experienced erosion and are not designed and/or protected to withstand the higher
dynamic forces associated with the higher tides could fail under the sea level rise scenario and expose
people to increased risk from flooding and erosion. However, since there are no structures proposed
other than the restroom facility, the impact is expected to be less than siSnificant.
Sources
The City ol Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, zOfO,2002,1985 and 1984 amendments.
RAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quolw lmpocts of Projects ond Plons, May,20Ll.
City of Burlingame , Municipol Code, Title 26, Chopter 26.76 - Physicol Design of lmprovements, Burlingame,
Ca liforn ia.
City of Burlingame , Municipot Code, Title 18, Chopter 18.20 - 6roding, Excavation, Fills, Burlingame, California
Mop of Approximote Locations of 7o1-yeor Flood Areos, from the National Flood lnsurance Program Flood
lnsurance Maps, October 15, 2012.
3OO Airport Boulevord Droft ElR, SCH# 20l0t221l2, ptepared for the City of Burlingame, December,2011
Tsunomi lnundotion Mop for Emergency Planning, State of California, County of San Mateo, San Mateo
Quadrangle, June 15, 2009, California Emergency Management Agency
Floyd, M., M. Anderson, M. Roos, R. Peterson, M. Perrone, and D- Todd. 2005. Chapter 2: Potential lmpacts of
Climate Change on California's Water Resources, Table 2-6 Relative Sea LevelTrends for EiSht Tide
Gauges Along the Coast of California with 50 Years or More of Record. p. 2-43. ln: california
Department of Water Resources, Progress on lncorporating Climate Change into Planning and
Management of California's Water Resources Technical Memorandum Report, prepared July 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agenc.y. 1981. Flood lnsurance Study, City of Burlingame California, San
Mateo County. Prepared March 15, 1981.
Cayan, D., P. Bromirski, K. Hayhoe, M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, and R. Flick. 2006. Projecting Future Sea Level:
Table 3 Projected global sea level rise (SLR) (cm) for the SRES A1fi, A2, and 81 greenhouse gas emission
scenarios.
5an trancisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Climate Change, 2007,
www.bcdc.ca.Rov/olanninE/climate change/climate chanse.shtml
Seo-Level Rise for the Coosts of Colifornia . Oreoon. ond Woshinqton: Post Prese nt dnd Future PreDored bv the
Committee Seo Level Rise in Col io. oreoon. ond wosh inoton: Boatd on Earth Sciences an d
Resou rces: Ocean Studie s Board: Division on Earth and Life Studies: National Research Council 2012
Stdte of Coli rnto seo-Level Rise Guidonce Document. Preoared bv the Coas
T): March 2013the California Climate Action Team (CO-CA
tal and Ocean worki np Grou oof
44
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
lssues (ond Supponing ln ormotion Sources):
10. I.AND USE ANO PLANI{ING-
would the prolect:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
reSulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (includin& but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal proSram, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
a)
b)
x!
tr
8E] trtr
x
Less Thon Signilicont lmpoct. The project site is within an urban area in the City of Burlingame. Land
uses in the project vicinity consist primarily of office buildings, restaurants and hotels. The General
Plan designates the project site and the surrounding area for waterfront commercial uses. The
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan designates this site as appropriate for hotels and recreational uses.
The proposed project to develop a park and improve a portion of the bay trail is consistent with the
General Plan land use designation for the site and is compatible with the existing office, hotel and
restaurant uses on adiacent properties, and will provide recreational opportunities for people who
work in the area and visit the local hotels. lt will also provide recreational opportunities for residents
in other portions of the community. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established
community, and would result in a less than significant impact.
No lmpdct- The General Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan designate the proiect site and the
surrounding area for waterfront commercial uses. The proiect site is located within the Anza Area of
the Bayfront Specific Plan. The Specific Plan notes that the Anza Area has been developed as a visitor-
oriented destination with bay and airport oriented hotels, destination restaurants and offices which
supportthe local and visitor economy. lt indicates that there are severalvacant and underused parcels
suitable for development in the Anza Area, one of which is owned by the State of California and is
designated for hotels, destination restaurants and commercial recreation uses. The plan further states
that pedestrian and recreational access is a major land use theme in the Anza Area, surrounded by San
Francisco Bay and estuaries, and indicates that projects should provide and maintain Bay trail
improvements, and project design should continue to encourage the integration and placement of
passive and, where appropriate, active recreation areas accessible to the public. The site is zoned AA
(Anza Area), and public parks are a permitted use within this zone district. The proposed development
of a public park would be consistent with the plan, as wetl as the policies contained in the plan. The
project would not resuh in any conflicts with land use plans, policies or regulations.
The portion of the proposed proiect within 1OO feet of the shoreline is within San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) iurisdiction . fhe Conceptuol Moster Plon lor the
Bayview Pork Project lsee Attachment A) indicates the 100-foot BcDc setback. The project is in
compliance with BCDC policies since the proposed pro.iect will improve public access to the Bay, and
will incorporate mitigation requirements to offset the adverse environmental impacts of the pro.,ect.
45
Discussion
Lass Thon
Shnflrontor Sbniftcont
Potcotidlty wnh L.st fhon
Slgnif/r'oat Mitigotlon Signlfrco,rt
lmpoa lncotporotloo lmpocl tlo lmpoct
tr
lnitialstudy 43O - 45O Airporl Eoulevad
c)No lmpod.The ptoject site is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
Sources
The City of Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California,2OLO,2007,1985 and 1984 amendments.
Burlingome Boyfront Specific Plon, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and lune 18, 2012
City of Burlingame , Municipol Code, Title 25 - zoning, BurlinBame, California, 2012 edition.
46
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
I stu c s ( o,td Su p port i n g I n lo rrn otio n S oe r.e s t :
,.1. MINERAI RESOURCES-would the proiect:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a k.own mineral
resource that would be ofvalue to the region and
the resldents ofthe state?
b) Result in the loss of availability ofa locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a localteneral plan, specific plan orother land
use plan?
tr trtr
tr
Discussion
a-b) No lmpoct. According to the 50 n Moteo County Generol Plon, Mineral Resources Map, the proiect site
does not contain any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result
in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the
proposed project.
Mitigation Measur$: None Required.
Sources
San Mateo County, Generol Plon, t986.
The City of Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
47
LaSs Tt on
Slgolficontor Signifi.dnt
Potentiolly with LessThcn
slgaitKont Mitigdt:ton Sig,riftcdnt
,mpact t,rcotpotoalot, lnpoct ,lo lmpoct
xtrtr
loitialStudy 430 - 45O Airport Bouleverd
lssues (ond Supporting lhlo notion Sour.es):
12. NOISE-Would the proiect resuh in:
a) Expose persons to orgeneaate noise levels in excess
ofstandards established in the localgeneral plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable 5tandards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation ofexcessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration
levels?
c) A substantial pe.manent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the projectvicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, wher€ such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airpon or public use airport,
would the pro.iect expose people residing or working
in the projeat area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within thevicinity of a private airst.ip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a,c,d)
!ElE] Ntrl tr
EIE} NEI
tr
tr
tr
!
!
n
Less Thon Siqnilicont with Mitigotion. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site include offices,
restaurants and hotel uses. The Land Use Element ofthe General Plan designates the project site and
the surrounding area for waterfront commercial uses. The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan identifies
this area as the Anza Area, and desiBnates this site as appropriate for hotels, destination restaurants
and recreational uses.
According to the existing noise contour map in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan, the
proiect site is in an area that is exposed to noise in the 60 to 65 decibel (dB) range. Existing noise
sources at the project site are dominated by roadway traffic along Airport Boulevard, and to a lesser
extent, Highway 101, as well as noise from San Francisco lnternational Airport, located seven miles to
the northeast of the site. The Noise Element contains noise and land use compatibility
recommendations for evaluating the compatibility of new uses with the on-site noise environment.
The Noise Element of the General Plan establishes 60 dBA CNEL as the maximum suggested outdoor
noise level for land uses that include intensively used parks and playgrounds. (CNEL is a 24-hour
average noise level with a 10 dBA "penalty" added to noise during the ni8ht and evening hours
(7:OO p.m. - 7:OO a.m.)). As noted above, the project site is in an area that is already exposed to
noise in the 60 to 65 dB range. The proposed project would not contribute substantially to further
increase the 24-hour average outdoor noise level in the proiect area, since the noise levels are already
high due to traffic and aircraft noise.
lmplementation of the proposed proiect would result in intermittent short-term noise impacts
resulting from construction-related activities. Construction-related activities associated with the
project wou ld include excavation, grading, a nd ge nera l building construction. Section 18.07.110ofthe
48
kja Thon
Shntkontor Slgnlrlcont
Po,.naio,lly wllh Less ft an
Sign&'orrt Mltigotioa Signif,iioat
lmpoct lnco.porqtion lmpaa llo lmpoct
tr x
tr
tr
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airpod Boulavard
City's Municipal Code limits the hours of construction to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on
weekdays, g:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
During the hours permitted by the City for construction activities, project-related construction noise
may create unacceptable peak noise levels for surrounding land uses, and thus result in a temporary
but potentially significant impact. lmplementation of MitiSation Measure 12a would reduce
temporary construction noise impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 12a: The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to
implement the following measures:
Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise
control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers,
ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever
feasible).
Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and
they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation
barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.
f)
b)Less Thon Signilicant Neither the proposed project nor the construction of the project is expected to
generate excessive groundborne vibration ornoise. Construction ofthe park facility will produce short
term noise and vibration from activities such as demolition of existing paved areas, but the duration is
expected to be short and extent of vibration localized and less than significant.
e)Less Thon significont. The proposed pro.iect is located within the airport land use plan for the san
Francisco lnternational Airport, and the project site is exposed to both overflight and backblast noise
from aviation traffic. However, the site does not fall in the 65 dB CNEL or higher contours for noise
Benerated by the aircraft landing or taking off from the airport, indicating that airport noise at the site
should be less than 65 dB. Therefore, the project would not expose people to excessive noise levels
from aviation traffic.
No lmpoct. The pro.iect site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, no
impact would occur.
49
Sources
The City of Bu ingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California,2OLO, ?0O2,1985 and 1984 amendments.
Son Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Lond use Progrorr, San Francisco lnternational Airport, February,
20L2.
lnilialSt dy 430 - ,150 AiDort Boulevard
lssues (ond Supportinq lntondtion Sourcest:
13. POPUI.ATION AND HOUSING-
would the project:
a) lnduce substantialpopulation groMh in an area,
either directly (for example. by proposing new
homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers ofexisting housint,
neqessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitatingthe construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
!tr
tr
tr trtr
Discussion
o)No lmpoct. The project site and the surrounding area is planned for waterfront commercial uses,
which include recreation uses. The project does not represent any alteration to the planned land uses
in the area. The proposed public park would be used by people who work in the adjacent office
buildings, and be visitors to the area's hotels and restaurants. The park would also be used by
Burlingame residents and residents of adjacent communities. Therefore, the project would not have a
direct impact on housing demand in the immediate area.
Mititation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City ol Burlingdme Genercl Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments
Burtingame Boylront Specific Plon, A?ril 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2005 and June 18, 2012
50
Lasa lhon
Significonaor Slgntlcont
Pot atialty with Less fhcn
s,bnltkont Mltigotioa SignifKonl
hnpoct lncor?ototion lmpoct Notrnwd
nx
x
!
b, c) No tmpoct. The project site is currently vacant. Since there are no residential units on the pro.iect site,
the project would not disptace substantial numbers of existing housing or people that would
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; therefore, there would be no impact.
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Eoulevard
Issues lond Supporting lnlomolion Sourcesl:
14. PUBIIC SERVICES- Would the proiect:
a) Result in substantial adve6e physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmentalfacilities, need for new or
physically altered Sovernmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in orderto maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objedives for any ofthe public
serviceS:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Discussion
a.i)Less Thon Significont. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central
County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough and City of Millbrae. Three
stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive
and Station 35 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire
Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all
applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures
are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and clty fire safety regulations.
The proposed project is not anticipated to generate a significant additional demand for fire protection
services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities. Therefore, the pro.iect's
potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant.
a.iv,v) No tmpoct. The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13
parks and playgrounds, an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. This project will add to the
inventory of park services available to the residents of Burlingame. The project would result in a
positive impact on the availability of park facilities and therefore there would be no adverse impact.
n
trxxx
n!
tr
tr!
tr
tr
tr
tr
n
51
lttsfhon
slgntkonto, Slgntlicont
Pentblly whh lass fhon
:tigawnt Mtaigatbn Slgnif/ront
lrnFct lrrcor9ordtion ,rnpoct No lmpoct
a.ii) Less Thon Significont. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the
Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project is for a public
park facility and improvements to the Bay trail. The project would not result in a siSnificant increase
demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project's
potential impact on police services would be less than significant.
a.iii) No lmpact. Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School
District (BSD) for grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The
proposed project is for a public park, and will not result in an increase in student population.
Therefore, there would be no impact on school facilities.
xx
tr
tr
tr
lnitialStudy zl30 - 45O Airpoil Boulevad
Mitigation Measur6: None Required.
Sources
The City ol Burlingome Generol Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Burlingome Boyfront Specific Plon, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2005 and June 1& 2012
City of Burlingame Website, www.burlinsame.orq
52
lnitialStudy
lstues ldtd suppotting lnlomotion Sources):
430 - 450 Ai Boulevard
15. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increasethe use of existinS
neighborhood and reSional pa*s or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration ofthe facilitywould occuror be
accelerated?
b) Does the projed include recreational facilitier or
require the construction orexpansion of
recreationalfacilities which might have an adverre
physical effect on the environment?
tr tr x
!!x
Discussion
a,b) No lmpoct. The proposed project is to develop a public park. Therefore, since the proposed project
will provide additional park facilities for the use of area residents, the project would not increase the
use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would
occur; the project include the construction of recreational facilities, and the impacts of these facilities
has been evaluated by completion of this lnitial Study. There would be no impacts to recreation uses.
The proposed pro.jea does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it
displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame.
The oark would be ooen during davlisht hours and closed at nisht. consistent with other citv oark
facilities. The restroom facilities will be locked at nisht. Standard oDeratins orocedure for the Parks
n R nDe rtment is to close a facili or n f if re are ah
conditions that could be hazardous to the public, w hich in this instance could include hieh tides which
td h ten blic safet c n tn lu e hones or secur
cameras- however all oark facilities are regularlv monitored durine oolice oatrols. The Park and
Recreation Deoartment also has a field monitor ho oeriodicallv monitors conditions at each oark
facilitv.
The oublic would be notified of the new park th varietv of media. The Citv of Burlinsame Parkha
and Recreation Department has a robust p ublic outreach oroqram includinq a website, activitv suide,
weeklv Citv email newsletter and social media p resence. Press releases will be provided to local
publications to inform the oublic of the oroiect. both durins olannins and once the oark is ooen for
use. Roadwav signase at the freew av exits and on the main roadwavs I dinp to the oark will be
installed to fam iliarize the Dublic with the park and its location, consist with other oarks in the
vicinitv. The oark will include si snaee identifvins it as a Citv of Burlinsame D blic oark. consistent with
the Citv's other oark facilities. S ipnape will also be included to Drovide dire ction to the Bav Trail and
cla r il is for blic use
Mititation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The city of Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, Califo'nia,2O7O,2@2, 1985 and 1984 amendments
Burlingome Boyfront Specilic Plon, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and June 18, 2012
Lass fhon
slgnif,contor signlrkont
Potentidlly with LessThon
Significont Mitigoaion Signilicont
lmpoct lncorpofttlon lmpod No lmpod
lnilialStudy 430 - 45O Aalport Eoulevad
Signifi.dnt o,
Signili.ont
Less Thon
Signilicont
Mkigotion
Lets fho,
Significcnt
lmpoctltsues (ond Supporting lnfor,ndtion Sources):
16. TRA,{SPORTAflON / rnAFFtC-
would the proiect:
a) Guse an increase in traf{ic which issubrtantialin
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity ofthe
street system (i.e., resuh in a substantial increase in
either the number ofv€hicle trips, the volume-to
capacity ratio on roads, or contestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established bythe county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in airtraffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffc levels or a chanSe in
location that results in substantialsafety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a desitn
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) orincompatible uset (e.t., farm
equipment)?
e) Restilt in inadequate emergency acceig?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supportingalternative transpo.tation (e.9., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
a,b,fl
tr x
tr
n
tr
n
tr
x
x
trx
u
tr
tr
Less Thon Significont. Regional access is provided to the project site by U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), a
major regional arterial in the State of California which extends north and south along the westerly side
of san Francisco Bay. Local access to the project site and circulation through the area is provided by
Airport Boulevard, Anza Boulevard and Bayview Place. Airport Boulevard is a two-lane to four-lane
street that borders the Project site and extends from Bayshore Highway in the north to Peninsula
Avenue/Coyote Point Drive to the south. Airport Boulevard is four lanes adjacent to the Project site,
and narrows to two lanes at Sanchez Channel. Anza Boulevard is a short roadway which provides
northbound access to US 101 from Airport Boulevard. Bayview Place is a two-lane road which adjoins
the site and provides access to a restaurant adjacent to the site.
tr tr
tr
x
x
tr
tr
nx
tr
tr
tr
!
tr
The proposed project includes an 8 to 10 foot wide asphalt path along the San Francisco Bay edge with
benches and landscaping, public access pathways leading from Airport Boulevard to the Bay trail, two
parking lots on both sides of the park space, with 133 parking spaces, a group picnic area, an accessible
picnic area and a restroom facility. The Burlingame Municipal code, zoning Ordinance does not
include a parking standard for public parks or other open space uses. Based on similar facilities of this
size, it is expected that the proposed 133 parking spaces will provide adequate parking for the 8.81
acre park.
54
lnitialStudy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Transit service in the area includes local bus service provided by the San Mateo County Transit District
(SamTrans). Regional transit service is provided by the Caltrain community rail line and Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) both of which are served by the Millbrae lntermodal Station. There are existing
sidewalks adjacent to the prorect site as well as access to the Bay trail for pedestrian use, and bic.ycle
lanes are provided along Airport Boulevard.
An Environmental lmpact Report was prepared for a poect at 300 Airport Boulevard, near the project
site, which proposes to construct a 767,OOO square foot office/life science development. This proiect
was approved by the City Council on June 18, 2012, and the applicant is working on obtaining the
necessary permits for construction. The EIR prepared for the 300 Airport Boulevard project provides
information regarding the operating conditions of intersections in the project vicinity. The EIR included
an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for six signalized intersections in the City of
Burlingame and five signalized intersections in the City of San Mateo. One unsiBnalized intersection
was also selected for study in the City of San Mateo. Traffic conditions at the study intersections were
analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. lt
is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions would occur on an average weekday.
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service
is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with
little or no delay, to LOS F, or congested conditions with excessive delays.
The intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site (Bayshore Highway/Airport Boulevard,
Airport Boulevard/Anza Boulevard, Airport Boulevard/Coyote Point Drive) are all currently operating at
acceptable levels of service (either LOS B or LOS C) during the AM and PM peak hours. The
intersections near the Broadway interchange have been operating at LOS D, while the intersection of
Amphlett Boulevard and Poplar Avenue in the City of San Mateo was operatinB at an LOS F at the time
of the ElR. However the City of San Mateo has made improvements at the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar
Avenue intersection at the Highway 101 interchange to provide sufficient capacity for existing and
future traffic volume for the Burlingame Point project so that it will be operating at LOs D or better,
both under existing conditions and the 2030 time horizon, which takes into account future
development not only of the Burlingame Point project but also the adjacent 350 Airport Boulevard
site. Furthermore, the EIR anticipated improvements to the Highway 101/Broadway interchange, and
those improvements are currently under construction.
The EIR included an analysis of the impacts of the 300 Airport Boulevard project on the study
intersections. lt concluded that all but one of the study intersections would continue to operate at
acceptable levels of service during both peak hours. The one intersection which would continue to
operate at LOS F with the project is the unsignalized intersection of Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar
Avenue, which has since been improved to LOS D with recent improvements. With the improvements
to the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar Avenue intersection, all of the study intersections would continue
to operate at acceptable levels of service during both peak hours.
ln terms of cumulative impacts with the proposed park in relation to the 300 Airport Boulevard office
project, traffic generated by a public park is generally not as heavy during the AM and PM peak hours
of traffic, as park users typically use the park facilities during the day (in the hours between AM and
PM peak hours) and they are more heavily used on weekends. Trip generation rates for different land
use types are published by the lnstitute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) in the Trip Generation
Manual, Ninth Edition. There are several categories of park related uses which might be applied to the
Project. An 8.8 acre City Park is expected to generate 2 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, while an
8.8 acre Beach Park would generate 12 trips during the PM peak hour. To be conservative, analysis
55
lnilialStudy 430 - 450 Ai.pon Boulevad
Given that all of the study intersections in the 300 Airport Boulevard EIR would continue to operate at
acceptable levels of service during both peak hours, that the proposed park would not result in any
significant impacts to intersections in the vicinity of the project site, and that the respective projects
would generate traffic at differing peak periods, there would not be cumulative impacts from the 300
Airport Boulevard and park projects being developed.
c)No lmpact. The project is located within the boundaries of the airport land use plan for San Francisco
lnternational Airport. The proiect is not withln two miles of a private airstrip. The san Francisco Airport
is approximately two miles from the project site. The proposed projea would not change air traffic
patterns, increase air traffic levels or result in a change in location that would result in substantial
safety risk. The project would have no impact.
d)No lmpact-fhe proposed project would not involve redesiSn or reconfiguration of roadways, and the
proposed public park would not introduce any incompatible uses or vehicles. Therefore the proposed
project would have no impact on road hazards.
e)No lmpoct. The proposed project is not expected to affect emergency response times or access to
other sites in the area. Emergency access to the project site will be provided from Airport Boulevard.
Therefore, the proiect would have no impact to emergency access.
s)No lmpdd.fhe project site is located in an area served by public transit. The proposed proiect would
not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The
project would have no impact.
Sources
The City of Burlingome Generol Pldn, BurlinBame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Burlingome Boyfront Specific Plon, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and June 18, 2012
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - zoning, Burlingame, California, 2011 edition.
3OO Airport Boulevord Droft EIR,SCHfi 2OLOL22OL2, prepared for the City of Burlingame, December, 2011
San Moteo County Comprehensive Airport Lond Use Progrom, San Francisco lnternational Airport, February,
2012.
Response Letter: City ol Burlingome, Applicotion for Generol Leose-Agency Use of Sovereign lond, Son Moteo
County, Colifornio (File Rel: w2669), August 11,2015, prepared by Monk & Associates Environmental
Consultants.
55
assumes that this facility would be similar to a Beach Padg and would generate 12 vehicle trips during
the PM peak hour. This increase in traffic would not result in any significant impacts to intersections in
the vicinity of the project site.
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
tstt1€s lond Suopo.tirro lnlormotioo Sovrcad:
17. PAR(S AND WIND EFFECTS ON RECREATION -
would the proiect:
a) Have an impact on windsurfing and kiteboarding
recreational resources.
Discussion
o)
tr x
LessThon Significont. The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan discusses wind and notes that future
development could have an impact on recreational uses such as windsurfing by blocking the flow of
wind across the bay. ln addition, the plan discusses that the existing wind patterns in the area may be
incompatible with passive recreational uses and other outdoor activities.
The plan notes that the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Area is located on flat land adjacent to san
Francisco Bay. The area is exposed to the strong winds driven by the Pacific Ocean marine layer that
flows onshore, over the hills and down toward the Bay. Such winds frequently reach speeds in excess
of 15 miles per hour (mph) and during the peak wind season, often reach speeds of 20 mph or more.
The higher speed winds generally come from the northwest to the west directions. These strong winds
offer both use opportunities and development constraints for the area.
Some recreational uses, such as windsurfing, are powered bythese strongwinds. However, the winds
may be incompatible with other activities occurring in this area, such as passive recreational use,
outdoor activities such as walking to businesses in the area or residential activities where users may be
accustomed to outdoor use areas. Also, future development oftall structures has the potential to
either reduce wind speed on the bay and impaa recreational users, or to increase wind speeds at
grade directly adjacent to the new structures resulting in hazardous wind conditions.
The Specific Plan indicates that in order to preserve the wind resource for recreational windsurfers and
to improve the wind environment on the Bay Trail, pedestrian pathways and in useable open spaces,
community standards shall be considered for new development. The following standards apply to this
site:
57
lrsa Thon
Stgnif,Eo,t or Slgr frco,rt
Polrrrtkt y wilh Lestlt on
lng f6ont Ml$gotlon Signifi.cnt
,fipd lncorpotoliorl tmpacl No lmpoCt
tr
The plan notes that in the Anza Area, there are many opportunities for people to see and reach the
shoreline at the area's park along the Bay Trail and from private open space. The building pattern in
this area with more open space and greater distance from the San Francisco Bay proper does not slow
the wind significantly as it crosses the area.
All Areas:
o The community standard to be achieved by wind evaluations required below shall be that the wind
reduction caused by a structure shall reduce the wind speeds compared to existing conditions by
no more than 10% at irreplaceable windsurfing launching and landing sites, or reduce wind speed
by no more than 10% over large portions ofthe windsurfing transit routes or primary board sailing
areas-
. ln the evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian
and open space environment, the structures shall result in an increase in wind speed and
turbulence in areas adjacent to the buildings of no more than 10% compared to existing
conditions.
lnitjal sludy
On properties along the shoreline, types of landscaping that can materially affect wind speeds
should be discouraged.
ln order to have a minimal impact on wind in the nearby Bay, planting of trees along the Bay trails
should be minimized.
Within parks and open space areas away from the water, small structures and landscaping should
be used to reduce winds and provide protected areas.
Anza Area:
o For any building 55 feet tall or higher in any area within 400 feet ofthe north facing shoreline, a
wind analysis should be prepared to evaluate the potential wind effects to bay recreation.
o The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind
conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these buildings.
Since this project does not include buildings which are 65 feet tall or higher, a wind analysis is not
required. The applicant should avoid using types of landscaping that can materially affect wind speeds
along the shoreline. ln addition, in order to have a minimal impact on wind in the nearby Bay, planting
of trees which would block the wind flow should be discouraged. Based on these criteria, the impacts
of the project on wind would be less than siBnificant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources:
Burlingome Boylront Specilic Plon, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and June 18, 2012
Memo regording Wind Elfects Considerotions, Burlingome Boyshorc Areo Specilic Plon, prepared by Charles
Bennet, Environmental Sciences Associates
58
:m - 450 /urpo.t BdjeYad
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
Itsuet lcnd Suooor$no hlofinotlon sdrrces):
17. UTIUTIES AND SERVICE SYSfEMS-would the
proiect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe
applicable ReSional WaterQualityControl Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause signifi cant environmental effeds?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the con5truction ofwhich could cause
signifi cant enviroomental effects?
d) Have suffcient water supplies available to serve the
proiect from eristing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlement5 needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projeded demand in addition to the
provide/s existint commitments?
f) Be served by a landfillwith sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the projed's soiid waste
disposalneeds?
g) Complywith federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
tr tr
Discussion
a,b,e) tess Thon Significont. Wastewater from the City of Burlingame is gravity fed to lift stations which
transports wastewater to the City's wastewater treatment plant at 1103 Airport Boulevard. The City
of Burlingame contracts with Veolia Operating Services to operate and maintain this facility, which
serves the entire City of Burlingame as well as approximately one-third of the Town of Hillsborough.
After preliminary treatment, the wastewater is conveyed via a 34-inch diameter pipeline to a
regional wastewater treatment facility in South San Francisco for dechlorination. After secondary
and partial tertiary treatment, the wastewater is discharged into San Francisco Bay through a so-foot
outfall. The treatment plant has a designed capacity to treat 5.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and 16
MGD durinB wet weather.
The proposed public park would include a small building to provide restroom facilities. There is an
existing sewer main in Airport Boulevard with adequate capacity to serve the proposed restroom
building, and therefore would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater
infrastructure. The wastewater treatment facility and Burlingame's wastewater infrastructure are
currently operating below capacity, and although the proposed project would slightly increase
contributions to existing wastewater volumes, this increase would be incremental. As such, the
proposed project would be expected to be adequately served by the wastewater treatment facility
and not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed pro.iect would have a less-than-
significant impact on wastewater facilities or capacity.
tr
tr
n
tr
tr
tr
59
l2ts fhoa
Sbnlrkoito. slgnltkont
Potantioly wnh bssfhonggntficdnt Mitigotion Signilico,tt
lmpoct lnco.potolon lmpoct ,lo lmpact
trtr
tr
tr
tr
tr
lnitial Study 430 - 450 Airpon Eoulevad
c)Less Thon SigniJicant Storm drain inlets or catch basins and mains within the City of Burlingame are
maintained by the Street and Sewer Division in the Department of Public Works. There is an
existing 36" storm drain in Airport Boulevard with a catch basin at the corner of Airport Boulevard and
Bayview Place, adjacent to the project site.
The existing site is primarily vacant, with weedy vegetation covering most of the site except for a
paved parking lot at the south side of the site. The project would transform a portion of the existing
parking lot into landscaped area, and would develop a second lot on the north side of the site. The two
parking areas together will create a net increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. Any
stormwater that does not infiltrate the ground through on-site landscaping and permeable paving will
flow along the existing curb and gutter into this storm drain inlet into the stormwater main. This
existing storm drain system that serves the area is adequate to a 30-year flood capacity. Because the
proposed project would increase the amount of impervious area on site, stormwater runoff is
anticipated to increase as a result of the prorect. However, since the maiority of the site will be
landscaped, the stormwater runoff Benerated by the proposed project site is not expected to
signifi cantly impact existing stormwater drainage facilities.
Less Thon Significont. The city of Burlingame purchases all of its water from the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (sFPUC). water is supplied to the City by several SFPUC pipelines that are
connected to six metered connections at various locations throughout the City.
The proposed restroom facility structure and site landscaping will create an increased demand tor
water usage on the site compared to existing conditions. However, the increase in water demand
from the restroom and site landscaping is not considered to be significant.
Less Thon Significont. The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste
collected in Burlingame to the san carlos Transfer station and The Recyclery of San Mateo County for
sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by
the proiect could be adequately served by existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the
project would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is
considered less than significant. Ox Mountain Landfill, the landfill used for final disposal of the
t, el
The City's water system, which is administered by the Burlingame Public Works Department,
serves customers in the City of Burlingame, the unincorporated Burlingame Hills area, and a
portion of the Coyote Point County Park. ln 2005, water demand in the City of Burlingame
averaged about 5.01 million gallons per day. The City of Burlingame is a member of the Bay Area
Water Users Association (BAWUA), which holds a water supply contract with the 5FPUC. The
BAWUA'S contractual limit with SFPUC is 184 million gallons per day (mgd), of which 5.23 mgd is
allocated to the City of Burlingame. Given the projected water use, the City is not expected to
exceed its share of 5.23 mgd through 2030.
There is an existing 12 inch water main in Airport Boulevard to serve the project site. The project will
need to comply with the water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance, which requires landscaping to
be designed to achieve water efficiency. The project will also need to comply with the lndoor Water
Conservation ordinance, which requires the installation of modern, water-conserving features to
further reduce the demand for water by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project
would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion
of existing facilities, and the SFPUC would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
proposed project from existing entitlements and resources. As such, the proposed project's water
demand would be less than significant.
d)
60
lnitialStrrdy 430 - 450 Airport Boulevard
material generated by the City of Burlingame, has several years of capacity left at current
disposal rates, plus it is possible for the landfill to be expanded into adjacent areas to allow for
further capacity. Therefore, impacts on the City's solid waste capacity due to implementation of
the proposed project are considered less than significant.
Project construction would generate solid waste in the form of removal of the existing plant
material from the site. These activities would be required to comply with federal, State, and local
statutes and regulations governing solid waste. The proposed project is subject to the City's
Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement, which requires the applicant to submit
a waste reduction plan that demonstrates that at least 60 percent of the construction and demolition
waste can be recycled. Therefore, the demolition waste from the existing parking lot and the
construction of the proposed project would have less-than-siBnificant impacts on landfills.
Sources
The City of Burlingome Generol Plon, Burlingame, California, 20L0,2OO2,1985 and 1984 amendments
Burlingome Boyfront Specilic Plan, April 5, 2004, as amended August 21, 2006 and June 18, 2012
Recology San Mateo County, www.recoloevsanmateocountv.com , site accessed October,2012.
51
rnitialstudy 43O - 45O Aimort Boulevad
lssuet (ond Suppofting lnlomdtion Sources):
Signitlcont or
Pot ntlolly
Signticont
Less Thon
Signilicont
Lr'ss Thon
Signift ont
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
qoality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a tish orwildlife sp€ciet cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop b€low self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the numberor lestrid the range ofa rare or
endangered plant or animalor eliminate important
examples ofthe major periods of Glifornia history o.
prehisto.y?
b) Doe5the poect have impactsthat are individually
limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative
considerable" means that the incrementat effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of oth€r
cunent projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the proiect have environmental effeds which
willcause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either diredly or indirectly?
Discussion
a)
b)
ntr tr
!
Less Thdn Significont. The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a flsh 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. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during
construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the lnitial Study.
Less Thon Significont with Mitigotion. ln accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the
environmental analysis in this lnitial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-
specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar
to the project or its site were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The
proposed project would contribute to environmental effects in the areas of air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, temporary increases in construction-Eenerated dust and noise, and a
temporary increase in sedimentation and water quality effects during construction. Mitigation
measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative impacts associated
with these environmental issues. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
Less Thon Significant with Mitigotion. The project may have significant adverse effects on human
beings in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise. Mitigation
measures identified in this lnitial Study would reduce the effects to a less than significant level.
62
x
tr tr
tr x
c)
ltlrtrt s., Lmn@ u)" Ita@
RECETVED
MAR 08 2013
STATE CLEARING HOUSE
rY{*rV
t
Mardr 4 2013
William Meeker
City of Burlingame Community Development Departrnent
Planning Deparbnent
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, Calif omia 94010
SUBJECT: Initial study / Mitigated Negative Dedaratio_n f9r.!a_Q]-s! e-iry9rt_Boulevard -
Lease of Stite Landi Parcel for use as Public Park (SCH No' 2013022038)
Dear Mr. Meeker:
Thank you for sending us a copy of the IrLitial study / Mitigated Negati_ve Declaration, for
the lease of a State Lands-parcel for use as a public park.at 430-450 Airport F.oulevarj, in the
CiW of Burlinsame, San Mateo County. The document describes a proposal by the City oI
erilinn"^" to"l.ase 8.81 acres of land'at this site and develop the land for use as a public parlq
featririig public access pathways, two parking lots, picnic areas, and a restroom facility.
The san Francisco Bay conservation and Development Commission ("commission"_ or
-nCfj6,1 it"ff r.views sich docunrents on behalf ofits Commission to assess,.among other
thinss. the Droiect's consistency with the McAteer-Petris Act, the Commission's San Fruncisco
no, Ftor. ttie Commission's federally-approved management plan for the San Fran!"sco Bay,
;;i th; i"a;Jaoaitat Zone Manu["r,i":.,t e.t (CZMA), and fhe project's relationship to the
Commission's jurisdi*ion.
At this site the Commission has permit jurisdiction over al1 tidal areas of the Bay^up to the
*.* tign 6a"ine or to the inland eige of wetland vegetation in marshlands (up to five feet
above M"ean Sea Level). all areas {orme}[y subiect to tidal action that have been filled since
!"pt"^rr* rz, re55, and a 100-foot shoreiine band extending 100 Ieet inland from and parallel to
the Bay jurisdiction.
Commission permits are required for placing and grading fill, construction, dredging
dredsed material disposat, and substantia[ changes in use within its iurisdiction. Permits are
issuef ra,hen the Commission finds proposed activities to be consistent with its laws and
oolicies. In addition to any needed fenirits under its state authority, Iederal actions, permits.,
'and srants alfectine tlle c6astal zoni are subiect to review by the Commission, pursuant to the
f"a"ia CZfr,I+ foriheir consistency with thi Commission's federally-approved management
program for the Bay.
From reviewine the documen! it appears that the proposed project would be located within the
Commission,s ioO-foot shoreline bind lurisdiction and, thus, would require authorizahon
ttro"gt , cor.t-ission permit. Please visit our website at www-.bcdc.ca.gov for the relevant
laws. "oolicies and Comrirission issues that should be considered when evaluating your proiect
"^a"fCiOe. A"cause all of the proposed u,ork is to imProve the public's access to *re Bay, a
orroose stronslv supported by the Commission's law and policies, it is likely that the
tommis.ior,'s"p1-imiry issres in reviewing this proiect will be to evaluate hor,r'best to provide
statc ot cat,fo.N) . sAN FRAECTSCO BAy CONSERVATION A!,rD DEVELOPhIENT COiTHISSION ' Edfund 6 8.o-.t J. Grrerr'r.
50 CClto na Str.cl Sune 26OC . SrE Fran.|sar. Carilo.nB 94 l l ! . i n 15l 3::1.30cc . F ay. .4 5l :,;?'3036 ' rnto'?bcoc.cl 93' ' Y xv'.1:c.-'rr'.gcv
William Meeker
City of Burlingame Community DeveloPment DePartrnent
March 4 2013
Page 2
diverse and interesting experiences for users, prevent significant adverse effects on wildlife, and
how to site and design public access so it may adaPt or be resilient to sea level rise and
shoreline flooding. Please feel free to contact us to discuss the type of approval necessary for the
proposed project, the process for obtaininS Commission authorizatiory and whether, as
i:roiosed,-the project would be consistent with the Commission's Iaws and policies.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the Commission's office at 415-352-3558 or
elliek@bcdc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,&lL@,-
Ellie Knecht
Coastal Analyst
EKlra
cc State Clearinghouse
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
d?av
"v),t EDMUND G. BROWN JR., 6ovemor
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 1oo-South
sacramento, cA 95825-8202
JENNIFER LUccHEsl, Exscutive Office r
(916) 574-1800 FAX (916) 574-1810
Calltomia Relay SeNico Ftun TDD Phone 1-800-73*2929
ftun Voic:B Phone 1400-f 35-2922
RECEIVED
F|AR 212013 March 22,2013
STATE CLEARING HOUSE File Ref: SCH # 2013022038
Cig of Burlingame Communi$ Development Department
Attn: William Meeker, Community Development Director
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 9401 0-3997
Subject l'nitial Study/Mitigated Negative D6cliratioh (MND) for the 430 - 450
Airpqrt Boulevard (Project) in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo :
County.
Dear Mr. Meeker:
The california state Lands commission (csLC) staff has reviewed the subject MND
prbpared by City of Burlingame (City). The Crty, as a public.agency proposing to carry
out'the Project, is the lead agency under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act
(CEaA) (Pub. Resources Code, $ 21000 et seq )' The C-SLC is a trustee agency
because of its trust responsibility for projects that could directly or indirectly affec1
sovereign lands, their aqcompanying Public Trust resources or uses, and the public
easemenl in.navigable waters. Additionally, because the Project involves work on
sovereign lands, the CSLC will act as a responsible agency.
CSLC J urisdiction a Public Trust Lands
The csLC has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands,
submerged lands, and the.beds of navigable lakes and waterways. The csLC also has
certain residual and review authority for tidelands and submerged lands legislatively
granted in trust to local jurisdictiohs (Pub. Resources Code, $$ 6301 , 6306). All
tidelands and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, aswell as navigable lakes and
waierways, are subject to the protections of the Common Law Public Trust.
As qeneral background, the state oJ california acquired sovereign ownership of all ..
tideLnds and su-bmerged lands and beds of navigable lakes and wateMays upon its
admission to the united states in 1850. The State holds these lands for the benefit of all
people of the State for statewide Public Trust purposes, which include but are not
.
iimited to waterborne commerce, navigatioh, fisheries, water-related recre,ation, habitat
preservation, and open space. on tidal waterways, the state's sovereign fee ownership
extends landward to the mean high tide line, except for areas of fill or artificial accretion
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1900- Contact FAX:' (916) 574-1885 -'
William Meeker Page2 March 22, 2013
or where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a court. such.boundaries may
not be readily apparent from present day site inspections.
Because the land being proposed for the city of Burlingame's Park is sovereign state
land, a lease from the ISLC will be required prior to Project implementation. This
sovereign land is defined by Boundary Line settlement Agreement (BLA #1 31) dated
July 6, i972. The BLA is a compromise settlement of a title dispute involving a 146.
acie site along the shore of San Francisco Bay. Additionally, the site is located within a
lo*ion of patinted tideland survey No. 9 (San.Mateo. Co.unty). Pllase contactthe Land
illanagembnt Division representative listed at the end of this letter for further information
aboutleasing requirements; a lease application and instructions can also be found on
the CSLC website (www.slc.ca.gov).
Proiect Descri on
Environ me lRe
CSLC staff requests that the following comments and suggestions be incorporated into
the MND.
General Comment
'1. Pro Desc on: A more thoroug h and complete Project Description in the MND
would fa Cilitate a more robust and m eaningful environmental review of potential
impacts and mitig ation measures. The Project Description should be as preclse as
possible in describing the details of all allowabld activities (e.9., types of equipment
or methods that maY be used,maximum area of impact, seasonal work windows,
locations foi material disposal, etc.)'as. well as the details of the timing and length of
The proposed Project would develop 8.81 acres of cslC.sovereign land, located at.
+Soisiiairport Boulevard. This paicel was originally all tidal area and marshlands but
in the 1good, this site and the suriounding land were reclaimed from the San Francisco
ijry Uy ."..i"r"ting perimeter barriers of-concrete rubble from the old San Mateo
eiilg; structure. Subsequently, additional fill and rubble were placed behind the-se
""iii"to n.rii"rs: the overall iite is cunently a primarily developed area with ofiice,
ili;i il iestaurant uses. The proposed Project site is an undeveloped and vacant lot
;.,1-h ;;;;g;;; vetetaton, wnicn witt be cteaied and developed into a City park with the
folldwing improvements:
.&to10-foot-wideasphaltpathalongthesanFranciscoBayedgemakingita
public access pathwiy with benches and landscaping;
. iwo parking lots on both sides of the p1t spaceas O-ption A (total of 1-62
p"ir.iig .tr-."") accessed from Airport Boulevard or option B (total of 197
barkind spaces) accessed from the Bayview Place;
. Accessible picnic area and group picnic area;
. Restroom facility; and
. Turf and other landScaping improvements around tha site perimeters.
activities. Thorough descriptions wil I lead to a clearer analysis of the work that may
William Meeker
Biolooical esources
Page 3 March22,2013
be performed, and minimize the potential for subsequent environmental analysis to
be required.. For example, while the MND on page 7 generally characterizes the
expected improvements, it provides no specific detail on how or during what season
these construction activities would take place, nor the method of their
implementation. Therefore, it is unclear to CSLC staff exactly how much in-water
-workor placement-of structures-is predicted, the length'of time the-Project would -
take to construct, how many and what types of vehicles will be used, or whether any
pile driving, dredging, excavation, or dewatering activities are proposed. Without
ihese details, the analysis in the MND may not adequately identify and discuss the
full range of impacts that could occur to biological resources, water quality' cultural
resources, or dir quality.
I
2. Sensltive Soecies Database lnouiiies: The "Biological Resources" section on pages
1+16 would benefit from detailed discussions of why a 2002 Biological constraints
Ahatysis (Analysis) is adeiuate to support the conclusion of "no impactsl on
biolo'gical resources. Because this Analysis is more than 10 years old, the CSLC
staff iecommends an updated Analysis for an accurate assessment of possible
Project-related impacts to existing resources, including recent biological surveys of
the Project site, California Natural Diversify Database (CNDDB) queries, and
consu[Ltions with the Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDF\A/), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), etc. to identifo possible
environmental impacts. lf potentially significant impacts to the sensitive species are
suggested through the above recommended means, appropriate mitigation
meisures (see'Deferred Mitigatioh" discussion below) need to be proposed to.
minimize the impacts to a less than significant level. .
3. Deferred Mitiqation: Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. C-ode Re3s., til
14- 15OOO et seq.), mitigation should either be presented as spect'fc, feasible,
enfolceable obligations, or should be presented as formulas containing
,'performance stindards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and
which may be abcomplished in more than one specified way'' (emphasis added)
(State CEQA Guidelines, S 15126.4, subd-(b)). For example, the "Biological
Resouices" section on pagd 14 of the MND states that "Mitigation Measure 4a"
consists of a detailed wetland delineation to be conducted for the Project site at
some time in the future to determine whether seasonal wetlands are present.
ldeally, this wetland delineation should have been done before the MND was
developed, and the extent of seasonal wetlands, if any, discussed in the analysis. ln
addition, the measure provides no specific formulas or criteria that meet the above-
stated requirement in the State CEQA Guidelines, and as a result, this measure
appears to impermissibly defer mitigation- ThereJore cslc staff recommends the
tVitrt O Ue revised to include detailed discussi6n of the possible wetlands delineation
. - results, and how these impacts will be'mitigated by specific formulas, For example,
the initigation measure could say if there are expected impacts to the wetlands, then
a 1:1 formula will be applied to reduce the impacts to less than significant. The
William Meeker
4 Lan inq Desiqn and P referred Plantinq Snecies:Page 15 of the MND vaguely
discusses the landscaping design and states that the '.. . project sponsor should give
preference to planting species native to the project site." However, there is no
mention of what the native species are of this site, site plan showing the locations of
proposed species to be planted, and a maintenance plan. Also, there are no
discussions ofwhat success criteria will be used to evaluate the proposed
improvements (e.g., percent survival, supplemental watering, replanting, etc.).
Therefore, CSLC staff recommends the City add discussion of the above stated
suggestions to help develop the necessary details specific to this Project.
,i Underuater Noise: The MND on pages 37-38 does not discuss underuater noise
at the
riprap or
listing
conclusions in the MND should always be preceded bya reasoned, fact-based
analysis of the potential impact, including an explanation of the logical connection
between identifled mitigation measures and the resulting significance conclusion.
impacts, or if any construction-related activities are expected in the water or
wate/s edge (e.g., riprap) to facilitate publio use and enjoyment. lf Bossible
other work at the water's edge is proposed, CSLC staff recommends clearly
all possible activities that may generate underwater noise, evaluate the potential
impacts, and propose appropriate.mitigation measures (see Comments #1 and #3
above) to reduce impacts to less than significant, if necessary. For example, the
mitigation measures could include species-specific work windows as defined by
CDFW, USFWS, and NOAA Fisheries. CSLC staff recommends early consultation
with these agencies to minimize the impacts of the Project on sensitive species.
March 22,2013
urces: CSLC staff maintains a Shi pwreck Database of known
Iocated on the State's tide and submerged lands.
ipwrecks remains unknown. Please note that any
Cultural Re sources
6. Subme rqed Reso
shipwrecks and potential vessels
However, the location of manY sh
submerged archaeological site or submerged historic resource that has remained in
State witers for more than 50 years is presumed to be significant. CSLC staff
recommends the above discussion related to submerged resources be included in
the MND under'Cultural Resources.' We also request that Mitigation Measures 5a,
5b, and 5c on pages 17-18be revised to include notifoing CSLC staff upon
discoVering unexpected cultural resources.
7. Title to Cultural Resources: The MND should also state that title to all abandoned
urces on or in the tide
under the jurisdiction of
lands during Project
implementation, City staff should consult with Senior Staff Counsel Pam Griggs (see
contact information below).
Gree house Gas (GHG) Emissi ons
shipwrecks, archaeological sites, and historic or cultural reso
and submerged lands of California is vested in the State and
the CSLC. lf any cultural resources are discovered on state
8. The discussions on page 25 of the MND suggest that GHG emissions froh the
proposed Projec,t are not considered significant because the land use type (city park)
Page 4
William Meeker Page 5 March 22,2013
is less than 600 acres as established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD). However, this threshold appears to be for operational, rather
than construction-related, emissions. The GHG analysis would benefit from
clarification of whether the threshold used accounts for emissions that may result
from construction of the Project, including a quantitative discussion of GHG
emissions'from the equipment expected to-be used, the duration of the-use'of this -
equlpment, and vehicles trips from all Project-related activities. Because neither the
Project Description (see Comment #1) nor the GHG section of the analysis provide
the necessary specific detail on construction, the full range and scope of potential
sources of GHG emissions, along with their potential impacts, is lacking in,the MND.
ln orderfor the City to more fully comply with State CEQA Guidelines section
15064.4, CSLC staff suggests the City expand the GHG section of the MND to
include the above suggestions.
.Public
Tru Concerns
9. Public Services:.The MND on page 40 should ilarify discussionS related to "a.ii" by
significant" as seen in the
iscussion below the checklist,
clearly stating if the impacts are considered "less than
checklist on page 40 or "no impacts' as stated in the d
10. Public Access: The MND on page 42 would benefit from clearly stating what the
current possible public uses of the proposed Project might be (even thottgh it is a
vacant parcel), and discuss how these uses could be impacted or improved from the-
prosed Froject+elated activities. CSLC staff also recommends notifying members of
ine public of the expected construction dates and possible impeded public access to
and around the drea by posting signage, in advance, at and around the proposed
Project to minimize the impact to members of the public. Below are additional
recommendationsonmakingthisapublicIyaccessiblepark:
r ldentify the types of recreational activities that.will be made available to the.
public;
. bommunity and public outreach efforts to identify public interests through,
including but not limited to, social media networking, website linkages, press
releases, eti.;
. Signs posted from the freeway exists, and on the main rciadways leading to
the park with maps and clear messages that these trails and improvements
are for public use;
.. Types. and frequencies of maintenance activities;
. ldentify adequate daytime and ni$ht time public sqfety measures, including
but not limited to the onsite security made available to.the public, lighting,
identified access hours, emergency phone poles made available to the public
' along the trails and the park, and securily cameras monitoring the site;
. ldentify any water edge improvements to make lt public friendly since it is a fill
parcel (e.g., will riprap be placed along the trail to address this possible public
William hrleeker Page 6 March 22,2013
Cumulative lmpacts
11. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (aX3), an EIR must
be prepared if the impacts from a project are "cumulatively considerable." ln light of
this requirement, the MND should include a'iCumulative lmpacts" section to
determine whether other reasonably foreseeable prorjects in the area, like the 300
Airport Boulevard Project mentioned on page 44 of the MND, contribute to a
cumulative impact. Such projects may not individually have significant impacts, but
they may have signifigant cumulative impacts such as traffic impacts, GHG
emissions, etc. For example, the proposed mitigation measure for 300 Airport
Boulevard were vaguely mentioned on page 44 that "[a] mitigation measure was
placed on this project which requires the applicant to make a fair share contribution
toward the improvements to be made by the City of San Mateo to this intersection."
However, there is no mention of what kind of mitigation measures the 430-450
Airport Boulevard Project propose to address these possible cumulative impacts. ln
addition; the details of adopting Option A (total of 162 parking spaces) accessed
from Airport Boulevard or Option B (total of 197 parking spaces) acces5ed from the
Bayview Place should also be further developed and presented with possible
impacts from either plan being adopted.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Project. As a responsible
and trustee agency, we lequest that you consider CSLC staff comments prior to
adoption of the MND. Please send copies of future Project-related documents,
including electronic copies of the final MND and Notice of Determination when they
become available. Please refer any questions concerning the environmental review to
Afifa Awan, Environmental Scientist, at (916) 574-1891 or via e-mail at
afifa.awan@slc.ca.qov. For questions conceming archaeological or historic resources
under CSLC jurisdiction, please contact Senior Staff Counsel Pam Griggs at (916) 574-
1854 or via email at pamela.griqqs@slc.ca.qov. For questions concerning CSLC
leasing jurisdiction, please contact Al Franzoia, with the Land Management Division, at
(916) 574-0992 or via email at al.franzoia@slc.ca.sov .
J
Cy R. Oggins,
Division of En vtron mental Planning
and Management
cc: Office of Planning and Research
AfifaAwan, DEPM, CSLC
Jennifer Deleon, DEPIM, CSLC
Al Franzoia, LMD, CSLC
Pamela Griggs, Legal, CSLC
Shelli Haaf, Legal, CSLC