Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2018.11.19City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, November 19, 2018 STUDY SESSION - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A Update on Burlingame Aquatic Center Construction Projecta. Staff ReportAttachments: Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless 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 Veterans Recognition Presentationa. Green Infrastructure Plan Updateb. PresentationAttachments: Update on the All-Mailed Ballot/Voting Center Electionc. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018 November 19, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M . Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion . Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar. Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2018a. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Kitchell CEM for the Fire Stations Emergency Generators Replacement Project, City Project No. 84950, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement b. Staff Report Resolution Professional Services Agreement Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Rejecting All Bids Received for the Fire Station 35 Improvements Project, City Project No. 84340 c. Staff Report Resolution Bid Summary Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Alta Planning + Design for Traffic Engineering and Planning Services for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update d. Staff Report Resolution Professional Services Agreement Attachments: Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending September 30, 2018e. Staff Report Portfolio Holdings CERBT Statement PARS Statement Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018 November 19, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing Date Regarding Solid Waste Rate Increases for Calendar Years 2019, 2020 and 2021 f. Staff Report Resolution Prop 218 Notice 9-17-18 Staff Report Attachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) Consideration of Edits to the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report (EIR); Discussion of Proposed Interim Zoning Regulations a. Staff Report November 5, 2018 Presentation Slides Exhibit A: Councilmember Feedback November 13, 2018 PC Staff Report Attachments: 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) Approval of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Plan for the New Community Center a. Staff Report Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LSA Memo Resolution Attachments: Provide Direction to the Planning Commission to Proceed with a Review and Potential Modification of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) Zoning Regulations to Allow Commercial Recreation Uses b. Staff Report ED Subcommittee Minutes - August 17, 2018 Draft ED Subcommittee Minutes - October 11, 2018 BAC Zoning District Regulations Attachments: 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. Vice Mayor Colson's Committee Reporta. Committee ReportAttachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018 November 19, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Councilmember Beach's Committee Reportb. Committee ReportAttachments: 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 3, 2018 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: STUDY MEETING DATE: November 19, 2018 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date:November 19, 2018 From:Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager –(650) 558-7243 Subject:Update on Burlingame Aquatic Center Construction Project RECOMMENDATION Receive an update on the Burlingame Aquatic Center construction project. BACKGROUND In November 1997, the City and the San Mateo Union High School District (the District) entered into an agreement to jointly fund the construction and ongoing repair, improvements, and operations of a new 25-yard pool at Burlingame High School. The agreement included terms regarding scheduling of the facility, maintenance, record keeping, and the distribution of costs. In August 1999, after an anonymous donor agreed to provide funding to upgrade the 25-yard pool facility into a 50-meter pool, the City and the District approved a first amendment to the original agreement. The amended agreement expanded the hours that the facility (the Burlingame Aquatic Center) could be open and made various other changes. The total project cost $2,676,695, with the anonymous donor paying $1,210,000, the City paying $1,166,695, and the District paying $300,000. Between the time the pool opened (2000) and 2011, the City operated the community programs at the pool, including recreational swimming, lap swimming, swim lessons, and fitness classes, and managed the scheduling. In 2011, the City contracted with the Burlingame Aquatic Club (BAC) to operate these programs on the City’s behalf. BAC was already managing competitive programs in adult and youth swimming and water polo at the pool. DISCUSSION In 2016, the City and the District approved a new pool agreement that extends the term by three years, to January 1, 2026, and covers how maintenance and operating expenses are split (the City pays 78%, while the District pays 22%), and how capital expenses are split (50-50 basis). The new agreement also includes language related to when the City has exclusive use of the pool and when the pool is to be shared with the District, and when the pool can be closed for annual maintenance and where BAC is to be relocated during closure periods. The new agreement includes as an exhibit a 2015 District-commissioned Aquatic Design Group facility audit of the aquatic center. The intent of the audit was to help the City and District jointly develop a capital replacement program. Update on Burlingame Aquatic Center Construction Project November 19, 2018 2 Among the items included in the five-year timeframe were removal and replacement of the pool deck and drainage and removal and replacement of the pool finish in the competition pool. Earlier this year, the District undertook the renovation of the aquatic center; the project included removal and replacement of the deck, removal and replacement of the pool finish, and the replacement of the interior lights with LED fixtures. The entire project, which was to begin June 1 and be completed by September 21, had a projected budget of $1,902,659, with the City’s share $951,330. (The City originally budgeted $600,000 for its share of the project, prior to the bidding and approval of the construction contract.) Due to a variety of factors, including the need to re-bid the project and delays getting approvals from the Department of the State Architect, which approves school construction projects, demolition of the deck actually began on July 2. In July, District staff notified City staff that the pool shell contained problems related to rebar and waterproofing, and that there were additional problems with the light fixtures and electrical work. The cost to make the repairs to the electrical exceeded the Public Contract Code limits that the District must follow, and the repair work needed to be formally bid, delaying any progress on the pool. Throughout August, the contractor uncovered additional problems with corrosion of the rebar at various locations, such as the lights, stairs, and floor inlets, and improper concrete coverage in many areas. (Per State Code, concrete coverage should extend at least three inches between the soil and the rebar to maintain structural integrity and at least three inches between the rebar and the pool shell to prevent water intrusion and subsequent corrosion. The current coverage is about one each on either side.) In early September, the District requested that its pool engineer produce an existing conditions report that highlighted the various challenges with the pool. The report, completed later in September, concluded that the pool shell is compromised and should be replaced, rather than repaired. City staff and District staff met on September 28 to discuss options for moving forward, including repair of the pool, at an estimated cost of $2,538,406,or replacement, at an estimated cost of $4,988,452. At the District’s Board meeting of October 11, the District staff recommended that the District pursue the replacement option given the many uncertainties associated with the repair option. In particular, the staff and the District’s engineers and consultants are concerned that there will be additional maintenance costs and significant pool downtime as the pool shell steel continues to erode, and the new plaster dislodges. In addition, the engineers and consultants believe that the pool will need to be replaced in 10-15 years, at an estimated cost of $11.9 million in ten years, or $19.2 million in 15 years. This cost will be on top of the $2.54 million spent now to bring the pool back online. Under the replacement option, in contrast, the consultants and engineers believe that the life of the pool shell will be extended to 50 years, and the new shell will require less maintenance than the repaired shell. The District Board did not make a decision at the October 11 Board meeting and, instead, asked staff to come back with additional information. At the October 25 Board meeting, the District Board approved proceeding with the New Pool Project and hiring an architect. Subsequent to the Board’s action on October 25, the City Manager and School Superintendent met briefly to discuss the funding plan for the pool as the District Board would like the City to increase its Update on Burlingame Aquatic Center Construction Project November 19, 2018 3 contribution. The City Manager let the Superintendent know that any increase would need to be accompanied by a significant increase in the term of the agreement, which currently terminates on January 1, 2026. The City Manager has discussed potential terms with the Mayor and Vice Mayor, but no decisions have been made. Discussions with Superintendent Skelly are ongoing. FISCAL IMPACT The City is currently responsible for $1,269,203 of the total cost of the pool reconstruction. It is unknown at this time what the City’s total contribution will be. The City’s capital improvement budget already includes $600,000 as a placeholder. A budget amendment appropriating the remaining amount needed from the General Fund’s undesignated fund balance will be brought to the City Council for approval with the mid-year budget review. Green Infrastructure Plan Update City Council Meeting November 19, 2018 Public Works Department Overview •Introduction •Stormwater Management Regulations •Green Infrastructure Benefits •Green Infrastructure Plan •Green Infrastructure Examples •Next Steps Outline Pre-Urban Development Urban Development How is stormwater runoff regulated? •In 1990, the US EPA established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program. •The NPDES Program has been delegated to the State Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) •In 2015, the Water Board issued one Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) for the San Francisco Bay region. •The City of Burlingame is one of 22 San Mateo County Permittees. •The MRP includes requirements for: •Municipal operations •New development and redevelopment •Construction sites •Public outreach Balanced Development •Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) •Mercury •Trash/Litter Image: Copyright Seattle Post-Intelligencer Pollutants of Concern Green Infrastructure Benefits Reduces pollutants from entering the Bay Increases natural habitat Increases infiltration into the ground Filters air pollutants and particulates Mitigates the risk of localized flooding Promotes traffic calming and increases pedestrian safety 1. Map green infrastructure projects 2. Establish targets for the amount of impervious surface to be retrofitted over time 3. Prepare design guidelines and standard specifications 4. Integrate GI Plan with other planning documents 5. Evaluate funding options 6. Conduct public outreach Green Infrastructure Plan Requirements Progress to Date •City staff is collaborating and coordinating with the County to develop the required documents •Staff is working with the Community Development Department to incorporate GI Plan in the General Plan •Green Infrastructure Map is available at www.burlingame.org/GI •GI Plan due by September 30, 2019 Green Infrastructure Examples Flow-through planters at 1600 Trousdale Drive Permeable Pavement at 1800 Trousdale Drive Before Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project After 1.City staff participates in countywide Green Infrastructure Technical Advisory Committee meetings. 2.Staff is working with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program to explore alternatives for complying with the mercury and PCBs load reduction requirements. 3.Staff will keep City Council apprised as these alternatives evolve and provide recommendations. 4.County Pollution Prevention Program is developing design guidelines and resources for member agencies to use in their GI Plans. Next Steps Questions? “We need to manage stormwater as a resource, not a waste, and proactively act as stewards of our communities in San Mateo County.” -Maryann Moise Derwin, C/CAG Chair Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on November 5, 2018 1.CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Kent Putnam. 3.ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Ortiz, MEMBERS ABSENT: Keighran 4.CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (GOV. CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: TIMOTHY L. DAVIS, SONYA M. MORRISON, KATHLEEN KANE, CAROL AUGUSTINE, AND LISA K. GOLDMAN EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, AND ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5.UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 2 6.PRESENTATIONS a. FIRE PREVENTION MONTH PRESENTATION BY CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT CCFD Deputy Fire Marshal Christine Reed stated that October was Fire Prevention Month. She explained that each year, CCFD visits elementary schools to discuss fire prevention. This year, CCFD also discussed the message: “Look. Listen. Learn. Be aware. Fire can happen anywhere” with the students. CCFD asked students to inspect their homes using a home fire safety inspection checklist. After completing the checklist, the students were entered in a drawing to win the grand prize, a private tour of Fire Station 34. CCFD Deputy Fire Marshal Reed announced that kindergartner Emma Lee was this year’s grand prize winner. Congratulations Emma! b. VIOLINS OF HOPE PRESENTATION Pam Lampkin, Development Manager at Music at Kohl Mansion, stated that the organization’s mission is community building through music and demonstrating that art can act as a vehicle for common understanding. Ms. Lampkin discussed Music at Kohl Mansion’s upcoming Violins of Hope program, running January 2020 through March 2020. She explained that through a series of concerts, lectures, exhibitions, and educational programs, Music at Kohl Mansion will work with 20 Bay Area organizations to showcase a collection of 60 string instruments played by Jewish people during World War II. She stated that for eight weeks in the winter of 2020, the Bay Area will resonate with the sound of violins and the voices of artists, scholars, activists, humanists, students, and individuals whose lives have been profoundly touched by injustice. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the event would open at Kohl Mansion. Ms. Lampkin replied in the affirmative and stated that the violins would then be traveling around the Bay Area. Vice Mayor Colson asked how people could find out more about the event. Ms. Lampkin stated that people could visit their website: www.musicatkohl.org. c. BURLINGAME AQUATIC CENTER PRESENTATION BAC Executive Director Sylvia Lam gave the Council an update on the Burlingame Aquatic Center (“BAC”). She explained that BAC’s mission is to serve the community by providing excellent aquatic opportunities. Ms. Lam stated that her presentation would focus on what BAC has done to maintain programs and staff during the pool renovations. She explained that prior to the start of construction, BAC worked with the City and San Mateo Union High School District (“District”) to put together a plan to operate satellite locations that would allow BAC to continue to offer as many of their programs as possible. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 3 Ms. Lam explained that on May 27, 2018, BAC packed up their equipment and moved it to the satellite pools. Beginning June 1, community programs such as lap swim and water aerobics were run at the San Mateo High School pool. Competitive programs such as swim team and water polo were run at Capuchino High School. Ms. Lam explained that BAC had to vacate the District pools on August 2, because high school water polo was beginning on August 3. Therefore, on August 13, BAC began running their community programs at King Pool and was able to offer programming at Joinville Pool beginning September 4. Ms. Lam explained that by using satellite locations, BAC was able to offer 80% of their regular summer programming. Ms. Lam discussed the financial and participation challenges that occurred as a result of the renovations. When summer programming registrations opened on February 1, BAC communicated with the public that because of the renovations, their programming would be done at satellite pools. She noted that many people thought BAC was closed or were hesitant to go to the new locations, and therefore registration dramatically decreased. She compared BAC’s gross revenues from last summer to this summer: Month 2017 2018 May Approximately $64,000 Approximately $52,000 June Approximately $105,000 Approximately $64,000 July Approximately $126,000 Approximately $49,000 August Approximately $91,000 Approximately $24,000 Ms. Lam noted that BAC’s expenses increased as a result of utilizing multiple satellite locations. Ms. Lam explained that when BAC was notified that the pool renovations would take longer than originally predicted, it was determined that BAC couldn’t continue to operate multiple satellite locations. BAC’s Board of Directors made the difficult decision to consolidate programs and lay off staff. She stated that the two programs that remain are age group swim team at Joinville Pool and water polo at Mercy High School. She added that as a result of the consolidations, BAC now has 3 full-time staff members, 10 part-time staffers, and a part-time club administrator Ms. Lam explained that without additional discounts or outside funding, BAC will have to undertake further consolidations in 12 months. She noted that when the Burlingame High School pool reopens, it will be important for BAC to rebuild their programs, hire quality staffers, and regain the community’s trust. City Manager Goldman thanked Sylvia Lam for her hard work and efforts to keep BAC open. She noted that she will be meeting with the District to understand the status and timeline of reopening the pool. Mayor Brownrigg thanked Sylvia Lam for her work. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 4 7.PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 8.CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Beach pulled 8f. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8g, 8h, 8i, and 8j; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed by voice vote 4-0-1 (Keighran was absent). a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 15, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE INSTALLATION OF SYNTHETIC TURF AND THE PURCHASE OF A GROOMER, SWEEPER, AND MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR MURRAY FIELD, CITY PROJECT NO. 84130 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 138-2018. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF FIVE VEHICLES FOR THE CITY’S FLEET SYSTEM DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 139-2018. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CUSTOMER WORK ORDER AGREEMENTS WITH SAN MATEO COUNTY ENERGY WATCH FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS AND AN AGREEMENT WITH PG&E FOR ON-BILLING FINANCING DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 140-2018. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM 18-06), MERGER OF LOTS 1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, AND A PORTION OF LOT 16, BLOCK 20, MAP OF LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVSION AT 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 141 -2018. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS OF IMPACT FEES COLLECTED AS OF JUNE 30, 2018 PURSUANT TO THE MITIGATION FEE ACT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66000 ET SEQ.) AND Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 5 MAKING REQUIRED FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Councilmember Beach explained that the purpose of the staff report was to update the Council and community on the different fees that the City can require on development projects. She stated that previously Council and staff had discussed undertaking a study to update the impact fees. She asked if this would be occurring once the draft General Plan is approved. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative and added that it would be a part of next fiscal year’s budget. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 142-2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Keighran was absent). g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROCUREMENT OF A PREFABRICATED RESTROOM FROM CXT, INC. AND THE SITE PREPARATION WORK BY TIMBERLINE ENGINEERING FOR THE WASHINGTON PARK RESTROOM, CITY PROJECT NO. 85050 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 143-2018. h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE 2018 TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT AND TO GIVE NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY ASSESSMENTS FOR 2019 Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 144-2018. i. APPROVAL OF OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR CITY STAFF Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad and Public Works Director Syed Murtuza requested Council approve of out-of-state travel for Parks and Recreation and Public Works staff members. j. ACCEPTANCE OF A PROCLAMATION HONORING ANSON BURLINGAME AND THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BURLINGAME TREATY ON US-CHINA RELATIONS City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council accept a Proclamation honoring Anson Burlingame and the 150th anniversary of the Burlingame Treaty on US-China Relations. 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10.STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 6 a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION The staff report for this item noted that there were two vacancies on the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission due to the expired terms of Commissioners Christopher Bush and Howard Wettan. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. The City received two applications: Christopher Bush and Howard Wettan. The two applicants were interviewed on October 22, 2018. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. The Council voted and handed their ballots to the City Clerk. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the ballots. Christopher Bush and Howard Wettan were reappointed for three-year terms ending November 6, 2021. Mayor Brownrigg thanked all applicants. b. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION The staff report for this item noted that there were three vacancies on the Beautification Commission due to the expired terms of Commissioners Mary Hunt, Mary Ellen Kearney, and Richard Kirchner. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. The City received five applicants but one applicant was unavailable for the interview. Mary Hunt, Mary Ellen Kearney, Richard Kirchner, and Shaeda Urbani were interviewed on October 22, 2018. Mary Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. The Council voted and handed their ballots to the City Clerk. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the ballots. Mary Hunt, Mary Ellen Kearney, and Richard Kirchner were appointed for three-year terms ending October 7, 2021. Mayor Brownrigg thanked all applicants. He noted that it is his intention to propose an expansion of the Beautification Commission to seven seats because of the additional task of reviewing public art projects. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 7 c. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION The staff report for this item noted that there were two vacancies on the Parks & Recreation Commission due to the expired terms of Commissioners Claire Schissler and Karen Malekos-Smith. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. The City received four applications but one applicant was unavailable for the interview. Stephanie Lee, Leslie Holzman, and Shaeda Urbani were interviewed on October 22, 2018. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. The Council voted and handed their ballots to the City Clerk. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the ballots. Leslie Holzman and Stephanie Lee were appointed for three-year terms ending October 7, 2021. Mayor Brownrigg thanked all applicants. d. APPROVAL OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND PHASING PLAN FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff was pleased to bring the final schematic plan to the Council for their approval. She thanked the advisory committee and Group 4 Architects for their hard work on this project. Group 4 Architect Dawn Merkes explained that the Community Center was broken down into different packages. She explained that staff and the advisory committee are currently working on the first package, which is the design of the playground. She reviewed the timeline and cost for the first package: Phase Time Period Design of Playground November 2018 Construction Documents February 2019 Procurement Package March 2019 Bidding and Award of Project April to May 2019 Construction June to December 2019 Total Cost with hard and soft costs, contingency fees, and escalation $2.4 million She stated that the impetus for this early site package is to minimize impact and take advantage of the cost savings. Package1 with hard and soft costs, contingency fees, and escalation will cost $2.4 million. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 8 Ms. Merkes then discussed the second package, which is the Community Center, associated site work, and parking. She reviewed the timeline and cost for the second package: Phase Time Period Schematic Design Package November 2018 Design Development November 2018 to March 2019 Construction Documents Completed September 2019 Bidding and Award of Project December 2019 Construction January 2020 to January 2022 Total Cost with hard and soft costs, contingency fees, and escalation $49.9 million Ms. Merkes discussed the third package, which included: furniture, equipment, technology, and signage. She stated that this package would cost $2.02 million. She then reviewed the alternate packages such as photovoltaic panels for the roof, which would cost $1.8 million. . Mayor Brownrigg discussed the increase in cost for the project from what was originally reported. He asked if there were a couple of big items that explained the increase. Ms. Merkes stated that based on the Council discussion in June, the cost was $44 million without escalation. She explained that the original budget was not as extensive as what is needed for the scope of work for the Community Center. Accordingly, factoring in escalation and adding more detail to the budget triggered an increase in the cost. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the costs discussed at tonight’s meeting were close to final. Ms. Merkes replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked why the second package (Community Center, associated site work, and parking) would not go to bid until late next year. Ms. Merkes discussed the amount of structural drawings and documents that are necessary to obtain accurate bids. Next, Ms. Merkes showed different views of the interior and exterior of the Community Center. Councilmember Beach reviewed the Council’s June discussion on adding nine parking spaces to the project. She noted that the cost of these nine parking spaces was $674,251. She asked if Council could decide to cancel the nine parking spaces to eliminate that cost. Ms. Merke’s replied in the affirmative and explained that the additional parking was an a la carte item. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the photovoltaic panels are slated to cost $1.8 million. She explained that the City should seek out grants and green programs to assist in the financing of the panels. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative and explained that the Sustainability and Climate Management Fellow Andrea Pappajohn is looking into these opportunities. Vice Mayor Colson discussed opportunities for community engagement and fundraising for some of the alternates like sprung wood floor in the Community Room. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 9 Vice Mayor Colson asked if staff had addressed residents’ concerns about flipping the playground and basketball court. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative. She explained that originally, the City had chosen the locations for the playground and basketball court to save the Redwood tree. However, she learned that the Redwood tree could be replanted but it would cost $15,000 to $20,000. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the advisory committee benefited from the expertise of Planning Commissioners Terrones and Loftis. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff stated that the design looks great. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve the schematic design and phasing plan for the new Community Center; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. Mayor Brownrigg stated that although it is called an add-on, the photovoltaic panels are not optional if the City wants net zero energy. He added that the Council needs to meet to discuss the capital plan for this project. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Keighran was absent). e. CONSIDERATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) CDD Gardiner stated that in March 2015, the City initiated a multi-year community led process known as Envision Burlingame, which consisted of the update of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He explained that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance regulate all land use, environmental, and transportation decisions in the City. He stated that the update is the culmination of engagement with the community over several years and is a milestone for the City. MIG Project Manager Dan Amsden began by explaining that Envision Burlingame looked to answer the question: “How do we want Burlingame to look, function, and feel 25 years from now?” He explained that the General Plan will be the blueprint for the City when it comes to land use, environmental, and transportation issues. Mr. Amsden discussed the public outreach that MIG and staff undertook over the past three years. He stated that the City held18 community advisory meetings, conducted 15 stakeholder interviews, held three rounds of community workshops, held study sessions with the Council and Planning Commission, conducted surveys, and created a website to obtain feedback. Additionally, staff worked with Burlingame High School, San Francisco State, and UC Berkeley on design projects. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 10 Mr. Amsden explained that Envision Burlingame was awarded Prop 84 funding from the State and that the State now uses Envision Burlingame as a model for future funding. Next, Mr. Amsden explained that there are eight phases in the Envision Burlingame process. Currently, the City is in the sixth phase, which is where the draft General Plan is brought to Council for consideration and adoption. He noted that as part of the process, the City would also need to update Burlingame’s Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Amsden explained that the General Plan is implemented in a variety of ways. He stated that specific plans and zoning are the most typical means of implementation. However, the General Plan is also implemented through subdivision maps, conditional permits, and building permits. Mr. Amsden explained that that the General Plan is a long-term plan to guide decisions for stability and change, with a 15 to 20-year planning horizon. The General Plan addresses topics required by law, plus those unique to Burlingame. The General Plan is a living document that may change over time, is legally enforceable, and provides for accountability. Mr. Amsden stated that one of the key focuses of the draft General Plan is areas of stability versus change areas. He explained that the change areas are Broadway, Bayfront, North Burlingame, and Rollins Road. He then reviewed each change area. Bayfront Mr. Amsden stated that the Bayfront is envisioned to remain a regional business and hotel destination. He noted that the draft General Plan proposes enhancing the community’s access to recreation on the Bayfront and protecting the community from sea level rise. Additionally, the draft General Plan proposes allowing flexible industrial and commercial development standards for this area. Rollins Road Mr. Amsden explained that Rollins Road is envisioned to stay as a light industrial zone. But under the draft General Plan, the northern portion of Rollins would be a residential/industrial zone. This would create live- work space for up to 70 units per acre. He explained that because of the proximity of northern Rollins Road to the BART station, it was an ideal location for increased housing. North Burlingame Mr. Amsden stated that the north end of Burlingame is like Rollins Road because it is close to the BART station. Therefore, the draft General Plan proposes increasing residential densities and creating a mixed use hub. He noted that density is increased to 20 to 120 units per acre. Broadway Corridor Mr. Amsden stated that under the draft General Plan, the Broadway Corridor would continue to be used for local business and act as a commercial center. However, the draft General Plan offers more flexibility on second floor uses. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 11 Next, Mr. Amsden reviewed the focused areas of housing growth for the city. He stated that the Downtown Specific Plan was approved a few years ago and has around 1200 residential units planned. Under the draft General Plan: Broadway and California Drive have 526-600 units, Rollins Road has 480 units, and North Burlingame has 615-700 units. Mr. Amsden stated that one of the key elements in any General Plan process is generating an estimate for what the future housing, employment, and population growth will be in the city. He explained that MIG presented Council with initial figures in 2016 that stated there would be an increase of 3000 housing units, 7000 people, and 9700 jobs by 2040. He stated that these numbers were used in the environmental analysis to predict the impacts on transportation and infrastructure. Mr. Amsden stated that the draft General Plan includes a multimodal circulation network and a bicycle network. Additionally, under the draft General Plan there is a transportation demand management program (“TDM”) that establishes specific guidelines and requirements within the Zoning Ordinance. The TDM utilizes different strategies in different parts of the community in order to provide sustainability and economic development. Mr. Amsden stated that another theme of the draft General Plan is sustainability. He explained that sustainability and community resiliency policies, programs, and actions are integrated throughout the document. Additionally, a new and unique Sustainable Development goal section is included in the Community Character Element. He noted that the City is updating the Climate Action Plan and incorporating those changes into the General Plan. Mr. Amsden stated that another key policy area is historic preservation. He explained that within the Community Character Element, there is a goal section that focuses on historic preservation. He stated that within that chapter there are two policies that explain how to identify historic resources. The first policy is comprehensive historic surveys. This requires applicants for any discretionary permit that involves remodeling, removing, or substantially altering any structure older than 50 years to prepare a Historic Resources Analysis consistent with State CEQA requirements. The second policy is Historic Districts, which identify opportunities to establish National Park Service Certified Historic Districts to encourage the preservation of Burlingame’s historical neighborhoods and districts. Mr. Amsden stated that there are a few approaches that can be taken in regards to historic preservation. 1. Citywide/District Survey: Conduct a full survey of either all or part of Burlingame to identify all potential resources 2. Case-by-Case Evaluations: Require any new project on a building 50 years or older to have an evaluation done (current approach in the Draft General Plan). 3. Certify Commission/Staff to be Historic Resources Specialist: To augment bullet #2, there is a process to certify the City to make historic resources determinations. Mr. Amsden stated that another new and unique area of the draft General Plan is the Sea Level Rise goal section in the Community Safety Element. He stated that the draft General Plan includes a vulnerability assessment policy. Under this policy the City will coordinate with San Mateo County on the county-wide Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 12 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment that identifies regional sea level rise risk factors and areas, as well as emerging options for response. Additionally, the draft General Plan includes policies concerning new developments in vulnerable areas. Mr. Amsden discussed the importance of coordinating with the school districts during this process. He explained that staff and the consultant team have been coordinating with the school districts to ensure that they are aware of potential land use considerations and can provide feedback. Mr. Amsden reviewed policies and standards that could be added to the General Plan to continue the City’s on-going commitment to supporting local schools: 1. City and District Collaboration – assist local school districts in identifying potential school locations to serve growth in enrollment 2. School Partnerships – support creative public-private partnerships to facilitate the funding and development of public school facilities. Next, Mr. Amsden stated that there have been discussions concerning variable massing in the Burlingame Downtown Area. Variable massing allows for portions of buildings to be higher than the maximum height of 55 feet as long as the average height is 55 feet. Mr. Amsden discussed the Burlingame Hills sphere of influence. He stated that sphere of influence refers to adjacent unincorporated areas that receive or may in the future receive services from the City and become part of the City. He explained that the draft General Plan includes the following statement: “As a matter of City policy, these areas will not be annexed by the City of Burlingame unless annexation is initiated by property owners.” Mr. Amsden explained that under California LAFCO law, annexations generally follow a five-step process: 1. Pre-application initiated by the City or by a majority of residents 2. Application filed with the San Mateo County LAFCO 3. Review and consideration by San Mateo County LAFCO 4. Protest proceedings that will determine either the majority of property owners accept annexation and/or LAFCO will hold an election 5. Final certification of the annexation. Next, MIG Principal in Charge Laura Stetson discussed the City’s Environmental Impact Report. She explained that the EIR was done at a program level and therefore is not as specific as if it was done for a project. She noted that the EIR looks at about 18 topics including land use and impacts on public services. She stated that the EIR found that for most of these topics, there would be no impact or that the impacts didn’t rise to the level of significance. However, she stated that there were four areas where there could potentially be impacts: Paleontological Resources, Short-term Construction Noise Impacts, Increased Traffic Noise, and Increased Traffic at Select Intersections. She noted that there are ways to avoid these impacts, largely through practices that are in place today. Ms. Stetson stated that there will be traffic impacts not just as a result of the draft General Plan but because of background growth. She explained that the existing conditions show that just about all intersections in the Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 13 City operate at good levels of service. The only intersections that have strain are at Millbrae/El Camino Real and at Broadway/California. However, she noted that there will be an increase in traffic at the Broadway/California intersection in the future. She added that the EIR assumed that grade separation would not occur because it wasn’t a fully funded project. Ms. Stetson stated that there are two impacts that are termed significant and unavoidable: 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: increases in greenhouse gas emissions will occur until the Climate Action Plan update is adopted with specific programs that the City will undertake to reduce emissions. 2. Plan Bay Area Consistency: The 2040 General Plan is not consistent with PDA transit corridor policies. Ms. Stetson stated that an EIR is required to look at alternatives. She noted that alternatives generally are to focus on those that have the ability to reduce or avoid impacts associated with the project. Ms. Stetson stated that in May 2018, the City Council and Planning Commission asked a few more detailed questions about the EIR: 1.Why are there different impacts at the different railroad crossings? Answer:largely due to the different configurations of the intersections. 2. Will new development projects recently approved in Millbrae and San Mateo be included in the EIR? Answer: Yes, as they are part of the background information. 3. Will the traffic model consider the pending Peninsula Drive Interchange project? Answer: No, because the project has not been approved. 4. Does the traffic model consider the electrification of the Caltrain Corridor and the anticipated increase it will have in ridership and the number of trains? Answer: Yes, it is included in the regional ABAG model. Councilmember Ortiz asked about the letters and emails included in the agenda packet. He asked if these were new comments or comments that staff had already received. CDD Gardiner stated that the letters that were included in the agenda packet had been collected since the draft General Plan was published in August 2017. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Kamran Ehsanipour discussed the vacant lot he owns on the corner of El Camino Real and Adeline Drive. Burlingame resident Kent Putnam asked for higher density for auto row and discussed the need for workforce housing. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 14 Burlingame resident Justin Moresco spoke in support of Chapter 8, Section 7.2, which calls for an ad hoc committee to be formed to create an inventory of soft story buildings and recommend actions that could be taken by the City Council. Former Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel stated that she had been informed that the community’s comments had been incorporated into a new version of the General Plan and asked where she could find it. CDD Gardiner stated that the draft itself has not changed since it was published in August 2017. He explained that after the draft General Plan is reviewed by Council, staff will take all the comments they have received and will show track changes in the next document. Former Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel asked about the implementation plan and whether she was correct that if an item is not on the implementation plan, it doesn’t have an implementation timeline. CDD Gardiner stated that the City isn’t limited to what is listed in the implementation chapter. He stated that the purpose of this chapter is to answer the question “how do you do this?” Former Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel asked if community members have suggested changes and haven’t gotten a response, is it possible to see what staff is recommending. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked if after this hearing, staff will consolidate all the input and produce a new version for review. Ms. Stetson replied in the affirmative. Burlingame resident Maryann voiced concern about the historic review process in the draft General Plan. She explained that it becomes difficult to sell a home if portions of it are considered historic. She added that there is only one company that does historic review in the City. She noted the importance of protecting the industrial businesses on Rollins Road as they are owned and run by local families. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff stated that she wasn’t in favor of increasing the allowed height on auto row. She discussed the issues with the Burlingame Park neighborhood being reviewed for historic preservation because the Mills Act only applies to the Downtown Specific Area Plan properties. Burlingame resident Mario Muzzi discussed the negative impacts that the historical preservation chapter on property owners. Mayor Burlingame closed public comment. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City’s goal is adopt the General Plan by the end of the year. Councilmember Beach asked about the consultant’s statement that the draft General Plan is inconsistent with regional planning efforts for El Camino Real. Ms. Stetson stated that ABAG will take into account what individual cities want to do in their next update. She added that El Camino Real has a different feel in Burlingame than it does in any other cities. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 15 Mayor Brownrigg stated that he felt that the urgency of affordable housing is completely lost in the draft General Plan. He explained that affordable housing often colors Council’s discussions and decisions. Therefore, he felt that it needed to be more prominent in the General Plan. He noted that Burlingame is no longer a bedroom community, and the regional issue of affordable housing has to be noted in the report. The Council under Mayor Brownrigg’s guidance reviewed each change area in the draft General Plan and a few other topics. Bayfront Mayor Brownrigg asked why the floor area ratio (“FAR”) is limited to .75 for the inner Bayshore. CDD Gardiner stated that the intention was to provide a setting for industrial activity to continue. He added that this area isn’t meant to accommodate larger users like commercial buildings and hotels. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the draft General Plan is maintaining what already exists in the inner Bayshore. He noted that it made sense to keep it this way. Mayor Brownrigg stated that when the City limits uses it is making a significant policy choice. He asked if the FAR of 3.0 for hospitality and commercial is the maximum height it can be. CDD Gardiner stated that 3.0 is consistent with this type of district in other communities. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was curious what Mayor Brownrigg thought the Bayfront should look like under the updated General Plan. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Bayfront is completely removed from single family residential areas. Therefore, he would be inclined to let people build as big as they want to build. Councilmember Beach asked if this is the driving job creation area in the draft General Plan. Ms. Stetson replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that therefore under the draft General Plan, the City is looking at 9,731 jobs if this plan is fulfilled. She cautioned the Council that the City needs to balance commercial growth with the housing crisis in the Bay Area. Therefore, the drafted plan for the Bayfront didn’t strike her as irresponsible. She noted that if the City followed the Mayor’s vision and let people build whatever they want, it will have an impact on the community with increased housing needs and traffic issues. She stated that she believed the Council needed to be thoughtful with plans for the Bayfront. Councilmember Beach asked the consultants if other cities when updating their general plans consider phasing commercial growth so that housing can keep up. Ms. Stetson replied in the negative because it is extraordinary difficult to monitor. Vice Mayor Colson stated that if the City allows office buildings to go as big as they want on the Bayfront, the City would lose views and gain wind issues. She added that she agreed with Councilmember Beach about the need to balance job growth and housing needs. However, she noted that on the table for the Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 16 Burlingame General Plan growth projections, the City’s ratio is one housing unit per three jobs. Therefore she felt good that the City is balancing housing and job growth. She added that she felt that industrial should have space on the Bayfront, but wanted to learn more about their facility needs. Councilmember Ortiz agreed with the Vice Mayor. He stated that he was comfortable with the levels that are proposed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed there was consensus that the numbers proposed for the Bayfront were accurate. Rollins Road Mayor Brownrigg stated that he didn’t believe the 1.0 FAR was right for live/work spaces on Rollins Road. He discussed using Rollins Road to build a new neighborhood with affordable housing. He explained that with a 1.0 FAR, if someone wanted to build a four story building, than three-quarters of the property is open. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the proposal for Rollins Road is an FAR of 1.0 and 70 units per acre. She asked what this looked like. CDD Gardiner clarified that they are additive. The FAR applies only to commercial space. The 70 units per acre applies to residential. Therefore, an individual could build commercial space on the first floor and 70 units per acre above. This would allow for a fairly large mixed use project. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he misunderstood these numbers and asked about the height of a 70 unit building. CDD Gardiner stated it could be four to seven stories. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the original project on Lot F had a density of 160 units per acre. She explained that it is now closer to 130 units per acre. She discussed how these buildings become large boxes and it is important to work on the aesthetics of the buildings so that they are more attractive. She stated that she needed to understand the interplay a little more and would be interested to know if 70 units per acre is enough. Additionally, she wanted to know if the developer was to take on the State density bonus, what does that look like. . Councilmember Ortiz stated that this is the area to increase housing as it is right by the BART station and freeway entrances. He noted that he is in favor of going as big as the City can go in this area. He stated that by putting housing in this area, you are still protecting the neighborhoods in other parts of Burlingame. Councilmember Beach agreed with Councilmember Ortiz that this is the right area to increase housing. She stated that there is no question that the Millbrae BART station will continue to be important, and that this is where you should build housing. She stated that the City would be able to reduce parking requirements because of the area’s close proximity to public transportation. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 17 Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was okay with the numbers listed in the draft General Plan. She stated that Rollins Road was being targeted for live/work. She noted that she believed a better location for public transit housing would be by the Burlingame Plaza. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the one thing he thought was missing in this chapter is how neighborhoods are created and the assurance of open spaces. Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he was hearing was that three Councilmembers were interested in knowing whether the City could set a higher target for housing and what it would like, and one Councilmember thought the proposed numbers were good. However, he thought all of the Council was struggling with whether they would get four stories or seven stories in this area. Therefore, he stated that it would be useful if the consultants showed what this would look like with different standards. North Burlingame Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct that the City could zone for more units, but once the change area had reached the maximum listed in the EIR, the City would need to update the EIR. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked CDD Gardiner to discuss Peninsula Health Care District’s request. CDD Gardiner explained that the perimeter properties along Marco Polo and Trousdale are currently zoned mixed use and would like to remain mixed use. He explained that currently, the Peninsula Health Care District’s land is zoned unclassified. Unclassified is a use that the General Plan attributes to facilities of a public nature that don’t have zoning. However, general plans are no longer allowed to have unclassified areas, so the new version of this label that is being used is public institution. The perimeter neighbors are concerned that they are going to be labeled public institution. The Peninsula Health Care District doesn’t want to be labeled public institution and instead wants to be zoned mixed use. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed it was only fitting and proper that the perimeter properties get to maintain their mixed use zoning. She stated that if the Peninsula Health Care District is allowed to go from no zoning to mixed use, the District would be adding significant value to their property. Therefore, she thought the Council should further discuss this request and consider what the District wants to do with the land and what community benefits it provides. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City is being asked to put the overlay into the General Plan. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked if because it is an overlay, the City could move forward with the General Plan update and handle the overlay separately in the future. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He added that another option is to leave these lots as public institution, and when the project comes forward, it would include a request for a General Plan amendment. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 18 Mayor Brownrigg stated that this would create more flexibility in the future and agreed with CDD Gardiner’s suggestion. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she supported increasing density in North Burlingame. Councilmember Ortiz voiced concern about allowing tall buildings next to residential communities like the homes on Dufferin. Mayor Bronwirgg stated that while the General Plan would set densities, it wouldn’t set style. Therefore, the Council could require that the developer decrease the height of a project as it got towards Dufferin. He noted that this is why variable massing made sense instead of fixed height. CDD Gardiner stated that it sounded like the Council was interested in going for the alternative of 140 units per acre. The Council replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that pursuing that density doesn’t necessarily increase height as developers could be building smaller more transit-oriented units. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Council should be discussing height limits for the North Burlingame change area. CDD Gardiner stated staff will be bringing interim zoning to Council to review that would include height limits. He noted that staff was using the Summerhill project as a case study, and that height limits on a block by block basis had been discussed. Councilmember Beach discussed the impact of increasing density and population on the schools. She stated that it was important to work with the schools and ensure that the City’s decisions didn’t negatively impact the schools. She asked CDD Gardiner to discuss the information he had researched about transit-oriented developments. CDD Gardiner cautioned on making broad generalizations as the nature of the data varies and there are a lot of variables. However, staff found that in Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Walnut Creek, Foster City, and Mountain View, the units tend to be small near transit hubs. He explained that this is driven by densities and the market. The smaller transit-oriented units don’t attract families at the same level as town homes. He added that a lot of the projects built near transit are life style projects not geared towards families. Councilmember Beach stated that the City is growing, and the student population is growing because of how good the schools are in the community. She stated that the City is probably going to need a new school in the future, but she is at least comforted by the research that adding units will not negatively impact the schools. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this flagged one of his stylistic issues, which is that the City needed to increase references to the schools in the General Plan. He stated that where other school districts are shrinking and consolidating, the City has grown by 40% in K-8 school populations. Broadway Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 19 Mayor Brownrigg noted that the draft General Plan decreased the FAR on Broadway. He asked how this would change Broadway. CDD Gardiner stated that what Broadway is currently missing is residential as an allowed use. Therefore, the draft General Plan proposes 40 units per acre with a 2.0 FAR. He noted that he didn’t believe there was a building on Broadway utilizing the 3.0 FAR. Mayor Brownrigg asked if anything would change with the proposal. Ms. Stetson explained that the proposal for Broadway would protect retail while allowing office uses on the side streets. Mayor Brownrigg stated that therefore the City is not likely to see live/work built on Broadway. Ms. Stetson stated that the opportunity is there. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she supported offices on the side streets and believed that design review would help with protecting the nature and facades of the buildings on Broadway. Councilmember Beach stated that she thought there needed to be a Broadway Specific Plan. She asked how long it would take to implement a specific plan for Broadway. CDD Gardiner stated that implementation of the General Plan will include specific plans. He stated that staff has felt that Broadway would be a natural candidate. Mayor Brownrigg stated that even if the General Plan was approved, there would be a chance to do an overlay on Broadway. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Kane noted that staff will need to go back and look into the staging and phasing aspect of the General Plan. This is because if the City unlocks new uses without coordinating standards, than the City might have the problem of projects coming in that aren’t consistent with the City’s overall vision. Therefore, the City is going to have to review the timing aspects as they relate to interim zoning, to make sure staff has captured the important parts in a timely manner. Downtown Area Mayor Brownrigg stipulated that he thought the current Downtown Specific Plan is working out. Therefore, he wanted his colleagues to focus on auto row. He asked what the current standards are for auto row. CDD Gardiner stated that the maximum height is 55 feet. He explained that the Downtown area does not have density or FARs and instead projects are limited by heights and setbacks. Mayor Brownrigg stated that Kent Putnam’s request was for a maximum height of 85 feet. He stated that he believed this was too high but thought 55 feet was not high enough to create workforce housing. He asked if his colleagues would be okay with having 55 feet by right and 70-75 feet with a conditional use permit, provided that the rationale for that extra height was to create workforce housing. Vice Mayor Colson explained that the Council should gain input from the Lyon Hoag community prior to increasing height on auto row. She stated that while she did understand the need to build additional housing, she was also concerned that 70 feet on auto row would create an aesthetic barrier that divides the city. She Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 20 added that 70 feet would work in the center of Downtown provided that structures were sloped down to meet the neighborhoods. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was concerned about going too high on auto row. He asked if there were any buildings in the area that were 75 feet. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed the AT&T building was 75 feet and possibly the condos on Park. Councilmember Ortiz stated that a building that is 75 feet tall would change the feel of the area. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wanted to flag Kent Putnam’s request because in listening to the auto dealers, he wasn’t sure that dealerships and auto shops were viable without workforce housing. Councilmember Beach stated that her inclination is that a lot went into the Downtown Specific Plan so the City should keep the 55 feet maximum height. She asked if it is the use that prevents the auto dealers from creating workforce housing. Councilmember Beach asked if the predicted population growth would need to be increased based on Council’s decisions to increase allowable units and heights of structures. Ms. Stetson replied in the negative and explained that it was accounted for in the Environmental Impact Report. CDD Gardiner stated that if there are interests in changing height limits in the Downtown area, this would have to be done in the Downtown Specific Plan. California Drive CDD Gardiner stated that the General Plan is proposing to reintroduce residential as a permitted use. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the draft General Plan envisions a road diet and protected bike lanes on California Drive. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. El Camino Real CDD Gardiner stated that it is remaining consistent with its current status. He noted the one request at Adeline Market for mixed use. Mayor Brownrigg stated that it is an area that should be mixed use. The Council agreed. Mayor Brownrigg asked staff to come back to Council with a proposal for design standards in this area that would fit in with the other El Camino Real properties. Councilmember Beach noted that she lives close to this market. She asked if the Council was running into any spot zoning issues by discussing one parcel’s request. CDD Gardiner stated that staff would be Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 21 discussing the two parcels together and therefore it is a node and isn’t singling out one parcel. He added that it does make sense to apply the same zoning overlay to both properties. Councilmember Beach asked staff to notify the surrounding area of this proposed change. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Residential Neighborhoods Mayor Brownrigg stated that this area is remaining consistent. He noted that the historic preservation chapter in the draft General Plan does apply to these areas. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the 50-year minimum threshold for resources being deemed historic was State mandated. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He explained that CEQA has a presumption of a 50- year threshold where an approving body has to have confidence that if a building is at least 50 years old, that it doesn’t have historic status. He noted that the environmental review is handled differently if the building does have historic status. CDD Gardiner clarified that while there had been a proposal to have evaluations triggered by sales of property, this is not what is being proposed. Instead, the proposal is for evaluations to be triggered by a major project like second-story additions or a major remodel. City Attorney Kane noted that the exact mechanism for evaluating historicity doesn’t have to be in the General Plan. Instead, it can be a work item to follow the General Plan with more of a community process. Councilmember Ortiz stated that currently, if he buys a house that is older than 50 years, nothing would happen. He asked if he was to currently undertake a major remodel on a home that is more than 50 years old, what would happen. CDD Gardiner replied that if the home was in Burlingame Park, an evaluation would be done. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the proposal was for all neighborhoods to behave like Burlingame Park. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson stated that 50 years is going to encompass most of the properties in Burlingame. She asked if the threshold could be changed to 75 or 100 years. Councilmember Ortiz stated that currently, the evaluation would be triggered for anything built after 1968. MIG Environmental Planner Ray Pendro explained that the 50-year threshold is a State law from the State Office of Historic Preservation. He noted that interior renovations wouldn’t trigger an evaluation. Councilmember Beach stated that this is a complex question. She noted that there are issues of equity and wasn’t sure what the right threshold would be. Therefore, she stated that this is a work item that the Council Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 22 needs to receive significant community impact on before making a decision. She added that it seemed to be a large cost to community members when 88% of those evaluated are found to not have historic resources. Vice Mayor Colson stated that there is a neighborhood of Eichler homes that are getting into the 50-year range. She noted that this is a historic area. She explained that what people traditionally consider to be historic are tudors and colonials. However, what is considered historic doesn’t just deal with the architecture but could also deal with the events that occurred in the building. She stated that staff should research how other cities have handled this matter. Mayor Brownrigg stated that there was consensus that this item should be pulled out of the draft General Plan, and a working group should be formed. He added that the City should make it easy for individuals to self-elect their property as historical. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the soft story request was something that the City should try to build into the General Plan, or is it another work item to look at after adoption. CDD Gardiner stated that the policy is currently in the draft General Plan, and it is a work item with a timeline. Councilmember Beach stated that she supported integrating school district coordination in the General Plan. Councilmember Beach asked how prescriptive the bicycle network is in the General Plan. She noted that the City is about to embark on a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Ms. Stetson stated that the bicycle network is trying to show that there are opportunities to link destinations with bike routes. Councilmember Beach stated that the routes were determined through the advisory committee and consultants, but there could be additional layers of outreach. Ms. Stetson replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked that if his colleagues had any specific comments, they submit them to staff and the consultants. Mayor Brownrigg added that the City received comments from the Burlingame Hills Association. He explained that if he was rewriting the annexation section of the draft General Plan, that it would stress that annexation should be done in a collaborative manner. Councilmember Beach asked if she was correct that the overlays in the change areas didn’t prohibit the current use, it just adds additional uses. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative, if it is an actual overlay. Councilmember Beach asked if the changes on Rollins Road would drive out industrial. CDD Gardiner stated that change is not being structured as an overlay but rather as new zoning. However, staff has been cognizant of the uses that the City wants to protect. Councilmember Beach asked staff to flag these areas for Council. Mayor Brownrigg thanked staff, MIG, and the public for their assistance in this project. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 23 f. DISCUSSION OF MAYOR BROWNRIGG’S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY HIRE A PUBLIC SPACE DESIGN FIRM TO ASSIST WITH THE DESIGN OF THE PUBLIC SQUARE WITHIN THE POST OFFICE PROJECT Mayor Brownrigg stated that one of the public benefits of the Post Office redevelopment is a town square. He explained that he wasn’t confident that the architect for the project would spend as much time as someone designing the square for the City would spend. Therefore, he stated that he wanted the City to hire someone that would be the City’s advocate for the public space. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he thought this would be covered when staff and the Planning Commission review the plans. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Planning Commission is a great place to be reactive but thought the City should hire a specialist for this project. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she agreed and suggested forming a subcommittee. She added that she would expand the mandate to include the paseo, common areas, and the side streets. Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Beach agreed with the project. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. The Council agreed to have staff go out for a RFP on obtaining a specialist. Councilmember Beach asked if the Post Office redevelopment team would need to assist in paying for this specialist. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this would be a question for the City Attorney to research. 11.COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14.ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 11/19/18 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 24 Mayor Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 10:54 p.m. in celebration of Martha Benson’s 90th birthday. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8b MEETING DATE: November 19, 2018 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date:November 19,2018 From:Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works –(650) 558-7230 Subject:Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Kitchell CEM for the Fire Stations Emergency Generators Replacement Project, City Project No. 84950, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a professional services agreement to Kitchell CEM for the professional design services related to the Fire Stations Emergency Generators Replacement Project in the amount of $107,521 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND The emergency generators and associated transfer switches at Fire Stations 34 (799 California Drive), 35 (2832 Hillside Drive), and 36 (1399 Rollins Road) were identified as in need of replacement in the 2016 Burlingame Building Facilities Condition Assessment Study. New generators are required to ensure adequate and reliable back-up power at the fire stations in the event of an emergency. DISCUSSION Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to obtain professional services for the replacement of fire stations’ generators as mentioned above. The City received a total of four proposals from qualified firms. After reviewing all of the proposals, staff determined that Kitchell CEM’s proposal demonstrated the best understanding of the project, the air quality permitting process, and the project schedule. Kitchell CEM’s proposal met all of the project requirements, and the company has a past history of performing similar work successfully for other agencies. As a result, staff recommends that the City Council award the project to Kitchell CEM and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Staff has negotiated a professional services fee with Kitchell CEM in the amount of $107,521, to provide engineering design services related to the replacement of the backup generators. This fee is reasonable and consistent given the scope of work and industry standards. The scope of professional services includes the following: Approval of Professional Services Agreement to Kitchell CEM for November 19, 2018 the Fire Stations Emergency Generators Replacement Project 2 Conduct pre-design investigation phase work including kick-off meeting, review of as-built plans, site survey and analysis; Prepare all required schematic and design drawings, including perform pre-calculations; develop phasing plan; identify options for new locations of generators; Perform peer review corrections and prepare technical responses to comments; Prepare final construction documents, including plans, specifications and engineering cost estimates; Perform project management Prepare all permit applications and coordination with regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and Provide assistance during the contractor bidding and award phase. FISCAL IMPACT Professional Design Services $ 107,521 Staff Administration $10,000 Contingency (15%)$16,128 Total $ 133,649 There are sufficient funds available in the FY 2018-19 Facilities Capital Improvement Program to complete the design work. Staff will return to the City Council in the future for the construction contract award after completion of the design work. Exhibits: Resolution Professional Services Agreement RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KITCHELL CEM FOR THE FIRE STATIONS EMERGENCY GENERATORS REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 84950 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California which FINDS, and ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1.The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2.The City Manager is authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3.The City Clerk is instructed to attest such signature. _____________________________ Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19 th day of November, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND KITCHELL CEM THIS AGREEMENT is by and between KITCHELL CEM (“Consultant”) and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”). Consultant and City agree: 1.Services. Consultant shall provide the Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Compensation. Consultant agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for an amount not to exceed $107,521.00, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts (“Maximum Compensation”). Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All invoices submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Invoices shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant’s signature. 3.Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on November 30, 2019 unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant’s control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City’s Contract Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date. 4.Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. 5.Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance to City. 6.Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Page 2 of 5 Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 7.Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall, without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services performed up to the time of Consultant’s cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment. 8.Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs, computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on their use. Upon City’s request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall return all City property in Consultant’s control or possession immediately upon termination. 9.Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws, statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 10.Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state, local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement. Page 3 of 5 11.Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 12.Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 13.Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. 14.Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i) depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier (“Courier”), postage paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the sending facsimile machine’s acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent. Page 4 of 5 15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor. Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement. When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine, the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the plural. The terms “shall”, “will”, “must” and “agree” are mandatory. The term “may” is permissive. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is made otherwise. Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees, contractors, subcontractors and employees. Page 5 of 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME KITCHELL CEM 501 Primrose Road Name Burlingame, CA 94010 Address By: By (Signature): Lisa Goldman Name City Manager Title Date: Date: Attest: Federal Employer ID Number: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number: City Clerk Expiration Date: Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Scope of Services Exhibit B - City Insurance Provisions Burlingame Generators – Project Approach Kitchell’s design approach emphasizes continuous communication between the design team and the City of Burlingame. We believe in providing value for every dollar the City spends in design and construction. As a result we are continuously reviewing design assumptions, material selection and equipment to provide maximum value. We constantly review our details to ensure they are constructible. It is our understanding that the City has identified the need to remove and replace three emergency generators at Fire Stations 34, 35, and 36. These three generators and associated transfer switches were identified as in need of replacement in the City’s Facilities Condition Assessment Study. This project will require an evaluation and recommendation for replacement/upgrade of generators and associated equipment; development of drawings, specifications and estimates for bidding and construction; coordination and assistance in the permitting process; and supporting services during bid and award. Kitchell typically starts all our projects with site surveys to ascertain existing building systems. Our design process is a team approach that encompasses the owner, users, peer reviewers, agencies, sub-consultants, and the design team. 1.Pre-Design Investigation and Schematic Design Upon notice to proceed, our experienced in-house design team shall collect and review all relevant data for your project. This includes existing as-builts and maintenance history of the emergency generators. We will also contact the regulatory agencies that will affect this project to determine applicable codes and ordinances. In order to meet the City’s expectations and ensure project success, each team member will have a clearly defined role and set of responsibilities. Kitchell will also set up a communication protocol within our internal team to eliminate any duplication of effort and/or confusion. We will also set up a direct line of communication between our project manager and your project director. We recommend the use of a tabular responsibility matrix defining the roles and responsibilities of each member on the project team. This effort will help identify potential conflicts and omissions of activities before they become issues. It will also allow each team member to see a snapshot of their responsibilities and how they relate to other team members. We will conduct a project kick-off meeting with the City once the relevant data has been reviewed and the project team is established. During the meeting, we shall review the project’s goals and objectives, scope, budget, schedule, and deliverables. We will also review each other’s roles and responsibilities and establish project protocols that foster and facilitate team communication and collaboration. After the kick-off meeting, our team will visit the generator locations and prepare a basis of design (BOD) document. The BOD document will be issued to the City that identifies our findings of the site visit and the basic scope of work for each site. Upon receipt the City’s review of the BOD document, we will develop the schematic design. The schematic design will consist of a plan layout and single line diagram for the new generators; a conceptual phasing plan to minimize the disruption/shutdown time of the fire stations during construction; alternative solutions with estimated costs, if necessary; table of contents for the specifications; a preliminary cost estimate, and a project schedule. We will plan to meet with the City to review their comments on the schematic design, obtain a consensus as to how the documents will be revised as appropriate to incorporate your comments, and finalize the BOD report. 2.100% DD and 90% CD Phase Based on the approved schematic design documents and any adjustments authorized or directed by the City, we will develop and refine the design, and prepare construction documents. At this point, we will enlist the services of our electrical load monitoring consultant to begin the 30-day load monitoring at the Fire Stations. During these phases we will refine the design and prepare the drawings and specifications and set forth in detail the requirements for construction of the entire project. Specific details relating to the unique character of the project will be developed. Mechanical, electrical and structural calculations will be refined. We will include the required inputs to the City’s Project Specific Specification Book (Division 0). We will update the project schedule. Exhibit A We will prepare a cost estimate at the 100% DD and 90% CD phases. If the cost estimate exceeds the approved preliminary construction budget, we will explain and justify the increase as well as submit a list of proposed modifications to bring the cost within budget. Prior to submitting the 100% DD and 90% CD to the City, we will perform a thorough in-house QC of our work. Our 100% DD and 90% CD submittals to the City will also include a comment and response log of the City’s comments on previous submittals. We will plan to meet with the City to review their comments on the 100% DD and 90% CD submittals and obtain a consensus as to how the documents will be revised as appropriate to incorporate the comments. 3.100% CD Phase Based on the City’s comments and direction on the 90% CD, we will revise the 90% CD submittal to produce the 100% CD documents for building plan-check and approval. By this stage of document development, all unique characteristics of the site have been identified and the standard details required for construction will be inserted into the drawings. Equipment sizing is verified and a complete set of drawings, specifications, and calculations will be provided for permit review/approval. We will then issue a final bid set based on the plan check comments and include a final comment and response log. We will also prepare applications and obtain all permits and approvals from all regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, including the Building Department. 4.Bid & Award Phase Kitchell will attend the bid walk to describe the scope of work to the contractors, and will address any bidder questions and issue addenda as required. Once the City has received the bids we will assist in evaluating them to ensure they have met all aspects of the work. 5.Air Permitting Once the construction contract has been awarded, Kitchell’s air permitting consultant will schedule a conference call with Kitchell and the City in order to discuss project needs and available information. The air permitting consultant will prepare a list of all information necessary to complete the Authority to Construct (ATC) applications. Some of this information will come from the contractor submittals such as the manufacturer/model numbers of the generators being installed. Upon receiving the necessary information, Kitchell’s air permitting consultant will prepare the ATC applications for each engine. These applications will include review of applicable federal (US EPA), state (CARB), and local Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations, preparation of emissions calculations using approved emission factors and calculation methodologies, completion of all required BAAQMD application forms, and payment of associated ATC fees. BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5 requires a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for each project which emits toxic air contaminants. The HRA can be performed by either the air permitting consultant or by the BAAQD based on information provided by the permit applicant. However, should BAAQMD’s analysis show that the engines exceed any BAAQMD risk thresholds, the applications will be denied unless Kitchell can show that there was an error in the district’s analysis, that a more refined modeling approach shows a passing result, or that the risk can be reduced in some other way (e.g. changing the engine model, increasing stack height, etc.). Kitchell’s air permitting consultant recommends performing these assessments ahead of the ATC permit submittals to determine whether the applications will be approved by BAAQMD, or if changes in engine models, emission controls, or engine locations would be required to assure passing results. Performing the HRAs preemptively expedites the application process as any analyses performed by Kitchell’s air permitting consultant showing compliance can be submitted to BAAQMD. Additionally, Kitchell’s air permitting consultant will address any post-submittal questions by BAAQMD and provide follow-up support, if necessary. Miscellaneous Internal Tasks Throughout the design phase our project manager will meet with our team weekly to review project progress, resolve issues and provide guidance for the following week’s work. Our project manager will contact the City’s project director to discuss issues as they arise and keep you informed of the overall status of each project. At every meeting with the City, Kitchell will ensure notes are kept and meeting summaries distributed within 48-hour turnaround. Every site visit attended by Kitchell will be followed by a site visit report which will be distributed within 48 hours of each meeting and include photo documentation of progress and issues discussed. Quality Control Quality is embedded in Kitchell’s corporate culture. We have adopted and implemented a Continuous Quality Improvement Process based upon the program of Philip Crosby and Associates—a world recognized leader in Total Quality Management. Each and every employee is trained in the process—tools, measurements, documentation and corrective action. Our program begins with a commitment to quality performance and “doing it right the first time” in all of our work processes. To encourage active participation, we reward our employees for identifying areas for improvement and finding ways to improve our work processes. The quality control process that Kitchell has put in place has been designed to catch errors as the design progresses and not during construction which results in delays and added costs. City of Burlingame Generator Replacement EAS Dept DirectorProject ManagerStructural EngineerMechanical EngineerElectrical EngineerProject DesignerEstimatorBIM/CAD OperatorAdminstrativeTotal HrsTotal Fee Task #Description Hourly Rate 195$ 175$ 165$ 165$ 165$ 120$ 150$ 130$ 90$ 1 Pre-Design Investiation Phase 1.01 Kick-off meeting w/City 4 4 660$ 1.02 Review As-built Information 2 2 330$ 1.03 Site Survey (3) sites 8 8 1,320$ 1.04 Provide preliminary schedule and cost estimate (NIC)0 -$ 1.05 Project Managemet 2 2 350$ Subtotal Task 1 0 2 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 16 2,660$ 2 Schematic Design Phase 2.01 Provide 75% Basis of Design document to City. Including:0 -$ 2.02 a. Preliminary Calculations 4 4 660$ 2.03 b. Plans, Narrative, & outline specifications 4 4 12 20 4 44 6,260$ 2.04 c. Phasing plan to maintain Fire Stations 4 4 660$ 2.05 d. Options for new Generator locations for review. Consider Exhaust, noise, line of sight,4 8 8 20 3,020$ 2.06 e. Cost Estimate 8 8 1,200$ 2.07 Meet W/City to present 75% BOD 4 4 660$ 2.08 Incorporate City Comments and submit 100% BOD 4 4 4 12 1,780$ 2.09 Quality Control 1 1 2 2 6 920$ 2.10 Project Management (includes Quality Control)2 10 12 2,140$ Subtotal Task 2 2 10 5 9 38 0 12 34 4 114 17,300$ 3 Design Development and Construction Document Phase 3.01 Provide 100% DD submittal w/plans, outlline specs, cost estimates 16 8 24 16 32 4 100 14,840$ 3.02 Coordination Meeting with City to review 100% DD 4 4 660$ 3.03 Provide 90% CD submittal w/plans, specs, cost estimates 24 12 20 8 24 4 92 13,920$ 3.04 Coordination Meeting with City to review 90% CD 4 4 660$ 3.05 Provide 100% CD submittal w/plans, specs for permit 4 2 16 12 2 36 5,370$ 3.06 Incorporate permit comments 4 4 660$ 3.07 Provide a Bid Set Submittal w/plans & specificaitons. Provide Building permit application 4 2 8 6 2 22 3,270$ 3.08 Quality Control 4 2 8 8 22 3,350$ 3.09 Project Management (includes Quality Control)2 26 28 4,940$ Subtotal Task 3 2 26 52 26 88 0 24 82 12 312 47,670$ 4 Bidding Support 4.01 Response to Bidder Questions as needed.2 2 4 8 1,320$ 4.02 Attend Bid Walk (NIC)0 -$ 4.03 Review Bids and support City Evalulation process (NIC)0 -$ 4.04 Prepare and Issue Bid addenda (if required).2 4 4 10 1,510$ 4.05 Project Management (includes Quality Control)2 2 350$ Subtotal Task 4 0 2 4 2 8 0 0 4 0 20 3,180$ 5 Construction Administration - Excluded Subtotal Task 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -$ Total Hours 4 40 61 37 148 0 36 120 16 462 70,810$ Total Fee Per Discipline $780 $7,000 $10,065 $6,105 $24,420 $0 $5,400 $15,600 $1,440 $70,810 Reimbursable Expenses (5% of base fee)$3,541 30-Day Electrical Load Study for FS 34 and 36 (Attachment A)$4,500 Air Permitting Consultant (Attachment B) Preparing ATC Permits Only $9,000 Health Risk Assessment $9,000 Additional Follow-up and Support $2,000 BAAQMD Permit Fees (Minimum)$5,655 Kitchell's Markup on Consultants (10%)$3,016 Total Fee $107,521 PROPOSAL LETTER To Kitchell Att Gerald Neuffer Proposal number 14910 Proposal date 5/4/2018 Fire Stations 34 & 36 Power Monitoring Burlingame CA Bid date Description Power Monitoring Scope of work Provide technical services and PowerSight Power Quality Analyzers to perform data recording on the following equipment for 30-days: 1. One (1) PowerSight Monitor at Fire Station #34, ATS Load Side 2. One (1) PowerSight Monitor at Fire Station #36, ATS Load Side Price includes three (3) hard copies of reports and submittals. Additional copies are subject to a surcharge. Services, components, or equipment not listed above are not included or implied in this proposal. Any and all specifications associated with above project and not listed here may be deemed as an exception unless agreed by both parties in writing to be part of the scope of this proposal. (N/A, No Specs Supplied) Price is based on performing scope of work in contiguous work days and hours. Any work that is requested by client scheduled before all equipment is ready or installed, may incur mobilization charges. Where Torque testing is performed, it will be by others. Any unplanned standby time due to customer operating conditions or utility delays will be billed on Time and Material basis. If testing schedule is close to end of regular straight time hours, overtime differential will apply. Any and all meetings will be billed on a Time and Material basis and are not included in this proposal. Purchase orders or Contracts must refer to proposal for scope of work. Tel:916.614.9774 Fax: HP Name Location Rev 6736 Preston Avenue, Suite E, Livermore, CA 94551 Ph. (510) 783 5096 Fax (510) 785-6480 3:26:02 PMMonday, May 07, 2018 Page 1 of 2 Insurance requirements that deviate from our standard limits or requirements may incur a fee Client responsibilities 1. Provide a minimum of 2-3 week notice for testing schedule for each mobilization. 2. Provide free and clear access as defined by NFPA 70 E article 100 to equipment. 3. Provide one qualified person to identify equipment. 4. Provide a purchase order or Contract for the work listed prior to scheduling. Power Monitor 1. Provide end user info that panels will be open during power monitor 2. Provide safety barriers for unauthorized personnel. 3. Provide 120v 15 A single phase outlet within 10 feet for each point to be measured 4. Power outlet must be energized 24 hours 7 days a week while monitoring in process PROPOSAL PRICING IS BASED ON WORK BEING PERFORMED ON NORMAL, WEEKDAY, STRAIGHT-TIME HRS, AT PREVAILING WAGE RATES. $0.00 $4,500.00 90 AlfordJacob ON A TIME A MATERIALS BASIS, FOR A COST NOT TO EXCEED: FOR A FIRM PRICE OF: THIS PROPOSAL IS VALID FOR: SIGNED: POWER SYSTEMS TESTING COMPANY DAYS Note: Unless otherwise stated, all costs are based on straight time rates. 6736 Preston Avenue, Suite E, Livermore, CA 94551 Ph. (510) 783 5096 Fax (510) 785-6480 3:26:03 PMMonday, May 07, 2018 Page 2 of 2 VIA E-MAIL: mbackovich@kitchell.com May 14, 2018 Mr. Milutin Backovich Electrical Department Manager Kitchell CEM 2450 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 RE: Proposal for Three Emergency Diesel Engine ATCs City of Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Backovich, Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide environmental consulting services to Kitchell CEM (Kitchell). This proposal outlines the tasks, costs, and timelines associated with the preparation and submittal of Authority to Construct (ATC) applications for three emergency diesel generators to be located in the City of Burlingame, CA (The City). The engines will be located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). TASK DESCRIPTIONS Trinity proposes to complete the following tasks in support of this project. Task 1. Request for Information Trinity will submit a request for information (RFI) to Kitchell for the information necessary to complete the ATC applications. If necessary, Trinity will schedule a conference call between Kitchell, the City, and Trinity i n order to discuss project needs and available information. Trinity assumes for the purposes of this proposal that the three engines are not located at the same facility, as defined by BAAQMD,1 and that site visits of the facilities are not required. Task 2. Preparation of the ATCs Upon receiving the materials in response to the RFI described in Task 1, Trinity will prepare the ATC applications for each engine. These applications will include review of applicable federal (US EPA), state (CARB), and local (BAAQMD) regulations, preparation of emissions calculations using approved emission factors and calculation methodologies, and completion of all required BAAQMD application forms. Task 3. Health Risk Assessment – (Optional) BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5 requires Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) for each project which emits toxic air contaminants. The cost of conducting each HRA is covered by the Risk Assessment Fee outlined below in the Project Budget section of this proposal. As such, Kitchell is not required to submit an HRA for each engine. However, should BAAQMD’s analysis show that the engines exceed any BAAQMD risk thresholds, the applications will be denied unless Kitchell can show that there was an error in the district’s analysis, that a 1 BAAQMD Regulation 1, Section 215 Mr. Milutin Backovich - Page 2 May 14, 2018 more refined modeling approach shows a passing result, or that the risk can be reduced in some other way (e.g. changing the engine model, increasing stack height, etc.). Trinity recommends performing these assessments ahead of submittal to determine whether the applications will be approved by BAAQMD, or if changes in engine models, emission controls, or engine locations would be required to assure passing results. Additionally, performing the HRAs preemptively expedites the application process as any analyses performed by Trinity showing compliance can be submitted to BAAQMD. Should Kitchell choose not to have Trinity conduct the HRAs, and an application fails the BAAQMD’s analysis, Trinity can, at such time, perform the air dispersion modeling and HRAs to refine the district’s results. Assuming the first modeling iteration for all three engines shows compliance with the HRA thresholds, the HRAs can be completed at an estimated cost of $9,000, or $3,000 per engine. Task 4. Additional Follow-up and Support – (Optional) Trinity is including this optional task for eight miscellaneous consulting hours to address any post-submittal questions by BAAQMD and follow-up support, if necessary. If follow-up items from the BAAQMD are greater than expected, and further consulting hours are deemed necessary, Trinity will request a budget extension from Kitchell at that time. This task can be completed at a cost of $2,000. PROJECT BUDGET Trinity estimates that the scope of work described in Tasks 1 and 2 of this proposal can be completed for a total cost of $9,000. The full scope of work of this proposal, including optional tasks, can be completed for a total cost of $20,000. All cost estimates for this project are on a time and materials basis and include all standard Trinity fees. All charges are based on Trinity’s current Price Schedule. If the terms outlined in this scope are acceptable, Kitchell can initiate work via e-mail or by issuing a purchase order to Trinity. In addition to the costs associated with the preparation of the ATCs as outlined above, Kitchell will also need to include the following BAAQMD fees.2 Filing Fee: $474 per ATC x 3 ATCs = $1,422 Initial Fee3: $337 minimum per ATC x 3 ATCs = $1,011 Risk Assessment Fee4: $811 minimum per ATC x 3 ATCs = $2,433 Permit to Operate Fee5: $239 minimum per ATC x 3 ATCs = $717 Toxic Surcharge6: $24 minimum per ATC x 3 ATCs = $72 The total BAAQMD fees for all three applications is therefore $5,655.00. 2 For purposes of estimating fees, Trinity has assumed that the engines will qualify for the minimum fees outlined in Schedule B of BAAQMD Regulation 3. 3 Initial fee is $63.11 per MMBtu/hr with a minimum fee of $337 and a maximum fee of $117,733 4 Risk Assessment Fee is $63.11 per MMB tu/hr with a minimum fee of $811 and a maximum fee of $117,733 5 Permit to Operate Fee is $31.54 per MMBtu/hr with a minimum fee of $239 and a maximum fee of $58,866 6 Toxic Surcharge fee is 10% of Permit to Operate Fee ($239 minimum) for a source that emits one or more TACs at a rate that exceeds a chronic trigger level listed in Table 2-5-1 of BAAQMD Regulation 2. Mr. Milutin Backovich - Page 3 May 14, 2018 If you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to call me at (916) 273 - 5127. Sincerely, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Jeffrey Adkins Principal Consultant Rates Effective January 1, 2018 Role Hourly Rates Project Executive $220 Project Director $208 Engineering Department Manager $195 Senior Project Manager $185 Project Manager $175 Project Designer/Commissioning Support $120 Senior Architect $165 Architect $160 Senior Structural Engineer $165 Structural Engineer $160 Civil Engineer $160 Senior Civil Engineer $165 Senior Mechanical Engineer $165 Mechanical Engineer $160 Senior Electrical Engineer $165 Electrical Engineer $160 Commissioning Agent $160 BIM Manager/Specialist $130 Estimating Manager $165 Estimator $150 ATTACHMENT C Rates Effective January 1, 2018 Scheduling Manager $165 CMMS Specialist $120 Administrative Support/Clerical $90 Exhibit B Page 1 of 2 Exhibit B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1.Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 04 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be $2,000,000. 2.Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Consultant has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3.Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4.Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: Additional Insured Status The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds on the auto policy with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Consultant and on the general liability policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used). Primary Coverage For any claims related to this contract, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. Exhibit B Page 2 of 2 Notice of Cancellation Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City. Waiver of Subrogation Consultant hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Claims Made Policies (note – should be applicable only to professional liability, see below) If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage: 1.The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. 2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. 3.If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work. Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. Special Risks or Circumstances City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: November 19, 2018 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date:November 19, 2018 From:Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works –(650) 558-7230 Subject:Adoption of a Resolution Rejecting All Bids Received for the Fire Station 35 Improvements Project, City Project 84340 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution rejecting all bids received for the Fire Station 35 Improvements Project and authorize staff to revise project specifications to clarify requirements and re-advertise the project. BACKGROUND The City Council has previously approved the renovation of Fire Station No. 35 located at 2832 Hillside Drive, including upgrades to the outdated HVAC system and the plumbing system. The 5600 square foot fire station facility is outdated and no longer meets the current needs of the firefighters. The major work elements consist of constructing two bathrooms (whereas only one bathroom currently exists), renovation of the sleeping quarters for firefighters to provide adequate space, removing and replacing the plumbing system, replacing single pane windows with double pane windows, installation of a new HVAC system, and energy efficiency lighting upgrades to the building. The engineering design was successfully completed, and the project was advertised for bids on October 9, 2018. The project bids were opened on November 5, 2018. The City received a total of four proposals, with base bids ranging from $681,000 to $1,039,300. Eagle Builders of San Ramon, California, is the apparent low bidder with its base bid amount of $681,000. On November 8 and 9, 2018, the City received a bid protest from Wickman Development and Construction, the second apparent low bidder, and Eagle Builders responded to the bid protest. In reviewing the bid documents and bid protest, staff determined that the project specifications need to be revised in order to clarify the project requirements. Therefore, staff recommends that all bids be rejected and the project be re-advertised with revised specifications. Adoption of a Resolution Rejecting All Bids Received for the November 19, 2018 Fire Station 35 Improvements, City Project No. 84340 2 FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: Resolution Bid summary RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE FIRE STATION 35 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING REVISIONS AND RE-ADVERTISING FOR THE PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 84340 WHEREAS, on October 9, 2018, the City issued a notice inviting sealed bids for the Fire Station 35 Improvements Project, City Project No. 84340; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2018, all bid proposals were opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, the City received four bid proposals with base bids ranging from $681,000 to $1,039,300; and WHEREAS, after review of the bid documents, staff determined that the project specifications need to be revised to clarify the project requirements, and re-advertise the bids. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that all bids received are rejected; all bonds and security received in connection with the bids received shall be returned to the bidders; and the Director of Public Works is authorized to modify the plans and specifications for the work and to rebid the project in accordance therewith. ______________________ Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of November, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________ City Clerk CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE STATION 35 IMPROVEMENTS City Project No. 84340BID SUMMARYBID OPENING: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 2:00 P.M.ITEMITEM DESCRIPTIONNo.QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT1 General ConditionsLS LS 93,000.00$          93,000.00$ 90,000.00$          90,000.00$               100,000.00$       100,000.00$             170,000.00$       170,000.00$             238,000.00$       238,000.00$             2 Site Demolition & Site work (Division 3, 31, & 32) LS LS 46,000.00$          46,000.00$ 41,000.00$          41,000.00$               50,000.00$          50,000.00$               80,000.00$          80,000.00$               15,000.00$          15,000.00$               3 MEP (Division 21,22,23,26,27 & 28)LS LS 192,000.00$       192,000.00$ 176,000.00$       176,000.00$             250,000.00$       250,000.00$             283,000.00$       283,000.00$             238,200.00$       238,200.00$             4 Building (all Divisions not noted above)LS LS 245,000.00$       245,000.00$ 271,000.00$       271,000.00$             380,000.00$       380,000.00$             320,400.00$       320,400.00$             431,600.00$       431,600.00$             5 Contractors Overhead and ProfitLS LS 84,000.00$          84,000.00$ 76,000.00$          76,000.00$               125,000.00$       125,000.00$             60,000.00$          60,000.00$               92,300.00$          92,300.00$               6 Bonding LS LS 10,000.00$          10,000.00$ 18,000.00$          18,000.00$               18,120.00$          18,120.00$               14,000.00$          14,000.00$               13,500.00$          13,500.00$               7 InsuranceLS LS 10,000.00$          10,000.00$ 9,000.00$            9,000.00$ 9,241.00$            9,241.00$ 9,000.00$            9,000.00$ 10,700.00$          10,700.00$               Total Base Bid680,000.00$       680,000.00$ 681,000.00$       681,000.00$             932,361.00$       932,361.00$             936,400.00$       936,400.00$             1,039,300.00$    1,039,300.00$          BA1 Roofing & SkylightsLS LS 122,000.00$       122,000.00$ 160,000.00$       160,000.00$             191,000.00$       191,000.00$             181,000.00$       181,000.00$             102,600.00$       102,600.00$             BA2Windows and Patio Door for Living Spaces & Apparatus BayLS LS 58,000.00$          58,000.00$ 80,000.00$          80,000.00$               54,000.00$          54,000.00$               11,500.00$          11,500.00$               121,600.00$       121,600.00$             BA3 Fire Protection SystemLS LS 20,000.00$          20,000.00$ 68,000.00$          68,000.00$               62,000.00$          62,000.00$               149,300.00$       149,300.00$             75,000.00$          75,000.00$               BA4 East Water HeaterLS LS 16,000.00$          16,000.00$ 22,000.00$          22,000.00$               14,500.00$          14,500.00$               26,600.00$          26,600.00$               12,500.00$          12,500.00$               BA5 Basement HVACLS LS 18,000.00$          18,000.00$ 22,000.00$          22,000.00$               39,000.00$          39,000.00$               43,800.00$          43,800.00$               32,700.00$          32,700.00$               BA6Paint Interior walls, ceiling, and trip of rooms Apparatus Bay and Utility LSLS 17,200.00$          17,200.00$ 11,000.00$          11,000.00$               16,000.00$          16,000.00$               15,800.00$          15,800.00$               12,500.00$          12,500.00$               Total Bid Alternates251,200.00$       251,200.00$ 363,000.00$       363,000.00$             376,500.00$       376,500.00$             428,000.00$       428,000.00$             356,900.00$       356,900.00$             RODAN BUILDERSENGINEER'S ESTIMATEEAGLE BUILDERSWICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIONSAUSAL CORPORATIONPage 1 of 1 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: November 19, 2018 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date:November 19, 2018 From:Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works –(650) 558-7230 Subject:Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Alta Planning + Design for Traffic Engineering and Planning Services for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a professional services agreement with Alta Planning + Design, in the amount of $204,472, for traffic engineering and planning services for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update, City Project No. 85200, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND As part of the City’s FY2018-19 Capital Improvement Program budget, the City Council has approved funding to update the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The current Bicycle Transportation Plan was last updated in 2004 as an amendment to the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. Many of the major projects that were identified in the original 2004 Plan have been completed, including the addition of bike lanes on Carolan Avenue, California Drive, and Howard Avenue, and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Overcrossing at US101. The new master plan will identify future-short term and long-term bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the city, provide planning and guidance on future complete streets projects consistent with the new General Plan Update, and better position the City to qualify for future bicycle/pedestrian projects grant funding opportunities. DISCUSSION Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional engineering and design services for several transportation engineering projects, including the Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Update, on April 4, 2018 and received seven proposals in response. Alta Planning + Design was selected through a competitive selection process to perform traffic engineering and planning services related to the update of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Alta Planning + Design was selected because of their high understanding of the overall project, project approach, and quality of proposal. Alta Planning + Design has previously worked on bicycle and pedestrian master plan efforts for other similar neighboring agencies such as Menlo Park, San Mateo, San Leandro, San Pablo, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. In addition, they are familiar with local conditions through their work on the California Drive Complete Streets Project and the 2018 Professional Services Agreement for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update November 19, 2018 2 Resurfacing Project, which included community outreach and coordination with the citizens’ Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) for feedback on pedestrian facilities. Staff has negotiated the following scope of professional services with Alta Planning + Design, in the amount of $204,472, which is also detailed in Exhibit A of the attached agreement: Perform necessary field engineering and data collection work; Provide notifications for public/neighborhood outreach meetings (up to three notifications); Coordinate and meet with BPAC to obtain input in the planning and identification of projects (four meetings); Attend and obtain detailed feedback from residents from each public meeting (up to three meetings); Based on initial public feedback, develop a study which includes conceptual designs, locations, short-term and long-term improvements, and cost estimates for all associated work; Study to include short-term and long-term improvements, maps, conceptual designs, cost estimates, and identification of possible funding opportunities; Present draft study to the community at a second public meeting; Revise draft study based on feedback; Present revised study to Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) and the City Council; and Incorporate the final feedback and input from the City Council and finalize the Master Plan. The professional services fee amount of $204,472 is consistent with industry standards for traffic engineering services based on the scope and complexity of the project, which includes public outreach, conceptual and preliminary designs, and completion of a report detailing the recommendations. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated costs related to project development: Engineering Design Services $ 204,472 Contingencies (15%)$30,670 Staff Administration $14,858 Total $ 250,000 There are adequate funds available in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update Project, to undertake the work. Exhibits: Resolution Professional Services Agreement RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 85200 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California which FINDS, ORDERS and DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: 1.The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2.The City Manager is authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3.The City Clerk is instructed to attest such signature. _____________________________ Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19 th day of November, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ City Clerk Page 1 of 8 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES WITH ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN FOR THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE CITY PROJECT NO. 85200 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ___________ day of ____________, 2018, by and between the City of Burlingame, State of California, herein called the "City", and Alta Planning + Design engaged in providing Professional Traffic Engineering and Planning Services herein called the "Consultant". RECITALS A. The City is considering conducting activities for consultant engineering services for professional traffic engineering and planning services for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update, City Project No. 85200. B. The City desires to engage a professional engineering consultant to provide traffic engineering and planning services because of Consultant’s experience and qualifications to perform the desired work, described in Exhibit A. C. The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENTS NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide professional engineering services such as public outreach, conceptual and preliminary designs, and completion of a report detailing the recommendations, and as detailed in “Scope of Services” of the attached Exhibit A of this agreement. 2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence upon the execution of this Agreement with completion of all work as set forth in Exhibit A. 3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Page 2 of 8 Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Burlingame business license. 4. Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement. 5. Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by the City and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of these documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City before such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a defined project, and City's use of the information contained in the reports prepared by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk, unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant. 6. Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not exceed $204,472; and payment shall be based upon City approval of each task. Billing shall include current period and cumulative expenditures to date and shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent materials shall be submitted for City review, even if only in partial or draft form. 7. Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written request of the City. Page 3 of 8 8. Project Manager. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this Agreement shall be Hugh Louch, Principal-in-Charge. 9. Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City. 10. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: To City: Andrew Wong, Senior Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Consultant: Hugh Louch, Principal-in-Charge Alta Planning + Design 100 Webster Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as Consultant designates in writing to City. 11. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent performance or wrongdoing. Page 4 of 8 12. Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City’s sole discretion, divest itself of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City’s sole discretion, sever any such employment relationship. 13. Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. 14. Insurance. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance: i. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than: One million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO Occurrence Form CG 0001. ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her Page 5 of 8 and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. iii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) each claim/aggregate sufficient to insure Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement. iv. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. B. General and Automobile Liability Policies: i. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the Consultant. The endorsement providing this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions. ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Page 6 of 8 iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. C. In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers' Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further, Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees. D. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by mail, has been given to the City (10 days for non-payment of premium). Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City Clerk. E. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California. F. Verification of Coverage: Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 15. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall save, keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, employees, authorized agents and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, that may at any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set up because of damages to property or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, or any of the Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This provision shall not apply if the damage or injury is caused by the sole negligence, active Page 7 of 8 negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers. 16. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 17. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo. 18. Termination of Agreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen (15) days written notice of termination. In the event of termination, the Consultant shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by the Consultant. In the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event, compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination. 19. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Consultant. 20. Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as costs not to exceed $7,500 in total. 21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party. Page 8 of 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). City of Burlingame “Consultant” By Lisa K. Goldman Alta Planning + Design City Manager Print Name: Title: Approved as to form: City Attorney – Kathleen Kane ATTEST: City Clerk – Meaghan Hassel-Shearer Burlingame Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan This project will develop a bicycle and pedestrian master plan for the City of Burlingame that provides a vision and action plan for the City to improve safe and convenient travel by active transportation modes in Burlingame. Task 1. Project Management & Project Strategy Alta will plan and facilitate a project kick-off meeting and stakeholder strategy session to clarify the project scope, background, and priorities. At the conclusion of this meeting, Alta will develop a final project management plan. and the City of Burlingame project manager including email, phone and written communication to keep the City up-to-date on Plan development. Alta will conduct monthly project management meetings to review project status, schedule, and budget and provide meeting notes at the conclusion of each meeting. Deliverables •Final project management plan •Monthly meeting notes Task 2. Collect and Review Existing Data/Conditions Task 2.1 Existing Conditions Alta will submit a data request memo to the City, ensuring we have all available relevant data, ing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and supporting infrastructure using data provided by the City. This includes: Pedestrian, bikeway, and trail inventory data provided by the City that covers sidewalks, crosswalks, and bikeways. Roadway characteristic data provided by the City, County, or Caltrans staff (including number of travel lanes, roadway/travel lane width, speed limits/speed survey data, and traffic volume data (as available). Any detailed existing and proposed land use data available from the City. Demographic data (population, employment, and other information) from the Census, including from the American Community Survey. in person, supported by a review of available aerial photography and/or Google StreetView. The City will describe the extent of existing bicycle and pedestrian programs in the City, including Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) programs, recreational programs and events run by the City, and any other efforts to encourage or educate residents of Burlingame on biking and walking safely. EXHIBIT A Burlingame Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 2 Alta will develop a set of maps, tables, and narrative that describe the existing bicycle and pedestrian network and conditions. Task 2.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts Alta will contract with a data collection vendor to collect bicycle and pedestrian counts at up to 10 locations. Counts will be collected during AM and PM peak periods for 3 days at each location. Deliverables •Data request memo •Maps, data tables, and narrative summarizing the existing network •Bicycle and pedestrian counts Task 3. Public Outreach Task 3.1 Public Outreach and Engagement Strategy As the City of Burlingame considers modifications to its physical infrastructure, it is critical to involve citizens and stakeholders in the process. Early and sustained involvement helps make a successful project, but drawn out schedules can sap the interest of all but most the serious advocates. Alta will develop a detailed Public Outreach and Engagement Strategy that will include description of events, schedule of events, and key considerations for planning the events. The strategy will include timing of outreach activities discussed Task 3.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) throughout the project. We will meet with the BPAC at least four (4) times during the course of the project with the following milestones: ➢Kick-Off/Strategy Session : Facilitated discussion of priorities for BPAC members, review of scope, and review of public outreach strategy ➢Define Options : Review of existing conditions (Task 2), policies (Task 4) and needs assessment (Task 5) ➢Review Recommendations : Review potential recommendations and tradeoffs from the ➢Draft Plan: Review and endorse the Draft Plan document. The BPAC will also be engaged in helping deliver the public engagement events described below. Task 3.3 Walking and Bicycling Tour Alta will lead a walking and bicycling tour of the City for the City staff, elected officials, BPAC members, identified stakeholders, and potentially members of the public. The Alta team will work with City staff and BPAC members to identify a route for the tour that captures issues, constraints, and opportunities along key existing and future bicycle and pedestrian routes. This exercise has proven to be a valuable tool in similar projects. Alta staff will lead the bicycle and walking tour, beginning with an orientation session that includes safety instructions and an overview of the plan. During the tour, Alta staff will EXHIBIT A Burlingame Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 3 facilitate a conversation about issues and potential solutions at key problem areas. We will identify discussion points along the way, develop a route map, provide an itinerary of meeting locations and times, and provide all necessary supplies and materials. The tour will allow participants to gain close-up, first-hand knowledge of opportunities and constraints and enable the group to provide valuable input to the Alta team. Task 3.4. Community Input Map Alta will develop an online interactive community input map that allows the public to identify priority destinations for walking and biking, routes they would like to see improved, and similar information. Users can also comment on input from other, allowing for a dialogue among residents. The online input map can also be complemented by some basic survey questions that provide additional information on bicycle and pedestrian existing behavior, perceptions, and needs. Task 3.5 Public Meetings We anticipate three rounds of public meetings during the project, focused on tangible products that require public engagement. Specific outreach events will include: ➢ Pop Up Initial Outreach . At the outset of the project, after the completion of existing conditions (Task 2), Alta will conduct pop-up events at two locations City farmers market, train station, or another local event. This outreach will introduce residents to the plan, provide information about existing conditions, and gather input from the public on needs, opportunities, and challenges. ➢ Needs Workshop . Alta will conduct a public workshop that presents the findings of the policies, goals and objectives (Task 4) and the needs assessment (Task 5). The workshop will present these findings and gather input about needs and priority areas for improvement. ➢ Recommendations/Draft Plan . Alta will conduct a second workshop that presents draft recommendations for walking and biking infrastructure projects and programs. The workshop will gather input on these recommendations and potential priorities. All public meeting input will be captured in a working paper and summarized in a chapter of the Plan. Optional task Additional Public Meeting Support Alta will support additional pop-up events or public meetings if desired by the City. Deliverables • Final public engagement strategy describing goals of the outreach and proposed events • Presentations and meeting notes from up to four BPAC meetings • Walking and biking tour map, instruction, and notes • Community input map • Public meeting materials, including input boards, presentations, comment cards, and similar opportunities • Working paper that describes the various input methods and all of the input r eceived EXHIBIT A Burlingame Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 4 Task 4 Policies, Goals and Objectives This task will include an efficient, but careful review of existing plans and policies. Alta will review existing bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, and other transportation-related planning documents conducted by the City and County. This includes the General Plan, municipal & zoning code, and the County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2011). Alta will summarize existing plans and policies in a working paper. As part of that working paper, Alta will identify key potential goals, objectives, and policies for the plan update. We anticipate facilitating a conversation with City staff and the BPAC to discuss key themes from the plan review and identify a draft set of goals, objectives, and policies for the plan update. Deliverables •Summary of policies from other plans •Recommended goals, objectives, and policies for the Burlingame BPMP Task 5: Needs Assessment This assessment will quantify factors that impact walking and bicycling activity, locate network gaps as potential projects, and identify key pedestrian and bicycling areas based on demand and supply variables. The analysis includes: ➢Demand Analysis . Alta will use data about existing and proposed land use, trips, and others to identify where there is high demand for biking and walking in Burlingame. This will consider access to transit, schools, work, commercial destinations, and others. ➢Safety Analysis . Alta will use data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) or local police data to identify where there have been collisions, injuries, and fatalities involving people walking and biking in Burlingame. ➢Connectivity Analysis . Alta will use data about existing multimodal infrastructure to develop an understanding of how well destinations and areas of demand are connected for people who want to bike. This analysis will include rating existing bikeway facilities for level of traffic stress (LTS). Alta will conduct these analyses and produce summary maps, tables, and narrative that describe needs. Information from the public outreach process will also be integrated into this process. Deliverables •Working paper summarizing needs, including maps, tables, and narrative Task 6. Recommendations & Implementation Strategy The core of the plan will identify recommended projects and programs for future implementation. This task will provide Burlingame with a list of projects, a method to prioritize projects, and identification of funding sources to support future projects. Based on the needs analysis and public and stakeholder input, Alta will develop a recommended network that includes both bicycle and pedestrian facilities. We will make sure th at the network includes top community priorities, while providing a connected network. Proposed projects will be evaluated using a qualitative process that is organized around the . Typical project evaluation criteria include: EXHIBIT A Burlingame Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 5 ➢Public Support: The project provides a significant improvement to a community identified challenge area. ➢Safety: The project addresses safety concerns such as reported collisions or areas of high risk. ➢Connectivity: The project improves overall network connectivity or provides access to key destinations. ➢Transit Support: The project provides an improved connection to transit. ➢Quality: The project type is appropriate for the context, providing low stress travel for people walking and biking. ➢Feasibility: The extent of project constraints in terms of right-of-way acquisition, impacts on traffic operations, cost, and other factors. Alta will work with the City and the BPAC to finalize the criteria and evaluation method and apply these to the projects. Alta will also develop an implementation strategy that identifies potential funding opportunities including local, regional, and statewide funding and applies those to each project. Optional task Additional Data Collection, Analysis, and Studies Alta will conduct additional data collection and analysis, if requested by the City, to support the needs analysis and individual project recommendations. This analysis might explore the volumes (auto, bike, ped) and travel speeds on specific streets and conduct modeling and analysis to determine the suitability of a street for proposed improvement. Optional Task Project Cut Sheets For a select set of priority projects identified by the City, Alta will create project cut sheets that capture: ➢Summary information about the project location, improvement characteristics ➢Existing and proposed cross section ➢A rendering or photosimulation that provides an easy means to understand the future project ➢Information on potential tradeoffs required to implement the project (e.g., impacts to parking, vehicle lanes, etc.) Deliverables •Long term vision for bicycle and pedestrian networks in Burlingame, including maps, tables, and narratives that capture all proposed improvements. •Prioritized project list, including maps and tables that capture the top feasible priorities for the City EXHIBIT A Burlingame Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 6 Task 7. Draft and Final Plan Documents Alta will develop an Administrative Draft Plan based on the work conducted in prior tasks. The objective of this task is to produce a simple but useful plan that captures existing conditions, a future vision for bicycle and pedestrian accommodation in Burlingame, and the implementation steps needed to get to that vision (including priority and timing). Alta will revise the Administrative Draft Plan into a Public Draft Plan based on a consolidated, consistent set of comments from the City. The Public Draft Plan will be posted for review by the Public and Alta will work with the City to provide opportunities to receive feedback on the draft. Alta will compile the comments received from the public into a matrix with a proposed disposition for each comment. Similar comments will be grouped for easier review. Alta will meet with the City to review this matrix and revise the disposition matrix. After completing that review, Alta will develop a Final Draft Plan for the City to review and will make necessary updates to the Final Plan after review by the City. Alta will present the Final Plan to the Traffic, Safety, and Parking Committee and the City Council and make minor modifications as needed to complete the project. Schedule Project Management K Technical Tasks Outreach B P P B W B T W B K Kickoff B BPAC P BPACPop-Up W Workshop T Biking/Walking Tour Input Map Goals NOV DEC Plan Programs Needs Analysis Project Recommendations MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPTask 2019 DEC JAN FEB MAR APR OCT 2018 EXHIBIT A Burlingame Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 7 Budget Total expected budget is $149,972 including $36,972 for labor expenses and up to $13,000 for expenses. Actual expenses will depend on the number and type of bicycle and pedestrian counts to be gathered as part of this project. We have also identified optional tasks for additional studies and data collection, cut sheets for priority projects, and public outreach. The total cost with options is $204,472. Principal-in- Charge Project Manager Associate Engineer Designer/ Graphics Planner/ Outreach GIS Hugh Louch Otto Melara Carlos Valadao Ryan Booth Ben Frazier Lisa Schroer 2018 Hourly Rate*$272 $163 $170 $98 $98 $98 1 Project Management and Project Strategy 12 24 0 0 0 0 36 $7,176 1.1 Project Management & Project Strategy 12 24 36 $7,176 2 Collect and Review Existing Data/Conditions 6 20 0 0 24 24 74 $9,596 2.1Existing Conditions 4 16 16 24 60 $7,616 2.2 Bicycle & Pedestrian Counts 2 4 8 14 $1,980 3 Public Outreach and Engagement 38 72 0 0 76 32 218 $32,656 3.1 Public Outreach and Engagement Strategy 2 4 8 14 $1,980 3.2 BPAC 8 16 12 36 $5,960 3.3 Walking & Biking Tour 2 4 8 14 $1,980 3.4 Community Input Map 2 4 8 16 30 $3,548 3.5 Public Meetings 24 44 40 16 124 $19,188 4. Policies, Goals & Objectives 2 4 0 0 20 0 26 $3,156 4.1 Policies, Goals & Objectives 2 4 20 26 $3,156 5. Needs Assessment 12 40 0 0 64 80 196 $23,896 5.1 Needs Assessment 12 40 64 80 196 $23,896 6. Recommendations & Implementation Strategy 12 40 24 24 80 48 228 $28,760 6.1 Recommendations & Implementation Strategy 12 40 24 24 80 48 228 $28,760 7. Draft and Final Plan 24 44 0 60 84 40 252 $31,732 8.1 Admin Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 8 16 24 40 16 104 $12,624 8.2 Public Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 8 16 20 24 16 84 $10,664 8.2 Final Draft Plan 8 12 16 20 8 64 $8,444 Staff Hours 106 244 24 84 348 224 1030 $136,972 Bicycle & Pedestrian Counts $10,000 Web Input Map $2,000 Reimbursable Expenses & Travel $1,000 Project Total $28,832 $39,772 $4,080 $8,232 $34,104 $21,952 $149,972 Optional Tasks Additional Studies and Data Collection $20,000 Cut Sheets (up to 10)$25,000 Additional Pop Up Event $2,000 Additional Public Meeting $7,500 Total, with Options $204,472 * Hours and staff assignments can be adjusted by the consultant as needed to implement the tasks described during the course of the project. * Hourly rates are for calendar year 2018, and will be adjusted if work is continued into subsequent year(s). Alta Planning + Design Task Hours Total Task FeeTASK EXHIBIT A Hugh Louch Principal-in-Charge With 17 years of experience in multimodal transportation planning and project management, Hugh has successfully managed dozens of multimodal transportation planning projects at local, regional, and state levels, and has led research to iden- tify best practices in transportation planning. Hugh has significant expertise in stra- tegic planning and performance management, helping his clients focus their limited resources on the projects and programs that best reflect agency goals and objec- tives and provide cost effective and efficient solutions. Hugh has led workshops across the U.S. on performance-based planning, working closely with government agency participants to define actions to improve their planning processes. BAY AREA CALTRANS DISTRICT 4 BICYCLE PLAN Alta is leading the bicycle plan for Caltrans District 4 (covering the entire nine-county San Francisco Bay Area). The plan is focused on how potential new bicycle infra- structure on and across the state highway system can help connect the communi- ties of the Bay Area. This plan will build on the ongoing State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan which will provide goals, objectives, and strategies designed to advance state- wide goals of tripling bicycling in California. The statewide focus is on strategies and policy changes that provide guidance to both Caltrans and local agencies as they work to support statewide goals. At the district level, the focus of this project is appropriately on specific state highway system corridors and how they facilitate or limit bicycle travel. Hugh is serving as the Project Manager. BRISBANE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Hugh served as the Project Manager for a master plan for the City of Brisbane, a community of 4,500 people directly south of San Francisco. Hugh helped the city identify bicycle and pedestrian improvements to complete the city’s network of bicycle lanes, pedestrian paths, and trails. PALO ALTO BICYCLE BOULEVARDS Hugh is Principal-in-Charge of the nine bicycle boulevard corridors in Palo Alto. These projects include consideration of various treatments including green bicycle lanes, cycletracks, intersection treatments, and traffic calming. The Alta team is preparing PS&E and the development of associated engagement activities neces- sary for the successful completion of the Palo Alto Bike Boulevard design for Bryant, Moreno-Amarillo, Ross, and Meadow-Louis-Montrose Bike Boulevard Corridors. SAN LEANDRO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN UPDATE As Principal-in-Charge, Hugh is leading the City of San Leandro on a focused update of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian plan to identify convenient alternatives to motor vehicles for families, commuters, transit riders, and people recreating. The plan update is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Complete Streets policies, and involves process includes public engagement events, the creation of detailed system maps, needs analysis, and recommendations on facilities, programs, and policies. EDUCATION MA, Sociology, Princeton University, 1998 BA, Sociology with Honors, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1995 PROFESSIONAL HIGHLIGHTS Alta Planning + Design, 2015– Principal, Cambridge Systematics, 2001–2015 Research Associate, Public Policy Institute of California, 2000–2001 ORGANIZATIONS Vice Chair, Transportation Research Board Performance Measurement Committee RELEVANT EXPERIENCE EXHIBIT A EDUCATION Master of Urban Planning, San Jose State University, 2017 BS, Civil Engineering, Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo, 2009 PROFESSIONAL HIGHLIGHTS Alta Planning + Design, 2018– Bike Program Manager, Apple Inc., 2013–2018 Commute Coordinator, San Jose State University, 2011 - 2013 Otto Melara Project Manager Otto has a background in outreach, community planning, and engineering. He has worked with local municipalities, community groups, non-profit organizations, and corporate entities to deliver bicycle and pedestrian plans, neighborhood plans, program management and support, and system analysis. Otto aims to create seamless pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks while bolstering the character and identity of communities. A native Spanish speaker who is fluent in both English and Spanish, Otto is experienced with written translation and live interpretation of English to Spanish for professional planning content and in public- oriented settings. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Alta is working with the City of South San Francisco to prepare a comprehensive, citywide Active Transportation Plan that identifies existing and new routes for alternate modes of transportation throughout South San Francisco, studies improvement projects to achieve complete and safe routes for bicyclists and pedes- trians throughout the City, and prioritizes these improvements. Otto is serving as Assistant Project Manager, leading assessment of existing conditions, GIS analysis, public outreach, and recommendations. PACIFICA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN The plan is focusing on evaluating and updating existing and potential bicycle and pedestrian routes/connections that will provide a comprehensive network of active transportation options. Alta is working with the City to establish goals, analyze existing pedestrian and bike facilities, recommend new facilities, develop implemen- tation plans, update bicycle and pedestrian collision and count data and education programs while incorporating design guidelines. Otto is severing as the Project Manager, focusing on analyzing the current infra-structure in search of key issues, working with stakeholders on public outreach, assessing needs through GIS, and providing recommendations. MODESTO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Alta is helping the City of Modesto update its Non-motorized Transportation Plan into an Active Transportation Plan, consistent with Caltrans requirements. Alta is building on several recent project successes in Modesto to identify critical needs to address in the City to provide a complete biking and walking network. Otto is serving as the Assistant Project Manager for this effort, helping lead the team that is identifying needs and new bicycle and pedestrian projects. APPLE INC. BIKESHARE PROGRAM, CUPERTINO* As part of Apple’s transportation demand management program, Otto oversaw the operations of the company’s bikeshare program consisting of nearly 2,000 bicycles serving most of its Santa Clara Valley locations including the new Apple Park head- quarters site. Otto managed program operations as they related to bike mainte- nance and rebalancing, rider safety, fleet expansion, GPS integration, facilities and site requirements, outreach and communications, bicycle procurement, and vendor management. Otto worked with project managers and general contrac-tors to deliver bicycle parking facilities serving commuters, visitors, and bikeshare users. *Completed prior to joining Alta EXHIBIT A Carlos Valadao, PE Civil Engineer Carlos is a licensed Civil Engineer with seven years of experience in roadway and utility design for both public works and private development projects. He is passionate about the implementation and design of alternative transportation facili- ties in urban environments. Carlos has strong experience in Civil 3D and has a diverse background in geometric design, drainage and utility design, utility coordination, and the preparation of plans and estimates. PALO ALTO BICYCLE BOULEVARDS, PS&E Carlos assisted in the preparation of PS&E and the development of associated engagement activities necessary for the successful completion of the Palo Alto Bike Boulevard design for Bryant, Moreno-Amarillo, Ross, Meadow-Louis-Montrose Bike Boulevard Corridors. As part of this effort, he assisted in roadway and grading design that will implement green bicycle lanes, cycletracks, intersection treatments, and traffic calming for each corridor. This requires intersection grading, drainage design, and implementation of signing, striping and wayfinding for each corridor. Phase II of this project includes providing civil and geometric design services for four bicycle boulevard corridors. BURLINGAME CALIFORNIA DRIVE BIKE FACILITY, PS&E Alta is providing public outreach and design services for three different options for a bicycle facility along California Drive in Burlingame to facilitate safe access and flow for walking, bicycling, and driving from Murchison Drive to south of Broadway. Alta is proposing feasible bicycle facilities options for Class I, Class II, and Class III options which will be presented to the city through multiple public meetings and outreach events. Carlos is serving as Project Manager and assisted with managing and preparing 35%, 60%, 90%, and 100% PS&E in accordance with the latest edition of the Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications for the City of Burlingame and the 2010 Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications. SAN ANTONIO STATION (RAILS) BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PS&E, MOUNTAIN VIEW The San Antonio Station (Rails) Bicycle Improvement Project consists of a set of bicycle and pedestrian projects that improve access from the San Antonio Caltrain Station to the Google North Bayshore Campus. These improvements will help connect neighborhoods and business parks to regional trails and bicycle boule- vards, as well as provide bicyclists and pedestrians enhanced connectivity and safety measures to cross major roadway barriers in Mountain View. Carlos is serving as Senior Engineer. CITY OF DAVIS H STREET, DAVIS LITTLE LEAGUE PARKING LOT, BIKE PATHWAYS AND TUNNEL IMPROVEMENTS, PS&E Carlos is Senior Engineer for the City of Davis H Street Project, as part of an engi- neering on call contract. Alta is providing design and engineering services to improve the parking lot for the Davis Little League and bike pathway connections to and through the parking lot connection to J Street through a pathway Tunnel under the Union Pacific rail lines. Alta is providing design and project management services through the planning, PS&E, permitting, and bidding process to construction. Carlos is serving as Associate Engineer for this project. RELEVANT EXPERIENCEEDUCATION BS, Civil Engineering, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo PROFESSIONAL HIGHLIGHTS Alta Planning + Design, 2016- BKF Engineers, 2013-2016 AECOM, 2009-2013 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS Professional Civil Engineer (#80350) EXHIBIT A Ryan Booth Designer Ryan is a designer in Alta’s Oakland office. Prior to joining Alta, his work in landscape architecture, affordable housing, and civic engagement allowed him to develop a diverse background. Ryan holds a Bachelor’s Degree in landscape architecture from Ohio State University’s Knowlton School of Architecture. Since graduating, he has worked on an array of landscape architecture projects, widely ranging in scale and scope. Additionally, he has served multiple terms as an AmeriCorps service member, serving with Habitat for Humanity in California. Ryan has also spent time serving with Bike & Build, where he plan and led service-oriented cycling trips. MISSION SAN JOSE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR CONCEPT, FREMONT Alta was selected by the City of Fremont to provide on-call transportation planning services. As part of this on-call contract, Alta is developing alternative designs to calm traffic and improve the streetscape conditions on Mission Boulevard between Washington Boulevard and Pine Street in Fremont. Ryan is serving as Project Designer and is providing support with conceptual design and alternatives analysis. He also supports the development of plans and illustrative graphics to communicate and document the project design. REDDING DOWNTOWN STREET CIRCULATION Alta is a part of the consulting team leading the Redding Downtown Street Circulation Project that consists of transportation and roadway design, progressive non-motorized design concepts, and Low Impact Development elements. Ryan is serving as a Designer and is assisting with landscape architecture and Complete Streets elements for all design phases of the project. MIDDLE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE RAIL CROSSING STUDY, MENLO PARK Menlo Park is looking to develop concepts and preliminary designs for a grade separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Caltrain tracks in Menlo Park near the intersection of El Camino Real and Middle Avenue. Alta is leading the study and creating construction documents for the pedestrian and bicycle rail crossing. Ryan is serving as Designer and provided graphic support for this project. ANDERSON ROAD PLANNING AND OUTREACH, CITY OF DAVIS ON-CALL Alta was selected by the City of Davis Public Works Department to provide on-call engineering services for Capital Improvement Program projects. Alta is working on a diverse set of projects for the Public Works and City Manager’s Office including planning and conceptual design for several projects in the downtown core of Davis to improve safety, health and welfare. Alta is leading outreach and Complete Streets conceptual design for Anderson Road in Davis. Ryan is serving as Designer and is providing support with conceptual design and alternative analysis. He is also providing graphic support for this project. EDUCATION BS, Landscape Architecture, The Ohio State University, 2009 PROFESSIONAL HIGHLIGHTS Alta Planning + Design, 2017– Studio 2112 Landscape Architecture, 2015-2016 AmeriCorps, Habitat for Humanity 2012-2014 Stephen Stimson Associates, 2011-2012 URS, Cleveland (now AECOM), 2009-2011 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE EXHIBIT A Ben Frazier Planner/Outreach Ben has experience in active transportation, specifically with bicycle infrastruc- ture in urban areas, and public transit experience from working in Los Angeles. He is interested in expanding and improving active transportation infrastructure and access to transit to create active, healthier and more equitable communities. He is also interested in community engagement; giving everyone a chance to voice his or her opinions and desires. OAKLAND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN UPDATE Alta is assisting the City of Oakland in the 2016 Oakland Bicycle Master Plan Update. Tasks include documentation of existing conditions and current best practices, planning for a network of high-quality bikeways serving “all ages and abilities”, establishing a methodology for measuring the quality and connectivity of bikeways, and developing an action oriented plan with performance measures for increasing bicyclist mode share, decreasing bicyclist crashes, and improving the quality of bikeways. As a Planner, Ben helped facilitate discussions and field questions during multiple community workshops and pop-up events. BART BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GAP CLOSURE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS AND PEER REVIEW, BERKELEY Alta is helping the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) identify and design access improvements at the North Berkeley and Coliseum stations. Alta is leading an inclu- sive planning process to identify potential transit operations, bike and pedestrian access, and streetscape improvements at these stations. Alta is also leading the two phases of outreach with BART’s partners. Ben conducted pedestrian and bicycle counts and observations and helped develop alternative access routes for both Coliseum, Fremont, and North Berkeley BART Stations. SAN LEANDRO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN UPDATE Alta is working with the City of San Leandro on a focused update of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian plan to identify convenient alternatives to motor vehicles for families, commuters, transit riders, and people recreating. The plan update is consis- tent with the City’s General Plan and Complete Streets policies, and the plan update process includes public engagement events, the creation of detailed system maps, needs analysis, and recommendations on facilities, programs, and policies. Ben conducted the review of existing plans, documents, and policies in order to make recommendations. He also prepared the materials and staffed the Community Open House, interacting and gathering input and comments from the BPAC and commu- nity members. Ben is a part of creating and launching Facebook ads to generate survey responses. BAY AREA CA CALTRANS DISTRICT 4 BICYCLE PLAN Alta is leading the bicycle plan for Caltrans District 4. The plan is focused on how potential new bicycle infrastructure on and across the state highway system can help connect the communities of the Bay Area. This plan will build on the ongoing State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan which will provide goals, objectives, and strate- gies designed to advance statewide goals of tripling bicycling in California. Ben is serving as a Planner on this project. EDUCATION MPL, Master of Planning, University of Southern California, 2016 BS, Environmental Studies and Political Science, Santa Clara University, 2014 Professional Registrations American Planning Association (#305062) PROFESSIONAL HIGHLIGHTS Alta Planning + Design, 2016– LA Metro, 2015-2016 City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation, 2014-2015 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE EXHIBIT A Lisa Schroer GIS Specialist Lisa is a geographer with a passion for spatial analysis and cartographic design. She recently graduated from Middlebury College in Vermont with a bachelor’s degree in Geography, and a minor in Mathematics. Lisa worked for the Vermont Department of Health as a GIS Intern following her graduation, where she worked with various departments to prepare public health data, produce risk and cluster analysis maps, create web-mapping applications, and provide GIS user support and training. She is particularly drawn to work that helps improve communities. GLENN COUNTY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Alta is leading the preparation of a long-range, comprehensive plan for creating truly walkable and bikeable environments throughout Glenn County, including both its cities and unincorporated areas. The plan aims to include bicycle and pedestrian projects and program recommendations that reflect the unique Glenn County envi- ronment. This plan will address needs and facilities related to pedestrians, bicycling, and Safe Routes to School while incorporating existing Americans with Disabilities Act analysis. Alta will develop a plan to complete sidewalk networks with urban- ized areas, prioritize repairs on existing facilities, and integrate active transportation with school bus and public transit operations. Lisa is providing GIS support for this project. ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL STUDENT SAFETY DIRECT TRAINING Alta is working with Alameda CTC to provide services that teach student safety skills related to walking, biking, and other green transportation modes for the Alameda County Safe Routes to School Program. Alta is providing a comprehensive and equi- table program throughout Alameda County and developing a core program that will allow every student in Alameda County to have access to age-appropriate bike and pedestrian safety training and SR2S educational activities. Lisa is providing GIS support for this project. MENLO PARK TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM UPDATE Alta is a part of a consulting team working with the City of Menlo Park in the prepa- ration of a Transportation Master Plan. The team is assisting the city with trans- portation planning, developing goals and metrics to assess the circulation system, community engagement, and project prioritization. Alta is working to identify a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network and present infrastructure strate- gies to resolve network gaps and enhance active transportation comfort and safety. Lisa is providing GIS support for this project. BAY AREA CALTRANS DISTRICT 4 BICYCLE PLAN Alta is leading the Caltrans District 4 (covering the entire nine-county San Francisco Bay Area) Bicycle Plan. The plan is focused on how potential new bicycle infrastruc- ture on and across the state highway system can help connect the communities of the Bay Area. This plan will build on the ongoing State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan which will provide goals, objectives, and strategies designed to advance statewide goals of tripling bicycling in California. Lisa is providing GIS support for this project. EDUCATION BA, Geography, Middlebury College, 2017 PROFESSIONAL HIGHLIGHTS Alta Planning + Design, 2018– Vermont Department of Health, 2017 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE EXHIBIT A 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e MEETING DATE: November 19, 2018 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date:November 19,2018 From:Carol Augustine, Finance Director—(650) 558-7222 Subject:Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending September 30, 2018 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the City’s investment report through September 30, 2018. BACKGROUND This report represents the City’s investment portfolio as of September 30, 2018. The report includes all invested City funds with the exception of bond proceeds, the City’s account with the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), which is used to pre-fund the City’s retiree medical obligations, and the §115 trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program. All other investments are covered by and in compliance with the City’s adopted Statement of Investment Policy. DISCUSSION The City’s investments are guided by the Statement of Investment Policy (the “Policy”), which is reviewed and approved by the Council annually The Policy was last approved by the City Council on June 18, 2018. 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 (PFM), and also maintains funds invested in the State’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP) to achieve its investment goals. CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS The U.S. economy continued to expand in the third quarter as the unemployment rate hit historical lows, consumer confidence rose further, and stocks surged. This occurred despite ongoing concerns about a trade war with China, a disorderly Brexit, Italian budget concerns, Iranian sanctions, a Turkish debt crisis, and other geopolitical risks. Investment Report, September 30, 2018 November 19, 2018 2 Positive domestic economic data included strong readings on the labor market, auto sales, industrial production, manufacturing and service sector purchasing manager surveys, and consumer sentiment. On the weaker side, residential housing has slowed due to escalating prices and higher mortgage rates, which have hampered housing affordability. Lastly, the twin deficits – the federal budget deficit and trade deficit – both portend long-term imbalances that could be problematic for the sustainable long-term growth of the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy has added an average of more than 200,000 jobs per month this year, and the unemployment rate dropped to a 48-year low of 3.7% in September. On the inflation front, many gauges are now at or near the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. While job growth is solid, wage growth has been slower than in previous expansionary cycles, as companies continue to resist raising wages. Tariffs could, however, push prices higher as a result of the increased cost of raw materials and growing supply bottlenecks. Additionally, rising oil prices may nudge overall prices higher in coming quarters. Citing the fundamental economic strength of the U.S. economy, the Federal Reserve (Fed) stayed the course, raising the federal funds rate by 0.25% to a new target range of 2.00% to 2.25% at its meeting in September. At that time, the Fed reiterated its intention of maintaining its slow, steady path of gradual rate increases in the foreseeable future. According to the “dot plot” that was released immediately following the September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (the “FOMC”) forecast indicated an additional 0.25% hike in December, followed by three additional hikes in 2019. The S&P 500 Index (S&P) soared 7.7% during the quarter, lifting the year-to-date (YTD) return to 10.6%, but a stock market sell-off in October sent most major indices into negative territory year- to-date as investors grew increasingly concerned about the potential negative impacts of rising rates and the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China. Bolstered by the increase to the fed funds target rate and general economic optimism, U.S. Treasury yields continued their ascent. The two-year Treasury note marked ten straight quarterly increases as it rose 29 basis points (0.29%) to end the quarter at 2.82%, while the yield on the 10- year note rose 20 basis points (0.29%) to end the quarter at 3.06%. The result was a flatter yield curve over the quarter, but the pace of flattening had moderated by quarter-end. The yield curve remains flat by historic standards, as short- and intermediate-term yields, which are more closely tied to changes in the fed funds target rate, increased at a faster pace than longer-term yields, which are more closely tied to longer-term growth and inflation expectations. Investment Report, September 30, 2018 November 19, 2018 3 Yield Curve History Source: Bloomberg The City’s cash, excluding bond proceeds, is pooled for investment purposes. As of September 30, 2018, invested funds totaled $165,325,865. These investments are assets of the City of Burlingame and include 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 the City’s managed portfolio. Similarly, funds held within the City’s §115 Trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program are not part of the City’s investment portfolio. City’s Investments Market Value as of September 30, 2018 Main Investment Portfolio $107,632,062.87 Main Investment Portfolio -Cash Balance in Custody Account $250,572.35 CAMP Balance $23,269,927.57 LAIF Balance $34,173,302.53 $165,325,865.32 The portfolio’s duration was kept slightly short of the benchmark's duration in order to hedge against the negative impacts of rising interest rates.At the end of the quarter, the main portfolio’s duration was 2.40 years, short of the benchmark’s duration of 2.57 years. Factoring in additional liquid investments, such as LAIF and CAMP, the effective duration of the City’s aggregate investments was 1.56 years. PFM sought opportunities to safely take advantage of the higher yields available in the market while still maintaining the portfolio’s short duration position relative to its benchmark. Maturity 9/30/18 6/30/18 Change 3-Mo.2.20%1.91%+0.29% 6-Mo.2.36%2.10%+0.26% 1-Yr.2.56%2.31%+0.25% 2-Yr.2.82%2.53%+0.29% 3-Yr.2.88%2.62%+0.26% 5-Yr.2.95%2.74%+0.21% 10-Yr.3.06%2.86%+0.20% 30-Yr.3.21%2.99%+0.22% Investment Report, September 30, 2018 November 19, 2018 4 As has been the case for some time, federal agency yield spreads remained extremely narrow relative to U.S. Treasuries throughout the quarter. For most maturities, federal agencies offer less than 5 basis points (0.05%) in incremental yield relative to U.S. Treasuries. In this environment, PFM has recommended reducing federal agency holdings in favor of U.S. Treasury and other sectors. In early August, PFM recommended the sale of Fannie Mae notes with 16 months to maturity in exchange for the purchase of U.S. Treasury Notes with approximately 3½ years to maturity. This purchase extended the overall duration of the portfolio to more closely align with the benchmark and represented a yield pick-up of approximately 23 basis points (0.23%). Supranationals continue to serve as a higher-yielding alternative to traditional federal agency obligations. In late July, PFM recommended the sale of a 3-year U.S. Treasury Note in exchange for the purchase of an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Note with the same maturity, picking up 14 basis points (0.14%) in incremental yield. Robust investor demand for corporate notes, bolstered by strong earnings, a favorable regulatory environment, and general economic optimism, caused yield spreads (the difference in yields) between high-quality corporate notes and U.S. Treasury obligations to narrow during the quarter, meaning that corporate notes became more expensive relative to U.S. Treasuries. While this was positive for the City’s existing corporate note holdings, this spread narrowing made it difficult to add new corporate note issues to the City’s portfolio. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (CDs) proved to be an attractive alternative. In early August, PFM recommended the sale of a shorter-dated Bank of Montreal negotiable CD and the reinvestment of the proceeds in a longer, 2-year negotiable CD issued by the same bank at a yield of 3.20%. This represented a yield pick-up of 53 basis points (0.53%) over similar-maturity U.S. Treasury obligations. Asset-backed securities (ABS) once again proved to be a high-quality diversifier to corporate allocations. The ABS sector provides strong incremental income with a high degree of downside protection, given strong structural protections and AAA ratings. In total, PFM recommended the purchase of $1.24 million of AAA-rated asset-backed securities during the quarter, boosting the overall yield on the portfolio. Please see below for a summary of transactions for the quarter ended September 30, 2018: Trade Date Settlement Date Transaction CUSIP Issuers Term (Mths)Yield Principal 7/2/2018 7/5/2018 Sale 3130A9EP2 FHLB Notes 15 2.48%2,200,000 7/2/2018 7/5/2018 Sale 3137EADM8 FHLMC Notes 15 2.49%1,065,000 7/2/2018 7/5/2018 Sale 3137EADM8 FHLMC Notes 15 2.49%250,000 7/2/2018 7/5/2018 Purchase 912828P79 U.S. Treasury Notes 56 2.74%1,890,000 7/2/2018 7/5/2018 Purchase 912828R28 U.S. Treasury Notes 58 2.75%1,885,000 7/17/2018 7/25/2018 Purchase 58772RAD6 Mercedes-Benz ABS 54 3.05%640,000 7/17/2018 7/25/2018 Purchase 65479GAD1 Nissan ABS 56 3.08%600,000 Investment Report, September 30, 2018 November 19, 2018 5 7/18/2018 7/23/2018 Sale 912828WY2 U.S. Treasury Notes 36 2.69%1,075,000 7/18/2018 7/25/2018 Purchase 459058GH0 Int’l Bank of Recons. and Development Note 36 2.83%1,210,000 7/18/2018 7/23/2018 Sale 3130ACE26 FHLB Notes 26 2.70%1,010,000 7/18/2018 7/23/2018 Sale 3130ACE26 FHLB Notes 26 2.70%265,000 8/1/2018 8/3/2018 Sale 3135G0ZY2 FNMA Notes 16 2.60%1,000,000 8/1/2018 8/3/2018 Purchase 912828W89 U.S. Treasury Notes 44 2.82%1,150,000 8/1/2018 8/3/2018 Sale 06427KRC3 Bank of Montreal Chicago CD 6 2.43%1,800,000 8/1/2018 8/3/2018 Purchase 06370REU9 Bank of Montreal Chicago CD 24 3.20%1,800,000 8/21/2018 8/21/2018 Maturity 20451PCL8 Compass Bank CD 0 -250,000 8/22/2018 8/22/2018 Maturity 02587DSF6 American Express Centurion CD 0 -250,000 8/22/2018 8/23/2018 Purchase 3137EAEL9 FHLMC Notes 30 2.69%600,000 9/4/2018 9/6/2018 Purchase 912828W89 U.S. Treasury Notes 43 2.75%2,190,000 9/4/2018 9/6/2018 Sale 86958JHB8 Svenska Handelsbanken NY CD 4 2.00%2,000,000 While the Fed’s policy actions will depend on future economic data, the Fed appears poised to continue to slowly and steadily increase rates throughout the next year or so. Therefore, PFM continues to recommend a defensive duration posture to mitigate a portion of interest rate risk relative to the benchmark. PFM continues to monitor the markets and recommend relative-value trades as appropriate in order to safely enhance the City’s portfolio earnings. However, the priority will always be to maintain the safety and liquidity of the City’s investments. Noting the potential headwinds from higher costs and tariffs that may surface in coming quarters, the corporate sector is being approached with slightly more caution. Instead, PFM continues to favor financials and select industrial issuers with stronger balance sheets and fair valuations, which will likely better withstand the current phase of the credit cycle. ABS may be used as a high-quality alternative to traditional corporate notes. In the government sector, PFM expects to add to the portfolio’s allocation to supranational obligations, especially in the first quarter of 2019, when issuance typically picks up. As noted in the following pie charts, the City’s investment portfolio as of September 30, 2018, was heavily weighted towards the State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the AAAm-rated CAMP Investment Report, September 30, 2018 November 19, 2018 6 Fund, and high-quality (AA+ rated) federal agency and U.S. Treasury securities to maintain the focus on safety and liquidity. * The “BBB+” category comprises securities rated in the category of A or better by Moody’s and/or Fitch, which meets the credit rating criteria established in the City’s Statement of Investment Policy. ** The NR (Aaa) category comprises asset-backed securities that are not rated by S&P but are rated Aaa by Moody’s. Investment Report, September 30, 2018 November 19, 2018 7 As of September 30, 2018, 35% of the City’s funds were invested in very short-term liquid investments; 22% of the funds were invested with maturities between one day and two years; and 43% of the investment portfolio had a maturity ranging from two to five years. This distribution gives 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 an effective duration of 1.56 years and currently generate annual interest income of 2.19% before investment expenses. The City’s funds are invested in high credit quality investments and continue to meet the City’s goals of safety, liquidity, and yield/return. As of September 30, 2018, the yield to maturity at cost on the main portfolio of securities was 2.21%. Including additional investments such as LAIF and CAMP, the average yield to maturity** on the City’s aggregate investments was 2.19%. During the quarter, the main portfolio generated amortized cost basis earnings (which includes interest earnings and realized gains and losses) of $433,643. City's Investments Statistical Information Market Value $165,325,865.32 Effective Duration 1.56 Years Average Credit Quality*AA Yield to Maturity**2.19% * Ratings by Standard & Poor’s. Average excludes ‘Not Rated’ securities. ** Yield to maturity at cost. 35% 1% 5% 16%18% 14% 11% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Overnight One Day-6 Months 6-12 Months 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years Maturity Distribution As of September 30, 2018 Investment Report, September 30, 2018 November 19, 2018 8 The chart below compares the yield of the City’s managed portfolio to the yields on the 2-year U.S. Treasury note, LAIF, and the San Mateo County Pool. As of September 30, 2018, the gross yield on the City’s managed portfolio was 2.21%; net of PFM’s investment advisory fees, the yield on the City’s managed portfolio was 2.13%. Below is a summary of cash and investment holdings held by each fund as of September 30, 2018, which includes invested funds, debt service reserves, amounts held in overnight (liquid) accounts, the City’s main checking account, and other operating funds: 2.21% 2.16% 1.96% 2.82% Investment Report, September 30, 2018 November 19, 2018 9 The significant decrease in cash holdings in the General Fund (17.8 percent) is typical for the first quarter of the fiscal year. The reduced balance reflects the payment of a $3.1 million lump-sum payment to CalPERS for the unfunded accrued liability for pensions for the 2018-19 fiscal year, as well as the first quarter payment to Central County Fire ($2.7 million). Otherwise, cash remained fairly level in the first quarter of the year, with only regular operating revenues and expenditures, and no major property tax receipts. (Property taxes are received in December and May). The $4.4 million decrease in Capital Project Funds is due to large construction progress payments in the first quarter, most notably $1.1 million for the Murray Field renovations project and $943,000 for the California Drive Roundabout project. An increase in the Water Fund is a reflection of regular cash flow; the Sewer Funds would have been similarly situated except for the large capital investment of nearly $0.9 million for the Easton Addition/Ray Park Neighborhood sewer rehabilitation project. The utility funds have no major annual debt service (principal and interest on outstanding revenue bonds) payments scheduled until April. The dip in Debt Service funds reflect a $0.9 million payment for the City’s pension obligations bonds, made in August. As for the performance of the City’s trust funds, which adhere to different strategies than reflected in the City’s Investment Policy for its main portfolio, the most recent statements are attached to this staff report. Because the City’s funding of its retiree medical obligations is relatively low (<30%), the City’s trust account is invested in the most aggressive (Strategy 1) portfolio available with the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund. The average annualized internal rate of return since the initial contribution (in October 2013) for the portfolio as of August 31st was 7.05%. The PARS §115 trust account for funding the City’s pension liabilities was established in October 2017, and the September 2018 statement attached is the most current information available for the City’s account. 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 short-term investments (to meet cash flow needs) and As of 09/30/18 As of 06/30/18 Change $ General Fund 24,406,509$ 29,681,883$ (5,275,375)$ Capital Project Funds 49,919,157 54,358,364 (4,439,206) Internal Service Funds 19,643,006 19,724,843 (81,836) Water Fund 17,798,494 16,008,586 1,789,909 Sewer Fund 17,595,672 17,759,997 (164,325) Solid Waste Fund 4,697,898 4,677,981 19,917 Parking Fund 9,410,216 8,854,349 555,867 Building Fund 10,877,970 10,844,613 33,357 Landfill Fund 1,579,939 1,483,707 96,232 Debt Service Fund 8,284,679 9,449,602 (1,164,923) Subtotal, Operating Funds 164,213,541 172,843,925 (8,630,384) Other Funds 13,557,134 12,926,962 630,173 Total Cash and Investments 177,770,675$ 185,770,887$ (8,000,211)$ Cash and Investments by Fund Investment Report, September 30, 2018 November 19, 2018 10 longer-term 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 liquid accounts such as LAIF and CAMP, the City has more than sufficient funds available to meet its liquidity (expenditure) requirements for the next six months. Staff and the City’s investment 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 Investment Portfolio will not result in any direct impact on City resources. Exhibits: Portfolio Holdings as of September 30, 2018 CERBT Monthly Statement for September 30, 2018 PARS Monthly Statement for September 30, 2018 For the Month Ending September 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES DTD 04/01/2013 1.125% 03/31/2020 976,055.00 995,051.95 30.91 984,140.63 04/30/1504/29/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828UV0 1.46 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 05/17/2010 3.500% 05/15/2020 202,211.00 206,407.76 2,644.02 219,125.00 05/29/1505/29/15AaaAA+ 200,000.00 912828ND8 1.49 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 11/30/2015 1.625% 11/30/2020 136,428.88 140,658.28 764.55 141,214.06 11/14/1611/10/16AaaAA+ 140,000.00 912828M98 1.40 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 12/31/2015 1.750% 12/31/2020 146,437.50 150,175.00 663.38 150,304.69 01/10/1701/05/17AaaAA+ 150,000.00 912828N48 1.70 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 12/31/2013 2.375% 12/31/2020 831,370.68 862,013.32 5,041.71 880,654.69 10/19/1610/18/16AaaAA+ 840,000.00 912828A83 1.19 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/28/2014 2.000% 02/28/2021 1,102,456.13 1,144,741.12 1,926.80 1,163,803.71 05/06/1605/03/16AaaAA+ 1,125,000.00 912828B90 1.26 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/29/2016 1.125% 02/28/2021 1,852,273.11 1,903,440.98 1,859.36 1,892,832.42 10/04/1710/03/17AaaAA+ 1,930,000.00 912828P87 1.71 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 05/31/2016 1.375% 05/31/2021 596,265.78 613,231.03 2,864.96 610,215.63 07/10/1707/07/17AaaAA+ 620,000.00 912828R77 1.80 US TREASURY N/B DTD 07/31/2014 2.250% 07/31/2021 515,976.30 540,345.89 1,990.15 550,819.34 10/05/1610/03/16AaaAA+ 525,000.00 912828WY2 1.20 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/02/2014 2.000% 08/31/2021 1,429,176.36 1,467,376.32 2,509.12 1,468,776.95 12/05/1612/01/16AaaAA+ 1,465,000.00 912828D72 1.94 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/31/2014 2.000% 10/31/2021 978,736.34 1,009,860.44 8,411.41 1,012,105.66 04/05/1704/03/17AaaAA+ 1,005,000.00 912828F96 1.84 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022 965,703.00 993,302.47 51.51 991,796.88 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828W89 2.07 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022 1,110,558.45 1,113,864.06 59.24 1,112,265.63 08/03/1808/01/18AaaAA+ 1,150,000.00 912828W89 2.82 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022 2,114,889.57 2,126,607.56 112.81 2,125,412.11 09/06/1809/04/18AaaAA+ 2,190,000.00 912828W89 2.75 Page 1 For the Month Ending September 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022 2,607,398.10 2,672,559.71 139.08 2,666,988.28 01/04/1801/03/18AaaAA+ 2,700,000.00 912828W89 2.18 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 07/31/2017 1.875% 07/31/2022 1,178,631.30 1,219,199.59 3,869.74 1,217,870.12 11/03/1711/01/17AaaAA+ 1,225,000.00 9128282P4 2.00 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 07/31/2015 2.000% 07/31/2022 2,368,270.45 2,474,489.59 8,255.43 2,481,103.52 09/01/1708/31/17AaaAA+ 2,450,000.00 912828XQ8 1.73 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 1,433,379.00 1,443,079.40 72.12 1,438,769.53 06/06/1806/04/18AaaAA+ 1,500,000.00 912828L57 2.76 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 1,610,162.41 1,669,488.18 81.01 1,666,175.39 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,685,000.00 912828L57 1.99 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 2,150,068.50 2,215,529.39 108.17 2,208,779.30 12/05/1712/04/17AaaAA+ 2,250,000.00 912828L57 2.15 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023 1,777,633.83 1,792,890.00 2,427.76 1,787,895.70 07/05/1807/02/18AaaAA+ 1,890,000.00 912828P79 2.74 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023 2,539,476.90 2,555,043.97 3,468.23 2,542,113.28 04/30/1804/30/18AaaAA+ 2,700,000.00 912828P79 2.80 US TREASURY N/B NOTES DTD 05/02/2016 1.625% 04/30/2023 1,778,968.75 1,794,247.64 12,818.51 1,789,792.77 07/05/1807/02/18AaaAA+ 1,885,000.00 912828R28 2.75 60,169.98 30,402,527.34 31,103,603.65 2.16 31,102,955.29 31,625,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV NOTE DTD 09/19/2017 1.561% 09/12/2020 1,820,880.71 1,867,042.03 1,540.62 1,865,512.00 09/19/1709/12/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 45905UP32 1.64 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK DTD 11/08/2013 2.125% 11/09/2020 1,839,378.75 1,881,957.45 15,674.24 1,887,333.22 10/10/1710/02/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 4581X0CD8 1.81 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION NOTE DTD 01/25/2018 2.250% 01/25/2021 782,400.05 793,181.28 3,279.38 792,662.70 01/25/1801/18/18AaaAAA 795,000.00 45950KCM0 2.35 Page 2 For the Month Ending September 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION NOTE DTD 03/16/2018 2.635% 03/09/2021 1,535,988.00 1,549,038.04 2,495.93 1,548,837.50 03/16/1803/09/18AaaAAA 1,550,000.00 45950VLQ7 2.66 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK NOTE DTD 04/19/2018 2.625% 04/19/2021 886,868.93 893,316.53 10,572.19 893,031.00 04/19/1804/12/18AaaAAA 895,000.00 4581X0DB1 2.70 INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV NOTE DTD 07/25/2018 2.750% 07/23/2021 1,202,529.46 1,207,335.52 6,100.42 1,207,168.60 07/25/1807/18/18AaaAAA 1,210,000.00 459058GH0 2.83 39,662.78 8,068,045.90 8,191,870.85 2.24 8,194,545.02 8,190,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Federal Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligation FNA 2018-M5 A2 DTD 04/01/2018 3.560% 09/25/2021 628,984.52 634,142.17 1,848.55 635,500.97 04/30/1804/11/18AaaAA+ 623,106.75 3136B1XP4 2.27 1,848.55 628,984.52 634,142.17 2.27 635,500.97 623,106.75 Security Type Sub-Total Federal Agency Bond / Note FREDDIE MAC NOTES DTD 01/17/2017 1.500% 01/17/2020 2,460,997.50 2,498,571.90 7,708.33 2,496,800.00 02/13/1702/10/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3137EAEE5 1.54 FNMA NOTES DTD 01/12/2015 1.625% 01/21/2020 985,769.00 1,001,617.73 3,159.72 1,005,810.00 03/27/1503/24/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3135G0A78 1.50 FNMA NOTES DTD 01/12/2015 1.625% 01/21/2020 985,769.00 999,095.46 3,159.72 996,920.00 06/29/1506/24/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3135G0A78 1.70 FNMA NOTES DTD 01/12/2015 1.625% 01/21/2020 1,133,634.35 1,151,905.06 3,633.68 1,156,712.30 05/01/1504/30/15AaaAA+ 1,150,000.00 3135G0A78 1.50 FNMA NOTES DTD 08/01/2017 1.500% 07/30/2020 1,480,518.60 1,512,170.83 3,850.63 1,510,409.55 08/01/1707/28/17AaaAA+ 1,515,000.00 3135G0T60 1.60 FHLB NOTES DTD 09/08/2017 1.375% 09/28/2020 607,403.13 622,846.88 71.61 621,756.25 09/19/1709/13/17AaaAA+ 625,000.00 3130ACE26 1.55 Page 3 For the Month Ending September 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Federal Agency Bond / Note FHLMC NOTES DTD 09/29/2017 1.625% 09/29/2020 1,631,406.30 1,664,626.81 150.76 1,662,267.90 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,670,000.00 3137EAEJ4 1.79 FHLMC NOTES DTD 11/15/2017 1.875% 11/17/2020 980,022.00 997,825.78 6,979.17 997,010.00 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3137EAEK1 1.98 FREDDIE MAC NOTES DTD 02/16/2018 2.375% 02/16/2021 593,097.00 595,703.98 1,781.25 595,518.00 08/23/1808/22/18AaaAA+ 600,000.00 3137EAEL9 2.69 FNMA NOTES DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021 224,480.23 234,530.35 359.03 234,196.07 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 235,000.00 3135G0N82 1.32 FNMA NOTES DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021 730,754.78 763,189.81 1,168.75 761,901.75 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 765,000.00 3135G0N82 1.33 FNMA NOTES DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021 1,504,495.13 1,569,327.56 2,406.25 1,565,361.00 09/02/1609/01/16AaaAA+ 1,575,000.00 3135G0N82 1.38 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022 1,539,244.22 1,592,397.16 7,572.78 1,595,128.15 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,585,000.00 3135G0S38 1.85 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022 2,427,830.00 2,501,804.50 11,944.44 2,502,650.00 02/13/1702/10/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0S38 1.98 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022 1,548,292.14 1,604,832.10 14,712.50 1,604,759.25 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,605,000.00 3135G0T45 1.88 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022 2,411,670.00 2,489,233.95 22,916.67 2,485,150.00 05/09/1705/08/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0T45 2.00 FANNIE MAE AGENCY NOTES DTD 10/06/2017 2.000% 10/05/2022 2,534,722.44 2,550,511.78 25,764.44 2,542,195.30 04/30/1804/30/18AaaAA+ 2,635,000.00 3135G0T78 2.85 117,339.73 23,780,105.82 24,350,191.64 1.87 24,334,545.52 24,460,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Corporate Note WELLS FARGO & COMPANY NOTES DTD 10/28/2013 2.150% 01/15/2019 1,768,008.75 1,771,083.49 8,033.83 1,785,345.90 10/16/1410/10/14A2A- 1,770,000.00 94974BFQ8 1.94 JP MORGAN SECURITIES DTD 04/23/2009 6.300% 04/23/2019 1,019,798.00 1,022,445.11 27,650.00 1,188,900.00 05/09/1405/09/14A3A- 1,000,000.00 46625HHL7 2.25 Page 4 For the Month Ending September 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Corporate Note US BANCORP (CALLABLE) CORPORATE NOTES DTD 04/24/2014 2.200% 04/25/2019 1,755,621.12 1,762,030.65 16,778.67 1,777,952.00 10/16/1410/10/14A1A+ 1,760,000.00 91159HHH6 1.96 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON NT (CALLABLE) DTD 09/11/2014 2.300% 09/11/2019 1,776,360.60 1,786,571.71 2,280.83 1,793,353.80 10/16/1410/10/14A1A 1,785,000.00 06406HCW7 2.20 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 03/03/2017 2.200% 03/03/2020 1,285,440.00 1,306,602.47 2,224.44 1,311,765.00 09/07/1709/05/17A2A- 1,300,000.00 0258M0EE5 1.83 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES DTD 06/22/2017 1.950% 06/22/2020 216,095.22 219,921.90 1,179.75 219,865.80 06/22/1706/19/17A2A 220,000.00 24422ETS8 1.97 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO CORP NT (CALLABLE) DTD 06/23/2015 2.750% 06/23/2020 957,757.68 978,161.51 7,224.10 994,432.50 08/22/1608/17/16A3A- 965,000.00 46625HLW8 1.92 WAL-MART STORES INC CORP NOTE DTD 10/20/2017 1.900% 12/15/2020 1,810,622.75 1,848,094.06 10,349.72 1,847,317.50 10/20/1710/11/17Aa2AA 1,850,000.00 931142EA7 1.95 WELLS FARGO CORP NOTES DTD 03/04/2016 2.500% 03/04/2021 945,113.28 977,741.20 1,809.38 988,343.35 08/22/1608/17/16A2A- 965,000.00 949746RS2 1.94 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP NOTES DTD 04/13/2018 2.950% 04/13/2021 920,760.73 924,685.46 12,734.17 924,630.00 04/13/1804/10/18Aa3AA- 925,000.00 89236TEU5 2.96 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/19/2016 2.500% 04/15/2021 1,963,762.00 2,024,393.08 23,055.56 2,034,600.00 09/07/1709/05/17A1A 2,000,000.00 06406FAA1 2.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTE DTD 04/19/2016 2.625% 04/19/2021 905,231.24 925,087.03 10,867.50 926,826.40 11/03/1711/01/17A3A- 920,000.00 06051GFW4 2.40 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES DTD 04/21/2016 2.500% 04/21/2021 898,891.52 921,790.39 10,222.22 922,392.00 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 61746BEA0 2.42 GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT (CALLABLE) DTD 04/25/2016 2.625% 04/25/2021 901,077.44 923,443.33 10,465.00 924,636.80 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 38141GVU5 2.47 Page 5 For the Month Ending September 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Corporate Note BRANCH BANKING & TRUST (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 05/10/2016 2.050% 05/10/2021 1,453,075.50 1,498,827.15 12,043.75 1,497,810.00 05/16/1605/12/16A2A- 1,500,000.00 05531FAV5 2.08 CITIGROUP INC CORP (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 12/08/2016 2.900% 12/08/2021 900,921.96 924,985.61 8,374.56 926,283.60 11/22/1711/20/17Baa1BBB+ 920,000.00 172967LC3 2.72 IBM CORP BONDS DTD 01/27/2017 2.500% 01/27/2022 1,951,202.00 2,009,343.42 8,888.89 2,013,700.00 02/09/1702/06/17A1A+ 2,000,000.00 459200JQ5 2.35 WALT DISNEY COMPANY/THE CORP NOTES DTD 11/30/2012 2.350% 12/01/2022 1,032,922.35 1,044,825.67 8,420.83 1,041,503.00 04/05/1804/03/18A2A+ 1,075,000.00 25468PCW4 3.07 HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES DTD 04/05/2013 2.700% 04/01/2023 1,050,026.68 1,056,540.27 14,512.50 1,054,682.50 04/05/1804/03/18A2A 1,075,000.00 437076AZ5 3.11 197,115.70 23,512,688.82 23,926,573.51 2.24 24,174,340.15 23,870,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Certificate of Deposit BANK OF MONTREAL CHICAGO CERT DEPOS DTD 02/09/2017 1.880% 02/07/2019 199,805.40 200,000.00 564.00 200,000.00 02/09/1702/08/17P-1A-1 200,000.00 06427KRC3 1.90 SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CD DTD 05/04/2017 2.050% 05/03/2019 1,695,644.60 1,700,000.00 14,617.64 1,700,000.00 05/04/1705/03/17P-1A-1 1,700,000.00 86563YVN0 2.05 SKANDINAV ENSKILDA BANKEN NY CD DTD 08/04/2017 1.840% 08/02/2019 1,788,336.00 1,799,705.90 5,520.00 1,799,298.00 08/04/1708/03/17P-1A-1 1,800,000.00 83050FXT3 1.85 MUFG BANK LTD/NY CERT DEPOS DTD 09/27/2017 2.070% 09/25/2019 922,363.77 930,000.00 320.85 930,000.00 09/27/1709/25/17P-1A-1 930,000.00 06539RGM3 2.07 CREDIT SUISSE NEW YORK CERT DEPOS DTD 02/08/2018 2.670% 02/07/2020 1,029,541.65 1,030,000.00 17,799.26 1,030,000.00 02/08/1802/07/18A1A 1,030,000.00 22549LFR1 2.67 NORDEA BANK AB NY CD DTD 02/22/2018 2.720% 02/20/2020 1,493,803.50 1,500,000.00 4,646.67 1,500,000.00 02/22/1802/20/18Aa3AA- 1,500,000.00 65590ASN7 2.72 UBS AG STAMFORD CT LT CD DTD 03/06/2018 2.900% 03/02/2020 1,503,591.00 1,500,000.00 3,262.50 1,500,000.00 03/06/1803/02/18Aa2A+ 1,500,000.00 90275DHG8 2.93 Page 6 For the Month Ending September 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Certificate of Deposit CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY FLT CERT DEPOS DTD 04/10/2018 2.801% 04/10/2020 901,728.00 900,000.00 5,812.99 900,000.00 04/10/1804/06/18A1A 900,000.00 22532XHT8 2.85 CANADIAN IMP BK COMM NY FLT CERT DEPOS DTD 04/10/2018 2.731% 04/10/2020 902,274.30 900,000.00 5,667.74 900,000.00 04/10/1804/06/18Aa2A+ 900,000.00 13606BVF0 2.78 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON CD DTD 06/07/2018 3.080% 06/05/2020 1,708,209.30 1,699,453.16 16,580.67 1,699,354.00 06/07/1806/05/18Aa2A+ 1,700,000.00 06417GU22 3.10 WESTPAC BANKING CORP NY CD DTD 08/07/2017 2.050% 08/03/2020 1,591,818.29 1,615,000.00 4,966.13 1,615,000.00 08/07/1708/03/17Aa3AA- 1,615,000.00 96121T4A3 2.05 BANK OF MONTREAL CHICAGO CERT DEPOS DTD 08/03/2018 3.190% 08/03/2020 1,797,690.60 1,800,000.00 9,410.50 1,800,000.00 08/03/1808/01/18Aa2A+ 1,800,000.00 06370REU9 3.23 SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT DEPOS DTD 11/17/2017 2.270% 11/16/2020 1,823,393.34 1,860,000.00 16,185.10 1,860,000.00 11/17/1711/16/17Aa2AA- 1,860,000.00 87019U6D6 2.30 105,354.05 17,358,199.75 17,434,159.06 2.53 17,433,652.00 17,435,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Asset-Backed Security / Collateralized Mortgage Obligation NAROT 2017-C A3 DTD 12/13/2017 2.120% 04/15/2022 335,050.01 339,955.86 320.36 339,942.51 12/13/1712/06/17AaaNR 340,000.00 65478HAD0 2.13 HART 2018-A A3 DTD 04/18/2018 2.790% 07/15/2022 328,170.05 329,955.40 409.20 329,950.30 04/18/1804/10/18AaaAAA 330,000.00 44891KAD7 2.80 TAOT 2018-B A3 DTD 05/16/2018 2.960% 09/15/2022 907,849.67 909,987.64 1,197.16 909,986.44 05/16/1805/09/18AaaAAA 910,000.00 89238TAD5 2.96 MBART 2018-1 A3 DTD 07/25/2018 3.030% 01/15/2023 639,230.85 639,976.69 861.87 639,975.42 07/25/1807/17/18AaaAAA 640,000.00 58772RAD6 3.03 ALLYA 2018-3 A3 DTD 06/27/2018 3.000% 01/15/2023 1,073,025.98 1,074,930.82 1,433.33 1,074,926.47 06/27/1806/19/18AaaAAA 1,075,000.00 02007JAC1 3.09 NAROT 2018-B A3 DTD 07/25/2018 3.060% 03/15/2023 598,184.16 599,981.62 816.00 599,980.56 07/25/1807/17/18AaaAAA 600,000.00 65479GAD1 3.06 Page 7 For the Month Ending September 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par 5,037.92 3,881,510.72 3,894,788.03 2.94 3,894,761.70 3,895,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 110,098,106.75 109,770,300.65 2.21 526,528.71 109,535,328.91 107,632,062.87 Managed Account Sub-Total $110,098,106.75 $109,770,300.65 $526,528.71 $109,535,328.91 $107,632,062.87 2.21% $108,158,591.58 $526,528.71 Total Investments Accrued Interest Securities Sub-Total Page 8 City of Burlingame Please note the Grand Total is your actual fund account balance at the end of the period, including all contributions per GASB 74 paragraph 22 and accrued disbursements. Please review your statement promptly. All information contained in your statement will be considered true and accurate unless you contact us within 30 days of receipt of this statement. If you have questions about the validity of this information, please contact CERBT4U@calpers.ca.gov. 1,081,651.916 1,081,651.916 $17,533,750.53 $17,533,750.53 16.21016016.210160Period Ending Unit Value 15.87469515.874695Period Beginning Unit Value 0.000 20,460.929 1,061,190.987 0.000 20,460.929 1,061,190.987 Year to DateCurrent Period Ending Units Unit Sales for Withdrawals Unit Purchases from Contributions Beginning Units Unit Value Summary:Market Value Summary: $17,533,750.53$17,533,750.53Grand Total 0.00 (2,139.71) 0.00 362,480.05 328,891.75 $16,846,082.93 0.00 (2,139.71) 0.00 362,480.05 328,891.75 $16,846,082.93 Year to DateCurrent Period Ending Balance Disbursement Administrative Expenses Other Investment Earnings Contribution Beginning Balance QTD Fiscal QTD Fiscal FY End Contrib per GASB 74 Para 22 0.00 0.00 Transfer In Transfer Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit Transfer In Unit Transfer Out 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (1,564.49)(1,564.49)Investment Expense CERBT Strategy 1 Entity #: SKB0-1429123533-001 Quarter Ended September 30, 2018 FY End Disbursement Accrual 0.00 0.00 1 Statement of Transaction Detail for the Quarter Ending 09/30/2018 City of Burlingame Entity #: SKB0-1429123533-001 Date Description Amount Unit Value Units NotesCheck/Wire 08/01/2018 Contribution $328,891.75 $16.074136 20,460.929 CM 80118 If you have any questions or comments regarding the new statement format please contact CERBT4U@CalPERS.ca.gov Client Contact: CERBT4U@CalPERS.ca.gov 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PARS Post-Employment Benefits Trust 9/1/2018 to 9/30/2018 Carol Augustine Finance Director City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd., 1st Floor Burlingame, CA 94010 Source 9/1/2018 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 9/30/2018 PENSION 1002 $8,343,765.71 $0.00 -$6,080.52 $1,738.28 $0.00 $0.00 $8,335,946.91 Totals $8,343,765.71 $0.00 -$6,080.52 $1,738.28 $0.00 $0.00 $8,335,946.91 Source PENSION Source PENSION Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years PENSION -0.07%2.48%4.18%---10/3/2017 Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org The dual goals of the Moderate Strategy are growth of principal and income. It is expected that dividend and interest income will comprise a significant portion of total return, although growth through capital appreciation is equally important. The portfolio will be allocated between equity and fixed income investments. Plan's Inception Date Investment Objective Account Report for the Period Beginning Balance as of Investment Selection Account Summary Moderate HighMark PLUS Ending Balance as of Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees Annualized Return Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change. Investment Return 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: November 19, 2018 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date:November 19, 2018 From:Carol Augustine, Finance Director –(650) 558-7222 Subject:Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing Date Regarding Solid Waste Rate Increases for Calendar Years 2019, 2020 and 2021 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a public hearing date of January 7th regarding rate increases for solid waste services for the three calendar years beginning January 1, 2019. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement (SBWMA). Under the SBWMA Joint Use of Powers Agreement, each member agency sets its own solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers. Each of the 12 SBWMA member jurisdictions has a franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County for residential and commercial solid waste, residential recycling, and residential green waste collections. In addition, a contract with South Bay Recycling provides for operations at the Shoreway Environmental Center, which is owed by the SBWMA. The Shoreway facility serves as a regional solid waste and recycling facility for the receipt, handling, and transfer of refuse, recyclable, and organic materials. Each year, staff reviews the various cost components attributable to its solid waste services, which determine the revenue required from its customers for the subsequent rate year. Using current rates and considering the impact on the rate stabilization reserve, a recommendation is made to the City Council as to rates for these services in Burlingame. Once approved, the rates are then applied based on the garbage cart/bin size of the customer and frequency of collection services. Within Burlingame, Recology is responsible for the billing of solid waste services at the rates prescribed by the City Council. Rates for solid waste services were last increased in 2012, as shown in the table below: Rate Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Adjustment 3%5%5%8%6%17%25%0%0%0%0%0%0% Historical Solid Waste Rate Adjustments - City of Burlingame Solid Waste Rates for 2019 November 19, 2018 2 Since the significant rate increases in 2011 and 2012, revenues to the City’s Solid Waste Fund have been able to cover all the costs of solid waste operations, plus provide for a rate stabilization reserve to guard against volatile rate increases for its solid waste customers. In fact, a surplus of approximately $1.5 million had been accumulated from the City’s solid waste operations by the end of 2015. However, as the costs associated with the provision of solid waste services have increased, the rate stabilization reserve has levelled off. Revenues collected from rates are no longer sufficient to meet the current costs of solid waste services in the city, and annual operating deficits are increasing. A deficit of approximately $288,000 from Solid Waste operations is expected in 2018, and there are a number of challenges in the solid waste industry that will push costs higher in the next few years. DISCUSSION The City Council reviewed solid waste services and rates at a study session in January of this year, and again at its September 17 th meeting. The various cost components attributable to these services determine the revenue required from solid waste customers. The largest component of solid waste program charges is contractor compensation. Residential and commercial solid waste recyclable and organic materials are collected by Recology. The franchise agreement with Recology is a “fixed cost” contract where future costs are adjusted based on contractually approved indices. Although these costs have increased since the original 10-year contract began in 2011, the new contract negotiated with Recology to begin in 2021 will require the costs of collection, increasing only 2.4% in 2020, to increase approximately 10.2% in 2021. Possible amendments to the 2021 contract will address current issues of bulky item pickup, abandoned waste collection, and anti-litter programs (to help meet stricter stormwater regulations). These amendments and their associated costs will be considered early in 2019. To insure that the City’s Solid Waste Fund is in good fiscal position when the current franchise agreement with Recology terminates at the end of 2020, rates should be increased to at least cover current operating costs in 2019, and then provide for the increased contractual costs in calendar year 2021. The second largest factor in the costs of solid waste services is in the form of processing and disposal costs, largely reflected in the tipping fees at the Shoreway facility and the landfills utilized. Tipping fees are approved by the SBWMA Board each year to cover the processing costs of the Shoreway facility, along with transport costs and disposal contracts with nearby landfill facilities. Options for landfill disposal are becoming increasingly limited; and cost increases are anticipated when current contracts expire at the end of 2019. Processing costs are offset by commodity revenues, which have plummeted over the past year due to an abrupt change in China’s quality standards for recycled materials in the spring of 2018. The resulting disruptions in the global commodity markets for these materials will require a heavy capital investment in the Shoreway facility in the near future in order to improve the quality of the plant’s recycled materials in order to remain a marketable commodity. In total, processing and disposal fees are expected to increase over 12% in 2019. As the industry faces further challenges in the coming years, these costs are assumed to increase 5% in both 2020 and 2021. As discussed at the September 17th meeting (staff report and presentation attached to this report), 2019 revenues for solid waste services are estimated to be $11.1 million at current rates, with a Solid Waste Rates for 2019 November 19, 2018 3 shortfall of $788,000 after all costs are accounted for. This would indicate a 7.1% increase in rates just to break even (requiring no draw on the rate stabilization reserve). Foregoing a solid waste rate increase for 2019 would basically wipe out the current rate stabilization reserve, and require double-digit rate increases for two subsequent years. The Council reviewed various rate scenarios pertaining to the City of Burlingame’s specific solid waste services. In order to balance the need for a rate stabilization reserve (to buffer rate-payers against volatile rate hikes in the future), the preference to cover current operating costs largely with current rate revenues, and to provide for the on-going sustainability of the Solid Waste Fund, it was determined that solid waste rates for Burlingame customers should be increased 6% in each of the next three years, beginning January 1, 2019. It should be noted again that 2018 residential rates for solid waste services in Burlingame are significantly below the average for SBWMA agencies ($34.23 average monthly fee for a 32 gallon cart; Burlingame’s fee is $28.40), and commercial rates are in line with rates charged in other jurisdictions. Rates are set by each agency in accordance with Proposition 218, which requires that all property owners be given a 45-day written notice of the City’s intent to adjust rates. Once the City Council approves the attached resolution establishing the public hearing for this purpose, staff will prepare and mail notices to each property owner and customer, informing them of the rate increases, the reason for the increases, and the public hearing schedule to discuss the proposed increases. FISCAL IMPACT Current rates that have been in place since 2012 are no longer adequate to fully cover the costs of providing solid waste services in calendar year 2019, without requiring significant draws on the City’s Solid Waste Fund reserves. In order to prevent depletion of the fund’s rate stabilization reserves and double-digit increases in future years, rates will need to be increased to all solid waste customers in each of the next three years beginning on January 1, 2019. Exhibits: Resolution Prop 218 Notice (draft) September 17, 2018 Staff Report and Presentation RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED RATE INCREASES FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement (SBWMA), the purpose of which is to provide cost effective waste reduction, recycling, and solid waste collection and disposal programs to member agencies; and WHEREAS,under the SBWMA Joint Powers Agreement, each member agency sets its own solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers; and WHEREAS,each year, City staff reviews the various cost components attributable to its solid waste services,which determinetherevenue required from customers in Burlingame forthe subsequent rate year; and WHEREAS,despite the increased costs incurred in the delivery of solid waste services over the years, solid waste rates have not been increased since calendar year 2012; and WHEREAS,the newly Restated and Amended Franchise Agreement with Recology for Recycle, Compost and Garbage collection services, which will increase the cost of these services by approximately 8.3% over the 2020 estimates, becomes effective January 1, 2021; and WHEREAS,the expiration of solid waste disposal and organics processing contracts will expire in the next two years; costs of disposal and organics processing is estimated to increase dramatically based on current markets; and WHEREAS,the commodity markets for all recycled materials was completely disrupted in 2018, greatly diminishing the revenue offset that these commodity revenues previously provided to the rate payers; and WHEREAS,the disruption in the commodity markets is driving the need for major capital investments to the South Bay Recycling Center in order to improve the quality of the system’s recycled materials and retain a marketable commodity; and WHEREAS,legislative forces to meet environmental targets require the enhancement of programs to increase diversion from landfills and prevent pollution of storm water systems; and WHEREAS,Chapter 8.16.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides that the City Council shall establish fees and charges for the administration of solid waste services; and WHEREAS,to comply with the requirement of Proposition 218, a public hearing be conducted, with written notice to each owner at least 45 days prior to the public hearing NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,DETERMINE,AND FIND AS FOLLOWS: A public hearing on the proposed solid waste increases for the City of Burlingame is hereby set for January 7, 2019 at 7:00 p.m., before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. At the public hearing, the City Council will receive testimony and evidence; and interested persons may submit written comments before or at the public hearing, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. Oral or written protests may be made at the hearing. To count in a majority protest against the proposed rate increase for calendar years 2019, 2020 and 2021, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on January 7, 2019. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of that public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the property’s service address. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City of Burlingame as the owner of the property,then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is solid waste rate payer on record for the property. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. Rates are proposed to be set as follows for each of the calendar years 2019,2020, and 2021: The proposed rates shown above and in the notice to customers and property owners reflect a 6% rate increase in calendar years 2019,2020 and 2021 for the most commonly used collection services. All other residential and commercial rates will be increased 6% uniformly as well. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners or customers Customer Current Effective Effective Effective Service Level Monthly Rates January 1, 2019 January 1, 2020 January 1, 2021 Residential 20 Gallon Cart*$12.90 $13.67 $14.49 $15.36 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 Commercial 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 1 Yard Bin $150.52 $159.55 $169.12 $179.27 2 Yard Bin $301.05 $319.11 $338.26 $358.56 3 Yard Bin $451.53 $478.62 $507.34 $537.78 Proposed Monthly Rates City of Burlingame, CA Monthly Solid Waste Proposed Rates * 20 Gallon residential cart service is no longer available to new customers. Rates shown are for those services grandfathered-in as of January 1, 2012. which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total fees for all service addresses in the City of Burlingame, as to the proposed solid waste rates for the calendar years 2019, 2020 and 2021, no rate increase shall occur. Further information regarding the proposed rate increases and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650-558-7203. Staff is instructed to provide notice by mail to each record owner of all service addresses in the City of Burlingame in accorda nce with the requirements of California Constitution Article XIIID (Proposition 218)at least 45 days in advance of the public hearing . _______________________ Michael Brownrigg, 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 on the 19th day of November, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES:Councilmembers: NOES:Councilmembers: ABSENT:Councilmembers: ________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 The City of Burlingame City Hall – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING RATES FOR 2019, 2020 AND 2021, AND TO CONSIDER ANY PROTESTS TO THE INCREASED RATES The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby gives notice of its intent to review and consider approval of increases to the existing residential and commercial rates charged by the city’s solid waste franchisee, Recology, for the collection of solid waste and recyclable materials within the City of Burlingame. The City Council plans to review and consider the rate increases and any changes to the rate structure at a public hearing scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2019 at 7:00 p.m.at the Burlingame City Hall. The need for this increase has been comprehensively discussed by the City Council on September 17, 2018. The City of Burlingame is a member of the SBWMA and along with the other 11 public agencies in San Mateo County has a uniform franchise agreement with Recology. A copy of the reports that provide the basis for the rate increase are available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, during regular business hours, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. NEW RATES Customer Current Effective Effective Effective Service Level Monthly Rates January 1, 2019 January 1, 2020 January 1, 2021 Residential 20 Gallon Cart*$12.90 $13.67 $14.49 $15.36 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 Commercial 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 1 Yard Bin $150.52 $159.55 $169.12 $179.27 2 Yard Bin $301.05 $319.11 $338.26 $358.56 3 Yard Bin $451.53 $478.62 $507.34 $537.78 Proposed Monthly Rates City of Burlingame, CA Monthly Solid Waste Rates - Proposition 218 Notice * 20 Gallon residential cart service is no longer available to new customers. Rates shown are for those services grandfathered-in as of January 1, 2012. This chart reflects a 6% rate increase in calendar years 2019, 2020 and 2021 for the most commonly used collection services. All other residential and commercial rates will also be increased 6% uniformly. 2 NECESSITY FOR THE NEW RATES The Proposed rates were calculated by projecting future annual revenue requirements and setting rates to recover the cost of providing solid waste services to properties in the City of Burlingame. The proposed 6% rate adjustment results in a 77¢ per month increase, or $9.24 in calendar year 2019, for residential rate payers who utilize the 32 gallon cart. The 6% increase is needed for each of the next three years for the following reasons: Rates have not been increase since calendar year 2012. Since that time, the cost of solid waste collection and disposal have increased each year such that the City’s Solid Waste Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve has been drawn on for each of the last three calendar years. A 7.2% increase in the revenue requirements is needed to cover the cost of solid waste collection and disposal in 2019. These are the all-inclusive costs associated with the pickup and disposal of rubbish and recyclables for both residential and commercial customers. The Restated and Amended Franchise Agreement with Recology for Recycle, Compost and Garbage Collection services, effective January 1, 2021, will increase the cost of these services by approximately 8.3% over the 2020 estimates. The franchise agreement effective January 1, 2021 also includes a 1.7% adjustment/increase to the allowance for fuel costs. The SBWMA’s solid waste disposal (landfill) contract expires 12/31/19, and its Organics processing contract expires 12/31/20. Renewal/renegotiations of these contract services are expected to result in significant cost implications as a result of market conditions in the industry. The SBWMA anticipates several large capital investments to (1) improve the quality of recycled materials necessary to retain a marketable commodity, and (2) achieve compliance with new organics diversion regulations from the State. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby gives notice of a public hearing to be held at its meeting of Monday, January 7, 2019 at 7:00 p.m.at the Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. At this hearing, the City Council will consider public comments as well as written protests by ratepayers against the proposed increase in solid waste/recycling fees. If written protests are presented by a majority of the affected ratepayers prior to the close of the public hearing, the City Council will not increase the rates as a matter of State law. FILING A PROTEST To file a written protest, send a letter in a sealed envelope addressed to 2011 Solid Waste Rates, City Clerk, City of Burlingame, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. Your letter must identify the real property you own or rent by street address and assessor’s parcel number. Your letter must be legibly signed by any one of the current property owners or ratepayers of record. The city must receive your letter at City Hall by 5:00 p.m. by Monday, January 7, 2019, or it must be presented at the City Council meeting of Monday, January 7, 2019 prior to the close of the public hearing on the matter. 3 Any person interested, including all solid waste/recycling collection customers of the City of Burlingame, may appear at the public hearing and be heard on any matter related to the proposed increase in rates. For more information regarding this notice, call Carol Augustine, Finance Director/Treasurer at 650-558- 7222. Information regarding the SBWMA can be found on its website: www.rethinkwaste.org This Notice of Public Hearing is required under Proposition 218 and is for mailing distribution no later than November 23, 2018 by Recology San Mateo on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date:September 17, 2018 From:Carol Augustine, Finance Director –(650) 558-7222 Subject:Review of Solid Waste Rate Options for Calendar Year 2019 RECOMMENDATION This item is for information purposes only. Staff requests that the City Council review the various options presented in this report and give direction as to the recommended rate increases for solid waste services for the three calendar years beginning January 1, 2019. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement (SBWMA). Under the SBWMA Joint Use of Powers Agreement, each member agency sets its own solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers. Each of the 12 SBWMA member jurisdictions has a franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County for residential and commercial solid waste, residential recycling, and residential green waste collections. The franchise agreements began January 1, 2011 and expire December 31, 2020. In addition, a contract with South Bay Recycling provides for operations at the Shoreway Environmental Center, which is owed by the SBWMA. The Shoreway facility serves as a regional solid waste and recycling facility for the receipt, handling, and transfer of refuse, recyclable, and organic materials. Each year, staff reviews the various cost components attributable to its solid waste services, which in turn determine the revenue required from its customers for the subsequent rate year. Each member of the SBWMA is responsible for establishing the rates in their respective jurisdictions. The rates are then applied based on the garbage cart/bin size of the customer and frequency of collection services. Within Burlingame, Recology is responsible for the billing of solid waste services at the rates prescribed by the City Council. Prior to the new franchise agreement in 2011, Allied Waste held the franchise agreements with SBWMA member agencies based on a “cost plus profit” compensation model. After stabilizing in 2005, moderate rate increases (shown in the table below) were sufficient to cover annual increases in solid waste expenses. However, in 2009, commercial revenue began to diminish as the area’s business activity slowed with the economy. Because approximately 70% of solid waste revenue is derived from commercial accounts, the decrease in commercial activity created a deficit that had to be financed by rate increases each subsequent year. Despite these increases, the City held a deficit position of over $700,000 at the end of the franchise agreement with Allied in 2010. Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018 2 Due to this deficit position, the rising costs of solid waste collection and disposal, and variations in customer service subscriptions (migration to smaller bin sizes based on higher recycling rates), rates were greatly increased in 2011 and again in 2012. In addition, transfers from the General Fund, a decrease in reimbursements for City costs (agency fees), and use of the Solid Waste Fund reserves, enabled the City to pay off the deficit position with Allied. Through calendar/rate year 2014, revenues from rates alone were adequate to generate surpluses within the Solid Waste Fund account, and in 2015 through 2017, the deficits were small enough to be covered by other revenues in the fund (mainly construction/demolition permit revenue and interest earnings). An approximate $1.2 million surplus had been accumulated from the City’s solid waste operations by the end of 2017. However, a deficit of approximately $288,000 from Solid Waste operations is expected in 2018, as shown in the chart below. DISCUSSION At a study session on City Solid Waste Services held in January of this year, the Council reviewed the various cost components attributable to these services, which in turn determine the revenue required from solid waste customers. In essence, solid waste rates are determined by three major factors. First and foremost is the annual cost of collecting and disposing of garbage and recyclables. Residential and commercial solid waste recyclable and organic materials are collected by Recology and taken to the Shoreway facility for processing, staging, and shipment. The franchise agreement with Recology is a “fixed cost” contract where future costs are adjusted based Rate Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Adjustment 3%5%5%8%6%17%25%0%0%0%0%0%0% Historical Solid Waste Rate Adjustments - City of Burlingame -$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $5,000,000 $7,000,000 $9,000,000 $11,000,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (proj) Annual Cost Analysis Revenue Expenses Surplus/Shortfall Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17,2018 3 on contractually approved indices. The second largest factor in the costs of Solid Waste services is in the form of disposal fees (tipping fees at the Shoreway facility and the landfill). Tipping fees are approved by the SBWMA Board and then passed through to the SBWMA agencies to be added to rates. Finally, City fees and eligible solid-waste related costs,which the City finances through solid waste rates,must be considered in establishing rates. These are referred to as “agency fees”, collected by Recology with the customer billings and remitted to the City monthly. These costs include an 8% franchise fee charged to Recology for their use of City right-of-ways to conduct private business. Franchise fees are General Fund revenues. Rates also include the costs of monitoring and testing the City’s former landfill and reducing the post-closure liability associated with the landfill; the cost of City-sponsored waste reduction programs; street sweeping; and the periodic steam cleaning of public trash receptacles. Since the deficit due to Allied Waste was paid in 2012, rates have adequately covered all these costs. The higher rates ended the need for General Fund transfers to support activities of the Solid Waste Fund,and provided surplus funding of a Solid Waste Rate Stabilization Reserve. Reserve levels have allowed the City to stave off further rate increases for many years. But as costs have increased, the rate stabilization reserve has levelled off. Revenues collected from rates are no longer sufficient to meet the current costs of solid waste services in the City, and annual operating deficits are increasing. To insure that the City’s Solid Waste Fund is in good fiscal position when the current franchise agreement with Recology terminates at the end of 2020, rates should be increased to cover current operating costs. At current rates, 2019 revenues for solid waste services are estimated to be $11.1 million, with a shortfall of $788,000 after all costs (including agency franchise and other fees) are accounted for. This would indicate a 7.1 percent increase in rates just to break even (requiring no draw on the rate stabilization reserve). The new contract negotiated with Recology to begin in 2021 Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018 4 will require the costs of collection, increasing only 2.4% in 2020, to increase approximately 10.2% in 2021. Due to disruptions in the global commodity markets for recycled materials and an increase in the costs of landfill contracts, disposal and processing fees are expected to increase over 12% in 2019. As the industry faces further challenges in the coming years, these costs are assumed to increase 5% in both 2020 and 2021. As shown below, foregoing a solid waste rate increase for 2019 would basically wipe out the current rate stabilization reserve, and require double-digit rate increases for two subsequent years. Various rate scenarios are attached as an Exhibit to this staff report. Balancing the need for a rate stabilization reserve to buffer rate-payers against volatile rate hikes in the future, the preference to cover current operating costs largely with current rate revenues, and to provide for the on-going sustainability of the Solid Waste Fund, staff recommends that solid waste rates for Burlingame customers be increased 6% in each of the next three years, beginning January 1, 2019. Although annual increases in service rates are never well received, it should be noted again that solid waste rates have not changed in Burlingame for seven years. As a result, 2018 residential rates for solid waste services in Burlingame are significantly below the average for SBWMA agencies ($34.23 average monthly fee for a 32 gallon cart; Burlingame’s fee is $28.40), and commercial rates are in line with rates charged in other jurisdictions. Rates are set by each agency in accordance with Proposition 218, which requires that all property owners be given a 45-day written notice of the City’s intent to adjust rates. After receiving Council direction on the proposed rate increases, staff will prepare and mail notices to each property owner, informing them of the rate increases, the reason for the increases, and the public hearing schedule to discuss the proposed increases. Estimated 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Contractor Compensation 5,729,318 5,780,604 5,504,141 5,727,000 5,746,000 5,884,000 6,484,000 Disposal & Processing 2,939,412 3,147,616 3,624,973 3,737,000 4,215,000 4,425,750 4,647,000 698,684 712,045 729,997 738,000 738,000 738,000 738,000 436,678 445,028 456,248 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 829,858 869,246 791,749 609,000 609,000 627,000 645,000 10,633,950 10,954,539 11,107,108 11,271,000 11,768,000 12,134,750 12,974,000 10,690,190 10,887,975 11,096,592 11,100,000 11,100,000 11,100,000 11,100,000 Unscheduled Services Billed 102,721 110,666 117,404 117,000 120,000 122,000 125,000 Shortfall (46,481)(177,230)(127,920)(288,000)(788,000)(1,156,750)(1,999,000) Rate Stabilization Reserve 1,512,000 1,334,770 1,206,850 918,850 130,850 -1,025,900 -3,024,900 *Includes increases to City's Rate Stabilization Reserve Notes: 2019 deficit severly diminishes rate stabilization reserve. Necessitates a +10% increase in both 2020 and 2021 Actual Projected Franchise Fees Landfill Postclosure Other City Expenses* Total Expenses Revenues from Rates ASSUMES NO RATE INCREASES Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018 5 FISCAL IMPACT Current rates that have been in place since 2012 are no longer adequate to fully cover the costs of providing solid waste services in calendar year 2019, without requiring significant draws on the City’s Solid Waste Fund reserves. In order to prevent depletion of the fund’s rate stabilization reserves and double digit increases in each of the following two years, rates will need to be increased to all solid waste customers for the year beginning January 1, 2019. Rate increases are also indicated in the following two years to cover increased operating and capital costs of providing solid waste services. To the extent that the rate stabilization reserve is drawn down, rate-payers may be subject to significant increases in future rates. Exhibit: Solid Waste Rate Scenarios 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO:9a MEETING DATE:November 19, 2018 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date:November 19, 2018 From:Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director –(650) 558-7253 Subject:Consideration of Adoption of the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing to consider adoption of the update to the City’s General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). BACKGROUND In March 2015, the City of Burlingame initiated a multi-year process focused on a community- led effort to update the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, called “Envision Burlingame.” The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are the City’s two documents that regulate all land use, environmental, and transportation decisions made by City leaders. The Envision Burlingame process will result in goals and strategies for desired change in the City by answering the question: “How do we want Burlingame to look, function, and feel 25 years from now?” To answer this question, residents, business owners, and other community members have been engaged in a comprehensive discussion regarding mobility, urban design, recreation and parks, health, natural resources, and economic development opportunities. The Public Review Draft of the General Plan was released in August 2017. The draft plan is available on the Envision Burlingame website at www.envisionburlingame.org, and on the City of Burlingame website at www.burlingame.org/generalplan. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released on June 28, 2018. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential impacts related to the implementation of the General Plan at a "programmatic" level, as authorized by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for use by Planning Commission, City Council, other public agencies, and the community in their consideration of the proposed General Plan. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared with responses to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The City published a Notice of Availability and circulated the DEIR for public review and comment from July 3, 2018 through August 20, General Plan Update and EIR November 19, 2018 2 2018. The FEIR provides responses to comments received during the public review and comment period. The Draft and Final EIR are available on the Envision Burlingame website at www.envisionburlingame.org, and on the City of Burlingame website at www.burlingame.org/generalplan. The update to the General Plan includes all chapters except for the Housing Element. The Housing Element is a comprehensive document that addresses a range of housing issues such as affordability, housing types, density, location, and housing programs. It was most recently updated in 2015. All local governments within the State of California are required to periodically update their housing elements on a schedule determined by the State Office of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The timeframe for the next update is in approximately five years, by 2023. City Council Review. The City Council reviewed the General Plan and EIR at its November 5, 2018 meeting. In that meeting, the consultant team provided an overview of both the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR (presentation slides attached). The City Council received public input and provided direction to staff and the consultant team. (Please refer to the Draft November 5, 2018 City Council meeting minutes). Previously, the City Council reviewed the General Plan at various key intervals through the process, including: Review of Draft Concept Alternatives as part of the annual joint meeting with the Planning Commission on March 19, 2016; Review of the preliminary Land Use Plan on September 7, 2016; Discussion of a build-out analysis on December 2, 2016; Discussion of employment projections on September 18, 2017; and Project updates as part of the annual joint meetings with the Planning Commission on April 15, 2017 and May 2, 2018. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation. The Planning Commission reviewed the General Plan at various key intervals through the process, including: Joint meetings with the City Council; Review of the preliminary Land Use Plan at a study session on July 13, 2016; Overview and public comment session on the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR on July 11, 2018; Discussion of historic resource approaches and policies on August 10, 2018. At its meeting on October 22, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the General Plan and EIR to the City Council, with the following changes and clarifications: Acceptance of staff and consultant suggestions for follow-up actions to public comments as presented with the staff report; Further discussion of historic resource approaches and policies. General Plan Update and EIR November 19, 2018 3 Community Advisory Committee (CAC).A Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was established by the City Council early in the process to advise the project team throughout the development of the updated General Plan. Members included representatives from a variety of organizations and perspectives, including neighborhood groups, business groups, transportation and housing advocacy groups, and environmental organizations, as well as residents representing a range of perspectives, including youth, renters, and seniors. The role of the CAC has been to connect with the various communities and stakeholders of Burlingame for the purpose of advising and making recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. The CAC held a total of 18 meetings between July 22, 2015, and August 30, 2017. Community Engagement.The General Plan Update has included a range of community engagement activities including four City Council study sessions, three community workshops, numerous stakeholder interviews and intercept surveys, focus groups, an online survey, and collaborations with students from Burlingame High School and local universities. DISCUSSION Additional Policies Proposed at November 5, 2018 City Council Meeting.The November 5, 2018 City Council meeting presentation included several additional policies to be considered for the General Plan: Coordination with School Districts.Two additional policies are proposed to be added to the General Plan to continue the City’s on-going commitment to supporting local schools: City and District Collaboration. Assist local school districts in identifying potential school locations to serve growth in enrollment. School Partnerships: Support creative public-private partnerships to facilitate the funding and development of public school facilities. Variable Massing in Downtown.An additional policy is proposed that would allow portions of new buildings in Downtown to be taller than 55 feet provided other portions of the same building are lower than 55 feet. The intent is to provide a more varied roofline, particularly on larger buildings or sites. Variable Massing in Downtown. Allow portions of new buildings in Downtown to be taller than 55 feet when other portions of the same building are lower than 55 feet, in order to maintain an average height of 55 feet. The policy as initially presented did not include an absolute maximum height, but the highest building height in the Downtown Specific Plan is 75 feet in the R-4 District (with a Conditional Use Permit). The proposed policy specifies the maximum height would be no taller than 75 feet. City Council Written Feedback.Subsequent to the November 5, 2018 meeting, Councilmembers provided staff with written feedback and questions on the Public Review Draft. General Plan Update and EIR November 19, 2018 4 Staff has compiled feedback from Councilmembers into a single consolidated document (Exhibit A). The document shows suggested edits and deletions, as well as commentary and questions. Each comment or edit expresses the opinion of an individual Councilmember but does not necessarily reflect the opinions or direction of the full Council. The intent is to represent the range of individual Councilmember feedback for consideration by the full City Council. In some instances, there are clusters of comments where several Councilmembers provided similar feedback on an item. Areas of Further Discussion.Staff and the consultant team have identified a few areas for further discussion based on discussion at the November 5, 2018 City Council meeting, and from written comments received from councilmembers. Revised Historical Preservation Policies.There was consensus among the members of the Council to revise Policies CC-3.2 (Comprehensive Historical Surveys) and CC-3.5 (Historic Districts) to allow the issue to be further evaluated. Further study could allow consideration of other approaches such as surveys and context statements, or possibilities for streamlining individual evaluations. Policy CC-3.2 is proposed to be revised as follows: CC-3.2: Historic Evaluation Approaches. Evaluate options for identifying potential historic resources, both to allow property owners to utilize historic preservation incentives, and as a consideration in development review. City Hall.The Community Character chapter includes a policy regarding the potential to relocate City Hall. The policy reflects discussions held prior to the General Plan Update that considered options for replacing the City Hall facility, due to its obsolescence: CC-8.8: City Hall Site. Explore options for relocation of City Hall to another location within Downtown convenient for residents and the business community, and consider reuse of the City Hall site for other beneficial uses, including housing and open space. In written comments, Councilmembers have suggested revising the policy, so it is less definitive, or alternatively to omit the policy altogether. Auto Row.The California Drive Mixed Use District (which includes the California Drive Auto Row) is a Planning Area within the Downtown Specific Plan. The height limit is 35 feet, or up to 55 feet with a Conditional Use Permit. One of the major property owners within the district has expressed an interest in allowing a higher height limit, in order to facilitate mixed use development including workforce housing. While the height limit could be revisited as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, in written comments there has been Councilmember interest in further defining the California Drive Mixed Use District within the General Plan, and possibly providing direction to the characteristics of mixed use development within the district. Given the identified need for further exploration and community input, staff recommends that any changes to allowable height be included as part of a coordinated set of plan updates. General Plan Update and EIR November 19, 2018 5 Broadway Height Limits.The Broadway Mixed Use District has two policies that describe height limits alternatively as either two or three stories. The concept is to allow additional intensity at California Drive and El Camino Real, but in written comments Councilmembers have asked to clarify whether the remainder of the Broadway corridor would be limited to two or three stories. Adeline Drive/El Camino Real Commercial Node.The commercial node at the corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real is comprised of two properties, each currently zoned C-1 Commercial. The zoning is an anomaly; other than Broadway, it is the only commercially-zoned area on El Camino Real located between Downtown and Dufferin Avenue. Through the General Plan Update process, there have been varying proposals for the designation of the properties in this commercial node. The consultant team and staff have suggested either the Broadway Mixed Use designation, or a variation of the North Burlingame Mixed Use designation that would be contingent on a height limit consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Written comments from Councilmembers indicate a need for further clarity of the designation. For reference, the properties to the north and south along El Camino Real are zoned R-3 Multifamily Residential, which has a height limit of 35 feet (or up to 55 feet with a Conditional Use Permit). Draft General Plan Public Comments.The November 5, 2018 City Council staff report included prepared responses to written public comments received since the Public Review Draft was released in August 2017. Suggested responses range from text edits, to inclusion of additional new policies. The consultant team has been assembling the suggested revisions into an edited/mark-up draft. The intent is to reflect the full range of edits proposed to the plan in response to public comments. Based on direction provided at the November 19 th meeting, the consultant team and staff will add further edits reflecting input from the City Council. A final mark-up draft will be presented for adoption at the December 17, 2018 City Council meeting. Interim Zoning.“Envision Burlingame” is the combined update of the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The next phase of work will be the Zoning Ordinance Update. Ultimately, the entire zoning code will be rewritten, and it is anticipated to take approximately one year. State Law requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with the respective general plan. Given the amount of time that will be required to prepare the complete Zoning Ordinance Update, staff has directed the consultant team to initially focus on interim regulations applicable to the most significant “change areas” identified in the Draft General Plan. These include: North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone (Live/Work Zone) The approach will allow interim zoning for these two areas to be adopted concurrently with the General Plan, so that consistent zoning would be in place for the areas with the most significant changes to land use and building form. State Law allows interim zoning to be extended for up to two years, which can be effective when a general plan revision or major rezoning is underway in General Plan Update and EIR November 19, 2018 6 order to achieve general plan consistency. New or updated specific plans for the respective areas could also be developed while the interim zoning is in place. A subcommittee of the Planning Commission consisting of Commissioners Kelly, Loftis, and Terrones has been formed to evaluate the interim chapters, as well as the full zoning code as it is developed. The subcommittee has met twice to review drafts of the North Burlingame and North Rollins Road chapters, and the full Planning Commission reviewed the chapters at its November 13, 2018 meeting (Planning Commission staff report attached). In that meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the interim chapters as proposed, with the provision that the North Burlingame Mixed Use standards reflect the Council’s direction to establish a maximum density of 140 dwelling units per acre (rather than 120 units per acre as shown in the draft). A recent California Supreme Court case has created the potential that, if zoning in change areas lags behind the General Plan, the City’s ability to review and approve applications in the change areas could be at risk. In order to avoid this problem, interim zoning for the primary land use change areas is being introduced concurrently with the General Plan. While the North Burlingame Mixed Use and North Rollins Road chapters have been developed to be adopted on an interim basis as an urgency ordinance, much thought has been given to the approach and standards. This includes an innovative “tiered” approach to development, in which the highest residential densities and commercial floor areas would require provision of community benefits such as affordable housing, open space, and enhanced streetscapes. As drafted, affordable units would be a requirement to achieve the highest residential densities. The regulations also provide streetscape standards with sidewalk and street tree specifications that would be aligned with the hierarchy of street types provided in the General Plan. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: November 5, 2018 City Council Meeting Presentation Slides Exhibit A: General Plan Public Review Draft: Councilmember Feedback November 13, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report – Interim Zoning Chapters Community Advisory Committee #1 July 22, 2015 | Park and Recreation Center City Council Study Session ENVISION BURLINGAME DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND EIR November 5, 2018 Agenda Presentation Envision Burlingame Process Draft General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) City Council Questions to Staff Public Comments City Council Discussion and Action What is Envision Burlingame? The Envision Burlingame process answers the question “How do we want Burlingame to look, function and feel 25 years from now?” Community Meetings and Events Community Meetings and Events by the numbers 340+People registered for email updates through the website 18 Community Advisory Committee Meetings 15 Stakeholder Interviews 4 City Council Study Sessions 4 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Retreats 3 Community Workshops 3 Planning Commission Study Sessions 3 Student Outreach or Design Projects (Burlingame High, SF State, and UC Berkeley) 2 Intercept and Online Surveys CAC Roster Kathy Schmidt Kris Cannon Laurie Simonson Cathy Baylock Perry Mizota Jeff DeMartini John Martos Janet Martin Molly Kaplan Lilian Cheung Leslie McQuaide Mary Ellen Kearny Mike McCord Jennifer Pfaff Eric Storey Mauricia Savella Georgette Naylor John Kevranian Jesse Jones Juan Loredo Clif Clark Ron Karp Raziel Ungar Mark Hudak Karyl Eldridge Tim Ryan Maggie Maclsaac Dennis Gale Jeff Londer Vishwanath Prathikanti Norm Torello The CAC, formed to connect diverse stakeholders to advise and make recommendations to City staff and decision makers, has held 18 meetings focusing on land use and economic policy issues. Community Advisory Committee Meetings State Recognition 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Existing Conditions and Opportunities Stakeholder Interviews and Existing Conditions Report Completed Fall 2015 Completed Spring 2016 Completed Spring 2016 Completed Summer 2017 Summer 2017 to Summer 2018 Fall 2018 Summer 2018 to Spring 2019 Summer 2018 to Spring 2019 Vision and Transformative Strategies Framework Community Workshop #1 and Vision Framework Concept Alternatives Draft Concept Alternatives and Evaluation Draft General Plan Policy Framework and Draft General Plan Environmental Review Scoping and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) General Plan Public Hearings and Adoption Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearings Zoning Ordinance Update Updated Descriptive Text, Diagrams and Regulations Specific Plan Technical Updates Focused updates to Downtown, Bayfront and Rollins Road Plans Envision Burlingame Process Community Advisory Committee #1 July 22, 2015 | Park and Recreation Center DRAFT 2040 GENERAL PLAN What is a General Plan? Long-Term Short-Term More General More Detailed GENERAL PLAN Area/Community Plans Specific Plans Zoning (Discretionary/Legislative) Subdivision Maps Conditional Use Permits Variances (Discretionary/Quasi-Adjudicatory) Building Permits Grading Permits (Ministerial) What is a General Plan? A long-term plan to guide decisions for stability and change, with a 15 to 20-year planning horizon Addresses topics required by law, plus those unique to Burlingame Belongs to the community and reflects local vision and values A “living” document that may change over time Legally enforceable and provides for accountability Draft 2040 General Plan I.Introduction II.Community Context III.Guiding Principles IV.Community Character V.Economic Development VI.Mobility VII.Infrastructure VIII.Community Safety IX.Healthy People Healthy Places X.Engagement and Enrichment XI.Implementation Project Area 2040 Land Use Diagram Key Change Areas BAYFRONT BROADWAY ROLLINS ROAD NORTH BURLINGAME Bayfront Regional business and hotel destination Enhanced access and recreational opportunities Flexible industrial and commercial development standards Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Innovation Industrial -0.75 Industrial and Commercial 3.0 Hospitality Bayfront Commercial -3.0 Rollins Road Continued light industrial center Flex residential/industrial zoning on the north end near the Millbrae BART station Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Innovation Industrial -0.75 Industrial and Commercial 3.0 Hospitality Live/Work Up to 70.0 units/acre 1.0 North Burlingame Mixed Use North Burlingame Increased residential densities to create a mixed use hub near the Millbrae BART Station Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) North Burlingame Mixed Use 20.1 -120.0 units/acre 2.0 Office and 1.0 Commercial Med/High Residential 20.1 -50.0 units/acre - Public/Institution -1.5 Gov/Education/Cultural 3.0 Hospitals Broadway Continued focus on local businesses and a commercial center More flexible second floor uses Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Broadway Mixed Use 40.0 units/acre 2.0 Areas of Focused Housing Growth Buildout Projections (current + future to 2040) Existing (2017 Estimates) Initial Buildout Figures (12/6/2016 City Council Meeting) Draft General Plan Buildout ABAG Projection Total Housing Units 13,144 16,065 16,065 (+2,951)17,200 Total Population*29,724 36,600 36,600 (+6,876)39,530 Total Number of Jobs 29,879 39,610 39,610 (+9,731)40,164 * Based on an average household size of 2.3 persons •Initial numbers were presented to the City Council on December 6, 2016 •Council provided direction to increase housing density in the Live/Work area on Rollins Road and to accommodate more population growth •Employment numbers were refined to reflect land use assumptions and market trends, and in conjunction with the traffic analysis process and presented to Council on September 8, 2017 2040 Multimodal Circulation Network Bicycle Network Transportation Demand Management M-5.1: TDM Guidelines and Programs Establish specific TDM guidelines and requirements within the Zoning Ordinance that encourage travel by a variety of modes for both individuals and employees, focusing different strategies in different parts of the community as appropriate to promote sustainability and economic development. IP-26: Citywide TDM Plan The City will develop a citywide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for adoption by the City Council, which could include strategies to reduce peak-hour traffic, such as staggered work hours, flexible schedule options, local transit service, and telecommuting from home offices. Sustainability Sustainability and community resiliency policies, programs and actions are integrated throughout the General Plan document A new and unique Sustainable Development goal section in the Community Character Element Close coordination and integration with the City’s Climate Action Plan, both through policy and through analysis within the EIR Historic Preservation A new and unique goal section in the Community Character Element CC-3.2: Comprehensive Historic Surveys Require applicants for any discretionary permits that involve remodeling, removing, or substantially altering any structure older than 50 years (at the time of the application) to prepare a Historic Resources Analysis consistent with State CEQA requirements to identify the historical significance of the property. CC-3.5: Historic Districts Identify opportunities to establish National Park Service Certified Historic Districts to encourage the preservation of Burlingame’s historical neighborhoods and districts, and to qualify property owners for the Federal Preservation Tax Incentives Program. Historic Preservation Current Inventory: 46 properties surveyed in Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions Six properties found to be eligible for listing on California Register of Historic Places Historic Preservation Policy Approaches: 1.Citywide/District Survey:Conduct a full survey of either all or part of Burlingame to identify all potential resources. 2.Case-by-Case Evaluations: Require any new project on a building 50 years or older to have an evaluation done (current approach in the Draft General Plan). 3.Certify Commission/Staff to be Historic Resources Specialist:To augment bullet #2, there is a process to certify the City to make historic resources determinations. Sea Level Rise A new and unique Sea Level Rise goal section in the Community Safety Element DCS-5.2: Vulnerability Assessment Coordinate with San Mateo County on the county-wide Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment that will identify regional sea level rise risk factors and areas, as well as emerging options for response. CS-5.3: New Development in Vulnerable Areas Continue to require appropriate setback and building elevation requirements for properties located along the Bayshore, lagoons, and in other low-laying areas that are susceptible to the effects of sea level rise. Consider other strategies to support resiliency through design. Coordination with School Districts •Burlingame is served by two public school districts: Burlingame School District and San Mateo Union High School District. •The City of Burlingame and the local school districts are separate government agencies with different roles and responsibilities •City staff and the consultant team have been coordinating with the School District staff to ensure they are aware of potential land use considerations. San Mateo Union High School District Burlingame School District Coordination with School Districts The City and District regularly hold City/District Liaison Committee meetings to help improve coordination Both the City and District are looking at creative and collaborative solutions moving forward Coordination with School Districts The following policies and standards can be added to the General Plan to continue the City’s on-going commitment to supporting local schools: New Policy: City and District Collaboration. Assist local school districts in identifying potential school locations to serve growth in enrollment. New Policy: School Partnerships: Support creative public-private partnerships to facilitate the funding and development of public school facilities. Variable Massing in Downtown New Policy: Variable Massing in Downtown. Allow portions of new buildings in Downtown to be taller than 55 feet when other portions of the same building are lower than 55 feet, in order to maintain an average height of 55 feet. Burlingame Hills/Sphere of Influence A City’s sphere of influence refers to adjacent unincorporated areas that receive or may in the future receive services from the city and may become part of the city. The Draft General Plan includes the following statement: “As a matter of City policy, these areas will not be annexed by the City of Burlingame unless annexation is initiated by property owners” (page CC-9) Burlingame Hills/Sphere of Influence Under California LAFCO law, annexations generally follow a five-step process: 1.Pre-Application (initiated by the City of by a majority of residents) 2.Application filed with the San Mateo LAFCO 3.Review and consideration by the San Mateo LAFCO 4.Protest Proceedings that will determine either the majority of property owners accept annexation and/or LAFCO will hold an election 5.Final Certification of the annexation Community Advisory Committee #1 July 22, 2015 | Park and Recreation Center DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) Environmental Impact Report Approach Program Level Analysis General Plans are subject to program-level analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) “Program-level” analysis differs from “project-level” analysis in the sense that the EIR evaluates the impacts the proposed policies may have on environmental conditions. As a result, proposed mitigation measures in the EIR are typically designed as changes to policy language. Draft Environmental Impact Report Topics/Chapters with NO IMPACTS or LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Agricultural and Forestry Resources Biological Resources Geology, Soils, and Minerals Hazards and Hazardous Materials Historic and Cultural Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Public Services Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Draft Environmental Impact Report Topics with SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS that with mitigation can be reduced to LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS: 1.Paleontological Resources 2.Short-term Construction Noise Impacts 3.Increased Traffic Noise 4.Increased Traffic at Select Intersections Existing Conditions Year 2040 with Proposed General Plan Conditions Draft Environmental Impact Report Topics with SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS that with mitigation remain SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS: 1.Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Increases in greenhouse gas emissions will occur until the Climate Action Plan update is adopted with specific programs the City will undertake to reduce emissions. Draft Environmental Impact Report Topics with SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS that with mitigation remain SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS: 2.Plan Bay Area Consistency: The 2040 General Plan is not consistent with PDA transit corridor policies. From ABAG: “Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are places identified by Bay Area communities as areas for investment, new homes and job growth.” EIR Alternatives ALTERNATIVE 1: No Project Existing Burlingame General Plan ALTERNATIVE 2: Higher Development Density/ Intensity in North Burlingame Increased density allowed in the North Burlingame focus area (NBMU): 140 units/acre (versus 120 units/acre) ALTERNATIVE 3: No Live/Work Designation in the Northerly One-Third of the Rollins Road Corridor Replace Live/Work designation to Innovation Industrial, at a maximum FAR of 0.75 for commercial and industrial uses and 3.0 for hospitality uses EIR Alternatives Evaluated Results Alternatives 2 and 3 have the same impact levels as the General Plan, and none would reduce significant unavoidable impacts Proposed General Plan is considered the superior alternative as it meets all project objectives EIR Questions raised at the May CC/PC Retreat Question Why do some intersections adjacent to railroad crossings fail (Level of Service) and others do not? Response Five intersections adjacent to railroad crossings were studied: Broadway/California Broadway/Carolan Oak Grove/California Oak Grove/Carolan Peninsula/San Mateo EIR Questions raised at the May CC/PC Retreat Broadway/California is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS and is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS in the future. This is a result of inefficient intersection operations as a result of the railroad crossing. Oak Grove/Carolan is expected to operate at LOS F in the future because of the three-way stop-control. Broadway/Carolan is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS because it is a “T” intersection, which has less delay than a four-way intersection. Carolan also has less traffic than California. Peninsula/San Mateo is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS because it is not as affected by the railroad tracks since they are 250 feet away. EIR Questions raised at the May CC/PC Retreat Question Were new development projects recently approved in Millbrae or San Mateo included in the analysis? Response The model uses ABAG consistent data for areas outside of Burlingame’s city limits. Land use changes and new projects located outside of Burlingame are assumed to be captured within the ABAG regional land use data. EIR Questions raised at the May CC/PC Retreat Question Does the traffic model consider the pending Peninsula Drive interchange? Response It does not because the project is not approved. The traffic model only includes the future transportation network improvements that are approved. EIR Questions raised at the May CC/PC Retreat Question Does the traffic model consider the electrification of the Caltrain corridor and the anticipated increase it will have in the ridership and the number of trains? Response Yes, it is included in the regional ABAG model. Study Session Suggested Structure 1.City Council questions for staff and the consultant team 2.Public comments 3.City Council addresses hearing comments, written correspondence, and staff report recommendations 4.City Council discussion and next steps Community Advisory Committee #1 July 22, 2015 | Park and Recreation Center PUBLIC COMMENTS Community Advisory Committee #1 July 22, 2015 | Park and Recreation Center CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION Bayfront Regional business and hotel destination Enhanced access and recreational opportunities Flexible industrial and commercial development standards PROPOSED Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Innovation Industrial -0.75 Industrial and Commercial 3.0 Hospitality Bayfront Commercial -3.0 EXISTING Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Inner Bayshore - 0.90 Offices 0.50 Industrial and Commercial 65 rooms/acre Hospitality Shoreline Area -0.90 Offices 65 rooms/acre Hospitality Anza Point North 1.0 Offices 85 rooms/acre Hospitality Rollins Road Continued light industrial center Flex residential/industrial zoning on the north end near the Millbrae BART station PROPOSED Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Innovation Industrial -0.75 Industrial and Commercial 3.0 Hospitality Live/Work Up to 70.0 units/acre 1.0 EXISTING Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Central Rollins Road -0.5 Tier 1 (Review Line) 1.0 Tier 2 (Maximum) Rollins Road Northern Gateway -0.5 Tier 1 (Review Line) 1.0 Tier 2 (Maximum) North Burlingame Increased residential densities to create a mixed use hub near the Millbrae BART Station PROPOSED Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) North Burlingame Mixed Use 20.1 -120.0 units/acre 2.0 Office and 1.0 Commercial Med/High Residential 20.1 -50.0 units/acre - Public/Institution -1.5 Gov/Education/Cultural 3.0 Hospitals EXISTING Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) El Camino Real Gateway 40.0 units/acre 0.5 Office North of Trousdale Drive 40.0 units/acre 0.5 Office Unclassified -- Broadway Continued focus on local businesses and a commercial center More flexible second floor uses PROPOSED Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Broadway Mixed Use 40.0 units/acre 2.0 EXISTING Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) C-1 Commercial -3.0 Downtown Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Downtown Specific Plan As set forth in the DSP As set forth in the DSP Maintain Downtown as a vibrant, pedestrian-scaled, mixed use district Support a diversity of commercial businesses, civic uses, employment, and housing for all income levels and people of all ages. California Drive PROPOSED Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) California Drive Mixed Use 0 -20.0 units/acre 0.6 Low-scale uses mixed along a multi-modal corridor Residential re-introduced as an allowed use Sensitive transitions to adjacent neighborhoods EXISTING Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) C-2 Commercial -3.0 El Camino Real PROPOSED Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Med Density Residential 8.1 -20.0 units/acre - Med/High Residential 20.1 -50.0 units/acre - Broadway Mixed Use 40.0 units/acre 2.0 Preserve the distinctive tree- lined character Finely scaled, medium/high- density residential uses Limited amount of commercial and/or mixed uses at key intersections along the corridor EXISTING Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Med Density Residential 9.0 -20.0 units/acre - Med/High Residential 21.0 -50.0 units/acre - C-1 Commercial (Broadway)-3.0 Residential Neighborhoods “Areas of stability” with little change anticipated High-quality, appropriately scaled residential development Incentives to encourage preservation Designation Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Low-Density Residential 1.0 –8.0 units/acre - Community Advisory Committee #1 July 22, 2015 | Park and Recreation Center City Council Study Session ENVISION BURLINGAME DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND EIR November 5, 2018    Commented [CC1]:    Commented [CC2]:        Commented [CC3]:      Commented [CC4]: Commented [CC1]: It is very important to note that, from the outset, Burlingame has been a mixed economic community. We may not have always been very diverse ethnically (as recently as 1970 we were 98.6% white, today we are about 63% white), but we have always been a mix of blue collar and white collar residents; from the very beginning, we attracted the very wealthy San Franciscans who wanted a getaway from the fog (as noted) but we also had lots of modest bungalows for working families who owned shops, did car repair, owned landscaping firms, or worked at SFO, to cite several examples. Solid working middle class community. This economic diversity is a really important, if somewhat intangible, characteristic of Burlingame; I think it is what helps Burlingame feel more like a real American town and not just a wealthy enclave. And the point is, we are at risk of losing this diversity if we do not address the increasing lack of affordable housing stock. One wants to be careful NOT to turn this into a pro rent control paragraph, which is neither what I intend nor what I prescribe, but we DO need to find a way for our working families – including teachers, safety officers, car mechanics, craftsmen – to keep living here and that means creating more affordable housing. THIS IS WHAT THEN SETS UP THE RATIONALE FOR REZONING ROLLINS ROAD INTO HOUSING. It is somewhat ironic to say so, but Burlingame is suffering from a form of Gentrification, where working folks and the backbone of our community are being displaced because of rising housing costs. We don’t use that vocabulary in affluent communities like ours, but it is the same phenomenon. Commented [CC2]: In light of our decision to pend the Historic Review mechanism, recommend deleting this paragraph. Honestly, I don’t know what neighborhoods those are (the ones that provide a “cohesive historic fabric”) other than arguably the Eichler neighborhood. All of our residential neighborhoods have gone through dramatic remodeling over the last 20 years – Easton most notably but none has been immune – so to say that there is a historic fabric strikes me as wishful thinking. On the other hand, I think one COULD reference the lengthy debate the city had back in the late 1990s about “monster homes”, which then led to a very thoughtful design policy on FAR and setbacks that has proven to stand the test of time as a balance between homeowners who want a larger home with more bedrooms for kids versus “monster homes” overwhelming our neighborhoods. In none of that debate was the issue of historicity referenced or considered. Commented [CC3]: If reference to our mixed economic social fabric is made in the first section, this is where it could be expanded. THEN on Regional Issues, that could and should be expanded to talk about the housing/jobs imbalance and growing unaffordability of housing. I recommend calling out median housing price in 1990, 2000, 2010 and today, along with some chart on rents for 1 BR or 2 BR apartments. Again, this is the key theme/context that has come to dominate every city’s planning in San Mateo County today. We really need to make sure we highlight it in the GP since it explains our decisions to grow. Commented [CC4]: Meanwhile, even though our residential population and # of households have only grown about 10% over the last almost 50 years (!!), our K- 8 school age population over the last decade has grown by 42% (!!!). How did this happen? Because we have a beautiful city, yes, but also really great, successful schools and what has happened in our city, as opposed to some others, is that we have been an amazing magnet for young families. They move into empty nesters’ homes, driving up land values for all homeowners -- helping drive the significant increase in property tax revenue to the city (up 57% from FY ’08 to FY 18) – and greatly increasing the population of kids here. This is where the pressure to remodel homes comes from. AND THIS IS WHY INTER ALIA IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT OUR HIGH QUALITY SCHOOLS (private and public) in the General Plan. This is a key ingredient for Burlingame’s success and we have to be mindful of working with our schools to maintain quality even in the face of growth in the General Plan going forward. I know the “AGE” section is supposed to capture this but I think it needs to be better spelled out for people. BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE I CX-15     Commented [CC1]: Commented [CC2]:         Commented [CC3]:       Commented [CC4]:        Commented [CC5]: Commented [CC6]: Commented [CC7]:   Commented [CC1]: Recommend calling out Auto Row. I think we may want to tweak heights/uses there to allow for changing nature. We started this discussion and I know we have not finished it. For purposes of this report, I would simply pull it out as a distinct area within the DSP. 17 19 Commented [CC2]: Approximately half of Burlingame Hills properties are within the City of Burlingame boundaries. Commented [CC3]: The City is prepared to engage in annexation talks with the unincorporated Burlingame Hills residents and the County on a basis of collaboration, should such be proposed by Burlingame Hills residents. Costs with a merger would need to addressed in a fair and equitable way that is acceptable to all three parties.  Commented [CC4]: Our capacity for growth is not limited. Our capacity for GREENFIELD growth is limited. But we can rezone and we can go higher. So I think this is mis-stated. It does not mean we will, merely that it is misleading. Commented [CC5]: How do we define “major development”? 23 Commented [CC6]: Add an additional policy: CC-1.14 Storm water should be handled onsite so far as possible and allowed to filter into the ground water table, and not collected and pumped into the public storm drain system unless there is no other way to manage runoff. I feel strongly that we have encouraged homeowners for over a decade to collect their rainwater in a central area and then either drain or pump to the street, which simply puts more pollutants in our public system and into the bay and also greater strain on our water cleaning infrastructure. 27 Commented [CC7]: Replace – to be studied further. Commented [CC8]: This section needs to be redrafted in light of the decision to study the matter further. CC-3.1 and 3.2 are not relevant in the current context. Commented [CC9]: I do not think it is really true to say that “each neighborhood reflects the building styles that were popular at the time of their construction.” First, as noted previously, a LOT of homes have been remodeled, in many cases after being leveled, and there are many cases of old single story Spanish bungalows becoming new two story Tudors. Second, we explicitly and properly brag about the eclectic nature of Burlingame architecture, so what does this actually mean? All that said, I can tell this first paragraph is not worth changing. Commented [CC10]: This para is problematic. “Consistent styles” do not contribute to home values or cohesion; good design does. And the “tension” that is referenced was largely resolved 20 years ago with the design guidelines and FAR compromise. This para mis-states the severity of this debate, which I consider to mostly be settled. 31 Commented [CC11]: Change to: “Ensure that homes in the single family (R1) neighborhoods retain the character of Burlingame as elucidated in Burlingame’s Neighborhood Design Guidelines and by its rules on FAR and massing, so as to ensure that new homes and remodels continue to meet Burlingame’s high design and aesthetic standards.” We have FAR and we have design guidelines. They do NOT say that new homes have to respect the “architecture” of each “unique residential neighborhood,” which by the way, do not actually exist. Alternatively, delete this in entirely with the view that CC 4.2 accomplishes this. Commented [CC12]: Maybe 4.2 should become 4.1 and then there could be a new 4.2, to wit, “Work with the Design Committee to develop new standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) such that State mandates can be met while minimizing negative impacts on design and parking within neighborhoods.” This would actually be a practical goal in light of new laws. Commented [CC13]: If there are height and FAR limits for R2, R3 or R4, then those are what have to be met. At most, a new building needs to be sensitive to its surroundings, but not necessarily be “compatible” with them. Cannot be subjective; needs to meet the requirement for objective development standards. Commented [CC14]: Remove this policy in light of decision to study further. Commented [CC15]: What is meant by historical background? Commented [CC16]: Do we even have them in Burlingame? CC-4.7 addresses this better. Commented [CC17]: Elaborate..... what does it mean to protect older single-family and multifamily residences even though they may not have historical significance? Commented [CC18]: What kind of incentives exist to protect old homes? We already allow Mills Act, etc. Unless there is something concrete here, this is a hollow promise. 33 Commented [CC19]: Are we concerned about this language? Could be interpreted to imply support for Peninsula Avenue interchange. Commented [CC20]: While correct, these natural areas are not recoverable as tidal lands or marshlands. The vast majority of the fill in the Bayfront is from the old San Mateo Bridge and Highway 280 construction. Commented [CC21]: Council direction was a desire to keep the inner Bayshore at 1.0 FAR so as to ensure that development would be limited, therefore keeping the buildings accessible to light industrial and other such uses. This should be called out specifically, since it is part of our plan to LIMIT redevelopment intentionally, so as to preserve affordable warehouse and other light industrial uses in Burlingame. This might be an expansion of CC-5.2. Commented [CC22]: Do we begin to address this in our code? How do we make this happen besides design review? Commented [CC23]: Why are we promoting the reuse of Building Stock in the I/I district? To what end? Suggest deleting. 37 Commented [CC24]: Property owners will be assessed to build a unified seawall defense. We are not going to require them to do it independently. That’s like how we do the baytrail but the difference is, we cannot afford even one “gap” in the wall, so we cannot wait around for private landowners to do this. This para needs rethinking. The last sentence makes sense. Commented [CC25]: The waterfront setback is set by BCDC. It is not our place to enforce 75’, it is to understand and plan within whatever limit BCDC sets. If they were to reduce to 50’, so would we. So delete. Just say we will enforce state mandated setbacks. 39 Commented [CC26]: There ought to be the following caveats: On Option 1, Retreat, the City is not embracing this as a line of defense since there is nowhere to which to retreat. As a practical matter, Retreat for the City of Burlingame effectively means giving up its Bayside land east of 101, and all the commercial operations and revenue therefrom. On Option 4, the creation of Horizontal Levies, it is the City’s understanding that it is highly unlikely that State agencies would allow the City to build out into the Bay away from its lands, and furthermore that SFO discourages the creation of any new waterfowl habitat near its runways. Therefore, as a practical matter, only Options 2 and 3 are available to the City, as we understand it. 47 Commented [CC27]: Is there a limit to this? How far down the side streets? Commented [CC28]: What does it mean by additional office space on ground floor of mixed developments on side streets? I don’t think you would want that along the whole side street. Are we talking about just the first block of the side streets? Commented [CC29]: CC-7.3 and 7.4 seem in conflict to me. Which is it – do we want two story or three story in the middle of Broadway? I opt for 3 story throughout. Why not? Otherwise, nothing will change. Bottom line, we need a decision on Height for Broadway. Commented [CC30]: Mention the EV charging stations on Broadway. Commented [CC31]: I would assume a parking study would be performed prior to that decision mentioned in this plan. Commented [CC32]: There needs to be mention of our goal to create a public square. Commented [CC33]: There should be mention of our desire to see a historically compatible and sensitive redevelopment of our Post Office, preferably with new retail and density in keeping with the Downtown Specific Plan. 51      Commented [CC34]: This is fine, but I think it might be worth saying that if modifications need to be made to the Downtown Specific Plan in order to maintain the health and sustainability of Auto Row, which is both a historic resource and a meaningful provider of sales tax revenue, then we should lean in if we can. Commented [CC35]: This sounds like we have made a decision to move City Hall. Maybe soften this language to say, “Explore options to renovate, rebuild or relocate City Hall to another location within Downtown… so that it remains convenient for residents, maintains open space, and considers housing options in future plans.” Commented [CC36]: Recommend deleting this goal, it is obsolete. It may or may not be a good idea and it may or may not get revisited, but it should not be called out as a goal in the GP. Commented [CC37]: How? Is this referring to Title 21 – Historic Resource Preservation in the Municipal Code? 53 Commented [CC38]: Add in something about using modern approaches for wayfinding, and matching parking demand to open sites. Commented [CC39]: Should we say something about “promotion and support?” Program and promote a variety of sponsored events in Downtown year-round that are supported both by the City and other agencies and the private sector. 57 Commented [CC40]: What would be the density of the Adeline drive empty lot that has been sitting empty for several years? 61      63 Commented [CC41]: With the increased density in the Rollins Road area and the switch of usage to housing, we may want to consider how we make that part of Rollins road a little more pedestrian friendly. Commented [CC42]: Where we have the live/ work area, we want to consider the amount of open space needed in order to develop neighborhoods. Commented [CC43]: This sentence is awkward and unclear. Are we trying to say the goal is to provide more workforce housing which will help address demand for a range of income levels? Commented [CC44]: This section is inadequate. We are creating a brand new neighborhood in Burlingame; the first time in over 50 years. We should be masterplanning. At a minimum, our GP should note our strong desire to make sure the resulting neighborhood, even if it takes 20 years to develop, has the same features as other Burlingame neighborhoods: safe, tree-lined streets; access to a public park; access to excellent schools. 65 Commented [CC45]: Why do we care if existing buildings get reused? They probably have asbestos and lead paint. Delete this. Commented [CC1]: Commented [CC2]: Commented [CC3]: Commented [CC4]:           Commented [CC1]: Commented [CC2]: Commented [CC3]: Commented [CC4]: Commented [CC5]:     Commented [CC1]: Commented [CC2]: Commented [CC3]: Commented [CC4]: Commented [CC5]: Commented [CC1]: Commented [CC2]: Commented [CC3]:   Commented [CC4]: Commented [CC5]: Commented [CC6]: Commented [CC7]: Commented [CC8]: Commented [CC9]: Commented [CC1]: Commented [CC2]: Commented [CC3]: Commented [CC4]: Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ACTION ITEM (Public Hearing): Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Interim Zoning Standards for the proposed North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) and Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone (RRMU). MEETING DATE: November 13, 2018 AGENDA ITEM NO: 8c BACKGROUND “Envision Burlingame” is the combined update of the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Draft General Plan was released in August 2017, and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in July 2018. The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft General Plan and EIR on October 22, 2018 and made provided recommendations to the City Council. The City Council reviewed the Draft General Plan and EIR on November 5, 2018 and is scheduled to initiate a public hearing for adoption on November 19, 2018. The next phase of work will be the Zoning Ordinance Update. Ultimately, the entire zoning code will be rewritten, and it is anticipated to take approximately one year. State Law requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with the respective general plan. Given the amount of time that will be required to prepare the complete Zoning Ordinance Update, staff has directed the consultant team to initially focus on interim regulations applicable to the most significant “change areas” identified in the Draft General Plan. These include:  North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone (North El Camino Real in proximity to Burlingame Plaza and the Millbrae Transit Center)  North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone (Live/Work Zone) The approach would allow interim zoning chapters to be adopted for these areas concurrently with the General Plan, so that consistent zoning would be in place for the areas with the most significant changes to land use and building form. State Law allows interim zoning to be extended for up to two years, wh ich can be effective when a general plan revision or major rezoning is underway in order to achieve general plan consistency. The interim zoning would provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance upon adoption of the General Plan, while providing time for the full Zoning Ordinance Update to be completed. New or updated specific plans for the respective areas could also be developed while the interim zoning is in place. The first draft of interim standards for these zones are included with this report. For each zone, the interim standards are accompanied by excerpts from the Draft General Plan for the respective zone. Planning Commission Subcommittee Review. A subcommittee of the Planning Commission consisting of Commissioners Kelly, Loftis, and Terrones has been formed to provide early review of and input into the Zoning Ordinance Update. The subcommittee has met twice to review drafts of the interim standards for the North Burlingame Mixed Use and North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zones, on October 1, 2018 and October 19, 2018 (meeting minutes attached). November 13, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8c Interim Zoning Standards – North Burlingame Mixed Use and Rollins Road Mixed Use Zones 2 Initially, the California Drive Mixed Use Zone was also included in this phase of work, and the subcommittee reviewed an initial draft chapter at its October 1st meeting. That chapter has subsequently been deferred to a later date to allow more focused review of the North Burlingame and North Rollins Road chapters. Review of the California Drive chapter will resume at a later date. DISCUSSION While the North Burlingame Mixed Use and North Rollins Road chapters have been developed to be adopted on an interim basis, much thought has been given to the approach and standards. This includes an innovative “tiered” approach to development, in which the highest residential densities and commercial floor areas would require provision of community benefits such as affordable housing, open space, and enhanced streetscapes. As currently drafted, affordable units would be a requirement to achieve the highest residential densities. The regulations also provide streetscape standards with sidewalk and street tree specifications that are aligned with the hierarchy of street types provided in the General Plan. To illustrate how the streetscape standards would work, included in the attachments is a resource file of pages excerpted from various referenced plans that provide some guidance on approaches to the design of front setbacks and street frontages:  Burlingame Streetscape Plan – page showing dimensions of various sidewalk “zones”  Better Streets Plan, San Francisco – pages showing various street frontage types  El Camino Real Precise Plan – pages illustrating range of sidewalk zones PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should review the draft interim zoning chapters, conduct a public hearing, and consider public input. At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission should take action on a recommendation to the City Council. Prepared by: Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director Exhibits:  Draft General Plan Excerpts: North Burlingame Mixed Use and Live/Work – Rollins Road Land Use Areas  Draft North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone Interim Standards – November 8, 2018  Draft North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone Interim Standards – November 8, 2018 November 13, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8c Interim Zoning Standards – North Burlingame Mixed Use and Rollins Road Mixed Use Zones 3  Zoning Ordinance Update Subcommittee Approved Meeting Minutes – October 1, 2018  Zoning Ordinance Update Subcommittee Draft Meeting Minutes – October 19, 2018  Pages from: - Burlingame Streetscape Plan - Better Streets Plan, San Francisco - El Camino Real Precise Plan  Proposed Resolutions  Notice of Public Hearing – Published November 1, 2018 I V . C O MMUNI T Y C H A R A C T E R CC-10 | CITY OF BURLINGAME North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) The North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) designation creates a high- intensity development node within walking distance of the Millbrae multimodal transit station. Permitted uses include retail, service commercial, dining establishments, offices, and high-density residential. Development may occur as mixed use projects or single-purpose buildings, provided the node, as a whole, includes a mix of uses. Housing development should provide housing options for all income levels. Development approaches must emphasize a pedestrian-friendly environment, with active ground-floor treatments and no parking levels that front directly on El Camino Real or Trousdale Drive. The design, scale, and massing of new buildings should be sensitive to adjacent lower-intensity residential neighborhoods. Development Standards Density: 20.1 – 120.0 units/acre Maximum Intensity: -Office: 2.0 FAR -Commercial: 1.0 FAR ENVISION BURLINGAME BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | CC-13 Live/Work (L/W) The Live/Work (L/W) designation applies to the northerly one-third of the Rollins Road corridor, located within easy walking distance of the Millbrae multimodal transit station, and is intended to promote a creative mix of medium-density residential buildings and workspaces. The City envisions creation of a complete new neighborhood, where residents and creative businesses have ready access to transit and commercial and open space amenities. Live/work spaces that combine residential units with commercial spaces, typically in which the resident uses the workspace for his or her own business, are envisioned as the primary residential type, but stand-alone, moderate-scale residential development may be permitted, provided the development includes or contributes to district- wide functional open space amenities. Long-established industrial buildings and uses may remain, provided any new use proposed in an existing industrial building is deemed compatible with live/work uses, as defined in the Zoning Code. In addition to light industrial and warehouse, commercial uses that serve the neighborhood, creative industry businesses, design businesses, indoor sports and recreation, and wholesale uses are allowed. Development Standards  Density: up to 70.0 units/acre  Maximum Intensity: 1.0 FAR E N V I S I O N B U R L I N G A M E BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | CC-59 North Burlingame Planning Context The North Burlingame area represents a primary gateway as motorists travel south on El Camino Real. At this gateway, El Camino Real is a wide boulevard, with frontage roads providing access to the suburban-scale and character Burlingame Plaza commercial center and office buildings between the boulevard and railroad tracks. Significantly, this north end of the City has easy pedestrian access to the Millbrae multimodal transit station. Properties in Burlingame could support much more intense development due to the proximity to the multimodal transit station and to respond to housing needs for more diverse housing types. And while El Camino Real is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), opportunities exist to make more efficient use of the street right-of-way. See Nor th Burl ing a me A rea C on text Di ag ram . North Burlingame Vision North Burlingame will be a distinct, defining area of Burlingame, with streetscape enhancements and new housing and complementary commercial uses at urban-level intensities. This transit-oriented development node will provide housing for all income levels, connect with surrounding commercial and institutional uses with improved pedestrian accommodations, and welcome visitors to Burlingame with distinguishing and historically sensitive gateway features. IV. COMMUNITY CHARACTER CC-60 | CITY OF BURLINGAME Goal CC-11: Establish a high-intensity mixed use development node at the north end of El Camino Real to take advantage of the proximity to the Millbrae multimodal transit station and SamTrans commuter routes. CC-11.1: Mix of Uses and Activities Promote a mix of residential and commercial uses, including a range of housing types and a mix of office, service, and retail uses that serve residents and complement the adjacent medical center. [DR] ENVISION BURLINGAME BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | CC-61 CC-11.2: Transit-Oriented Development Allow and encourage higher-density, transit-oriented development along El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive to provide housing, employment, and retail opportunities easily accessible from the Millbrae multimodal transit station and SamTrans commuter routes. [DR] CC-11.3 Housing Encourage and support the development of new housing in North Burlingame. Ensure that new residential development provides a range of housing types available to different income levels and meets or exceeds minimum requirements for affordable housing. [PA, DR] CC-11.4 Design Character Establish design and landscape standards and strategies to improve the streetscape, create a distinct development character, and create activity nodes while respecting the scale of nearby lower-density neighborhoods. Consider the following design strategies:  Require parking lots and structures to locate behind buildings and within the interior of a site.  Ensure pedestrian connections and access routes connect building entrances to adjacent sidewalks and transit stops.  Encourage pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and outdoor gathering spaces along ground-floor building frontages  Encourage buildings to step back from the street and step down to adjacent uses to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.  Ensure street setbacks offer ample space for substantial setbacks along El Camino Real. [DR] CC-11.5 Gateway Treatment Develop and implement a defining gateway treatment on El Camino Real at the entrances to Burlingame. Use monuments, landscaping, and other streetscape elements as part of the design treatment. (AC, MP] IV. COMMUNITY CHARACTER CC-62 | CITY OF BURLINGAME CC-11.6 Access Lanes Maintain and enhance frontage lanes along the east side of El Camino Real, with improvements such as wide sidewalks and generous landscaping to support pedestrian activity and serve as an amenity for adjacent buildings. [MP, DR] CC-11.7 Connectivity Ensure safe, comfortable crosswalks and intersections to support pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops and across El Camino Real. [AC, SO] CC-11.8 Access to Burlingame Businesses Encourage residents and employees in the North Burlingame to shop, dine, and visit businesses along Broadway and in Downtown Burlingame. [PA, PI] Rollins Road Planning Context The Rollins Road industrial corridor is a major employment base in Burlingame. Dating to the middle of the last century, the area largely has supported light manufacturing businesses, warehousing, auto repairs shops, and wholesale sales activities. In the early 2000s, new uses setting up business in the district included commercial recreation businesses such as tennis clubs and indoor soccer. Given the presence of the Millbrae multimodal transit station less than one-half mile from the north end of Rollins Road, the district presents opportunities for further evolution and particularly, to support housing development. However, with the diminishing availability of well-situated industrial properties in the Bay Area, balancing the need to preserve industrial land and businesses with the ability to accommodate emerging and desirable new uses will be a key challenge. ENVISION BURLINGAME BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | CC-63 Rollins Road itself is a wide, four-lane thoroughfare with parking on both sides. Service and delivery trucks utilize the parking (and sometimes traffic) lanes during certain hours, and traffic on the street is relatively light. The corridor is not pedestrian friendly, as sidewalks are relatively narrow, buildings are set far back, and few pedestrian crossings are provided, but it functions well for the long-established industrial and commercial purposes. See Rollins Area Context Diagram. Rollins Road Vision IV. COMMUNITY CHARACTER CC-64 | CITY OF BURLINGAME Rollins Road will primarily be an industrial district, particularly along the southern portion of the street within the Innovation/Industrial district. Traditional light industrial uses and auto service businesses will continue to represent key land uses since these provide vital services and jobs within the community, but allowing a cluster of creative and design industry activities to flourish will create synergies and a regional destination for wholesalers and consumers. The northern portion of the corridor, within easy walking distance to the Millbrae multimodal transit station, presents an opportunity for establishment of a new neighborhood of medium-density creative live/work units and support uses. The City envisions creation of a complete new neighborhood, where residents and creative businesses have ready access to transit, supportive commercial businesses, and public and private open space amenities. Such housing will provide workforce housing, thus meeting the needs of all income levels in Burlingame. Streetscape improvements within the new neighborhood will emphasize a pedestrian focus, while still accommodating industrial- related traffic through to Millbrae Avenue. Goal CC-12: Recreate Rollins Road as two distinct but complementary districts, with the southern two-thirds of the corridor supporting industrial and creative business enterprises and the northerly one-third of the corridor reimagined as a live/work residential neighborhood that connects to the Millbrae multimodal transit station. CC-12.1: Industrial Base Continue to support and accommodate the industrial and commercial uses throughout the Innovation/Industrial and Live/Work districts. [DR] ENVISION BURLINGAME BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | CC-65 CC-12.2: Creative Commercial and Industrial Uses Support emerging businesses by establishing flexible zoning regulations that allow creative art and design-oriented and green-tech commercial and industrial uses. [DR] CC-12.3: Live/Work District Establish a creative Live/Work district at the north end of the Rollins Road corridor within approximately one-half mile of the Millbrae multimodal transit station; accommodate medium-density residential uses either as stand-alone development or as integrated live/work environments. [DR] CC-12.4: Alternative Transportation Require new residential development in the Live/Work district to support alternative modes of transportation, including high-quality bicycle facilities and public transit incentives. Establish reduced parking requirements for residential buildings in this area, and study options for protected bike lanes along Rollins Road and improved connections from the Millbrae multimodal transit station. [MP, SR, DR] CC-12.5: Reuse of Existing Buildings Promote reuse of the existing building stock for creative commercial and industrial uses—and where feasible and desired, as residential and live/work places. Require aesthetic and façade improvements as part of redevelopment projects and property improvements. [DR] CC-12.6: Views from Highway 101 Require development along the Highway 101 frontage to include attractive design elements, landscaping, and signage that create a positive aesthetic condition, as viewed from the highway corridor. [MP, DR] IV. COMMUNITY CHARACTER CC-66 | CITY OF BURLINGAME CC-12.7: Design Aesthetic Establish an eclectic but cohesive design aesthetic for the Live/Work district, and require new development to utilize contemporary architectural treatments and materials that are compatible with the industrial nature of the area. Ground-floor workspaces should use transparent materials to activate sidewalks and support work functions. [DR] CC-12.8: Open Space Develop a vibrant public realm with attractive public spaces along the Rollins Road corridor by requiring new development to include publicly accessible plazas and pocket parks in appropriate locations. [DR, PA] CC-12.9: Streetscape Enhancements Promote a pedestrian-friendly environment, particularly in the Live/Work district. Require new development to create active street frontages, with workspaces or commercial uses on the ground floor, attractive landscaping and street trees, and other streetscape enhancements as appropriate. [DR, PA] CC-12.10: Pedestrian Connectivity Study opportunities for signalized pedestrian crossings along Rollins Road, and identify pedestrian connectivity improvements between the Live/Work district and the Millbrae Multimodal BART station. [SR, AC] 1 Chapter 25.39 North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone – Interim Standards November 8, 2018 25.39.010 Purpose and Applicability The purpose of the North Rollins Road Mixed-Use Zone (RRMU) is to implement the General Plan Live/Work land use designation by creating and sustaining a new neighborhood of creative live/work units and developments, small-scale support commercial businesses, and other employment uses within easy walking distance to the Millbrae multimodal transit station. Long- established industrial uses are permitted to remain as conforming uses, provided they comply with all applicable standards and operational conditions. 25.39.020 Land Use Regulations A. Table 25.39-1 identifies the land use regulations for the RRMU zone. Any use not listed below shall be prohibited, unless the Director finds that the proposed uses is similar in characteristics to allowed uses. B. Stand-alone commercial, industrial, and residential developments are permitted. TABLE 25.39-1: RRMU LAND USE REGULATIONS P Permitted CUP Conditional Use Permit MCUP Minor Conditional Use Permit A Accessory Use -- Not Permitted Land Use Permit Requirement Specific Use Regulations COMMERCIAL - RETAIL Eating and Drinking Establishments  Bars, Taverns  Night Club  Restaurant – Sit Down  Restaurant – Quick Serve  Restaurant – Take-out  Restaurant – Drive-through A -- P P P -- 1. Bars and taverns only as accessory to a permitted restaurant. 2. Any restaurant or other eating and drinking establishment that includes the sale of alcohol shall require a CUP. 3. Any individual restaurant shall be limited to a maximum size of 8,000 sf. 2 TABLE 25.39-1: RRMU LAND USE REGULATIONS P Permitted CUP Conditional Use Permit MCUP Minor Conditional Use Permit A Accessory Use -- Not Permitted Land Use Permit Requirement Specific Use Regulations Food and Beverage Sales  General Market  Convenience Store  Liquor Store P MCUP -- Any food or beverage sales establishment that includes the sale of alcohol shall require a CUP. Nurseries and Garden Centers -- Retail Sales  General  Large Format  Restricted P -- CUP No outdoor storage or sales permitted in conjunction with any permitted use, except for permitted temporary sales. Vehicle Fuel Sales and Accessory Service CUP Vehicle Sales and Rentals  Auto and Light Truck – New  Auto and Light Truck – Used  Heavy Equipment Rental and Sales CUP A -- Used vehicle sales only as accessory use in business selling new vehicles. COMMERCIAL – SERVICES AND RECREATION Adult Entertainment Businesses -- Animal Care Services  Boarding/Kennels  Grooming  Veterinarian – Large Animal  Veterinarian – Small Animal -- P -- MCUP Grooming - No overnight animal stays permitted. Banks and Financial Institutions P Check Cashing and Pay Day Loan Establishments -- Commercial Recreation CUP Day Care Centers CUP Food Preparation (catering) MCUP Funeral Services and Cemeteries -- Office – Medical or Dental P Office – Professional P Personal Services – General P Personal Services - Restricted CUP Studios – Dance, Martial Arts, and the Like MCUP 3 TABLE 25.39-1: RRMU LAND USE REGULATIONS P Permitted CUP Conditional Use Permit MCUP Minor Conditional Use Permit A Accessory Use -- Not Permitted Land Use Permit Requirement Specific Use Regulations Theaters  Live  Movie or similar -- -- Vehicle Service, Repairs, and Rentals  Car Wash  Major Repair/Body Work  Minor Repair/Body Work  Rental Facilities -- -- -- -- EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Schools K-12 – Private CUP Post-secondary Educational Facilities - Private CUP Trade Schools -- INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, WAREHOUSING, AND WHOLESALING USES Food Processing and Production CUP Laboratories/Research and Development P Light Industrial MCUP Personal Storage CUP Warehousing/Logistics CUP Wholesaling A Accessory to a permitted industrial or live/work use. LODGING Bed and Breakfast MCUP Emergency Shelters P Limited in size to 24 beds. See also Section 25.44.045 (Additional Uses for Properties in the Northern Rollins Road Area). Hostels CUP Hotels and Motels CUP Limited in size to 40 rooms. Short-term Rentals -- PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC USES Community Open Space P Design Review required Hospitals -- Medical Clinics CUP No 24-hour clinics. 4 TABLE 25.39-1: RRMU LAND USE REGULATIONS P Permitted CUP Conditional Use Permit MCUP Minor Conditional Use Permit A Accessory Use -- Not Permitted Land Use Permit Requirement Specific Use Regulations Public Assembly Facilities CUP Public Parks P Places of Religious Assembly CUP RESIDENTIAL USES Live/Work P See Section 25.39.030.B.1. Multi-Family Residential P Residential Care Facilities – 7 or more residents -- Supportive and Transitional Housing P MIXED USES Mixed Use Developments P With individual specific uses subject to land use regulatory requirements set forth in this Table 25.39-1. TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, AND UTILITIES Air courier, delivery, or other transshipment services -- Parking facilities, including parking garages A Transit Facilities -- Utilities MCUP Vehicle Storage -- Wireless Telecommunication Facilities MCUP SPECIFIC AND TEMPORARY USES Outdoor Temporary and Seasonal Sales A Temporary Uses TUP Outdoor Dining A C. Maximum Retail Sales Building Size. No retail sales establishment shall exceed 15,000 square feet of gross floor area. An applicant may request a retail sales building larger than 15,000 square feet, but in no case larger than 30,000 square feet, through the Conditional Use Permit process. D. Stand-alone Residential, Commercial, and Light Industrial Uses. Stand-alone commercial, residential, and light industrial developments are permitted. E. Limitations on Use. The following uses and activities shall be prohibited: 5 1. New manufacturing and industrial uses except those specifically allowed in Table 25.39 - 1, except nonconforming uses as allowed in subsection 25.39.020.F. 2. Major vehicle/equipment repair (e.g., body or mechanical work, including boats and recreational vehicles, vehicle detailing and painting, upholstery, or any similar use). 3. In any residential or live/work unit, storage of flammable liquids or hazardous materials beyond that normally associated with a residential use. 4. Any other activity or use, as determined by the Community Development Director, to be incompatible with residential activities and/or to have the possibility of affecting the health or safety of residents due to the potential for the use to create dus t, glare, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, or would be hazardous because of materials, processes, products, or wastes. F. Nonconforming Industrial Uses. 1. General. The purpose of this subsection is to recognize and allow for the continued use of industrial activities that become nonconforming with the adoption of this Chapter. Except as provided in this subsection, the nonconforming use regulations set forth in Chapter 25.50 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) shall apply. 2. Discontinuance of nonconforming uses. If a nonconforming use of a lot, building, or structure is discontinued for a continuous period exceeding three years, the right to continue the nonconforming use shall expire. 3. Allowed expansion of nonconforming industrial uses. Expansion of a legally established nonconforming industrial use is permitted on the same site with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Change from a nonconforming industrial use to another nonconforming industrial use. The Community Development Director may authorize a change from a legally established nonconforming industrial use to another nonconforming industrial use upon making the finding that the new use is similar in character to the existing nonconforming use and does not have the potential to result in adverse impacts on surrounding uses . 6 25.39.030 Development Standards A. Development Standards Generally; Calculation of FAR and Density. 1. Development projects shall comply with the development standards set forth in Table 25.39-2 (RRMU Development Standards). The floor area ratio (FAR) standards shall apply to the non-residential component on a development on a site; the density standards shall apply to any residential component. The non-residential (FAR) and residential (density) components may be additive. 2. A developer may elect to develop consistent with either Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 development standards for live/work and any other non-industrial or non-institutional development. Projects using Tiers 2 or 3 standards shall provide community benefits pursuant to subparagraph 25.39.030.C, below. TABLE 25.39-2 RRMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Live/Work, Residential, Mixed Use and Commercial Development Industrial and Institutional Development Additional Regulations Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) a. Density – Maximum (applies to residential component) 30 du/ac 50 du/ac 70 du/ac N/A Tiers 2 and 3 must provide community benefits per subparagraph B below. b. Floor Area Ratio – Maximum (applies to non- residential component) 1 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.02 Tiers 2 and 3 must provide community benefits per subparagraph B below. c. Height (Unless otherwise controlled by maximum heights established by the Federal Aviation Administration for parcels 3 stories/40 ft. maximum 5 stories/55 ft. maximum 7 stories/80 ft. maximum 50 ft. Tiers 2 and 3 must provide community benefits per subparagraph B below. 7 TABLE 25.39-2 RRMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Live/Work, Residential, Mixed Use and Commercial Development Industrial and Institutional Development Additional Regulations Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) affected by airport safety zones) d. Setbacks  Front: Mixed- Use Arterial (Rollins Road) 0 - 15 ft. 0 - 15 ft. 0 – 15 ft. 20 ft. Subject to streetscape frontage standards in Table 25.39-3  Front: All other streets 12 ft. from edge of curb 12 ft. from edge of curb 15 ft. from edge of curb 15 ft. from edge of curb Subject to streetscape frontage standards in Table 25.39-3  Side – Interior 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 0 ft. adjacent to industrial use/20 ft. adjacent to all other uses Setbacks for industrial uses apply only to new construction; established industrial uses shall be considered conforming with regard to required setbacks.  Side – Street 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Subject to streetscape frontage standards in Table 25.39-3  Rear 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 0 ft. adjacent to industrial use/20 ft. adjacent to all other uses Setbacks for industrial uses apply only to new construction; established industrial uses shall be 8 TABLE 25.39-2 RRMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Live/Work, Residential, Mixed Use and Commercial Development Industrial and Institutional Development Additional Regulations Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) considered conforming with regard to required setbacks.  Alley 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft. If alley is used for direct access to a garage, setback shall be 20 ft. to allow vehicle access. e. Edge condition between industrial and residential use See Section 25.39.030.B.4. f. Lot Dimensions – Minimum  Size  Mixed use development : 10,000 sf  Residential subdivision: 3,500 sf  Mixed use developmen t: 10,000 sf  Residential subdivision: 3,500 sf  Mixed use developme nt: 10,000 sf  Residential subdivision : 3,500 sf 10,000 sf  Width at street frontage  Mixed use development : 100 ft.  Residential subdivision: 40 ft.  Mixed use developmen t: 100 ft.  Residential subdivision: 40 ft.  Mixed use developme nt: 100 ft.  Residential subdivision : 40 ft. 50 ft. g. Lot Coverage – Maximum2 60% 60% 60% 70% h. Open Space for residential units per unit – Minimum  Live/work units: 100 sf  Multifamily housing or mixed use: 125 sf  Open space may be either  Live/work units: 100 sf  Multifamily housing or mixed use: 125 sf  Open space may be  Live/work units: 100 sf  Multifamily housing or mixed use: 125 sf N/A Minimum dimensions of open space:  Private: 5 ft. deep, 8 ft. wide 9 TABLE 25.39-2 RRMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Live/Work, Residential, Mixed Use and Commercial Development Industrial and Institutional Development Additional Regulations Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) private, common, or include both either private, common, or include both  Open space may be either private, common, or include both  Common: 15 ft. in any direction Any required pedestrian plaza/public space, as set forth in subsection B.3, below, may count toward up to 50% of the common open space. i. Percent landscape coverage - Minimum 15% 20% 20% 15% Notes: 1 Above-ground parking structures shall be exempt from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations. 2 FAR of Industrial, Manufacturing, Processing, Warehousing, and Wholesale uses may be increased to 1.5 with a Conditional Use Permit. 3 Lot coverage may be increased if additional useable common open space equivalent to the additional lot coverage (in square feet) is provided on a podium-level landscaped courtyard or plaza. B. Additional Regulations. 1. Live/Work Standards. a. Purpose and Applicability. The provisions in this section shall apply to live/work units. b. Intent. The development standards of this section are intended to facilitate the creation of new, adaptable live/work units in a manner that preserves the surrounding industrial and artistic character, supports enhanced street level activity, maintains a consistent urban streetwall, and orients buildings and pedestrians toward public streets. Live/work Units are intended to be designed with adequate workspace, higher 10 ceilings, larger doors, sufficient natural light, open floor plans, and equipped with non- residential finishes and features that support arts and production activities. c. Density/Floor Area Allocation. Live/work units consistent with the provisions of this section may be apportioned from either the Residential (as specified by Density standards in Table 25.39-2) and/or Nonresidential (as specified by Floor Area Ratio/FAR standards in Table 25.39-2) allocations for a property. d. Limitations on Use. The nonresidential component of a live/work unit shall be limited in use to those uses set forth in Table 25.39-1 (RRMU Land Use Regulations). Nonresidential/work is not required; however, each unit shall be designed to be adaptable and facilitate work activities per the provisions in this section. e. Floor Area Requirement. A live/work unit shall have a minimum floor area of at least 750 square feet. At least 150 square feet of a live/work unit shall be designated as suitable for workspace, and measure not less than 15 feet in at least one dimension and no less than 10 feet in any dimension. The area suitable for workspace for each unit shall be clearly demarcated on approved building plan s. f. Separation of and Access to Individual Units. Access to each individual live/work unit shall be provided from shop fronts, directly from the sidewalk parallel to the primary or secondary street, or from common access areas, corridors, or halls. The access to each unit shall be clearly separate from other live/work units or other uses within the building. g. Location of Living Space – Ground Floor Units. Ground floor live/work units shall designate the front 20 feet of the unit as area suitable for work space, in order to maintain activity and commercial access along the frontage. Dedicated living space may be located be in the rear portion of the ground level, provided the front 20 feet of the unit is designated as suitable for work. h. Ceiling Height. Ground floor live/work units shall have floor to ceiling height of 15 feet or greater, measured from top of floor to bottom of ceiling. Upper floor live/work units shall have floor to ceiling height of 10 feet or greater. A mezzanine space shall not be included in the calculation of minimum height for any floor or level. i. Integration of Living and Working Space. Areas within a live/work unit that are designated as living space shall be an integral part of the live/work unit and not separated (or occupied and/or rented separately) from the area designated for workspace. j. Client and Customer Visits. Client and customer visits to live/work units are permitted. 11 2. Pedestrian Plaza/Public Space. Where total lot area or development site equals 50,000 square feet or greater, a pedestrian plaza or other public open space/gathering space shall be provided that meets the following design criteria: a. Is a minimum of 1,500 square feet in size; b. Has a minimum dimension at least 30 feet on any side; c. Is at least 50 percent open to the sky; d. Is located at ground level with direct pedestrian and ADA access to the adjacent public street; e. Is unenclosed by any wall, fence, gate, or other obstruction across the subject property; f. Is open to the public, without charge, each day of the year, except for temporary closures for necessary maintenance or public safety; and g. Includes at least one gathering space with a fountain or other focal element. 3. Mid-Block Plazas and Paseos. Where blocks (measured from curb face to curb face) are longer than 400 feet, and where a development has more than 300 feet of frontage, at least one plaza, pedestrian pathway or paseo shall be provided perpendicular to the block face. All such plazas shall meet the design criteria outlined in 25.39.030.B.2. All such paseos shall meet the following design criteria: a. Be open to the public and remain so during daylight hours; b. Be at least 15’ wide, and 15’ deep if a plaza; c. Have a clear line of sight to the back of the paseo, gathering place, or focal element; and d. Be at least 50% open to the sky or covered with a transparent material. 4. Industrial/Residential Interface. Any live/work unit or other residential unit on a site abutting an industrial use on an adjoining site shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the lot line shared by the property with the industrial use. A minimum six -foot- high masonry wall or other buffering feature suitable to the review authority sha ll be provided along the shared property line. 5. Residential Notice. Residents of new live/work, mixed-use, and stand-alone residential development projects, whether owners or tenants, shall be notified in writing before taking up residence that they will be living in an urban-type environment, that the noise levels may be higher than in a strictly residential area , and that there may be odors associated with commercial and industrial uses. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions of any development with a residential use shall require that prospective residents acknowledge the receipt of the written noise notification. Such written noise notification shall be provided in residential leases. Signatures shall confirm receipt and understanding of this information. 12 C. Community Benefit Bonuses – Tiers for Increased FAR, Density, and Height. 1. Purpose and Applicability. To provide an incentive for development, and in partnership with the City to provide community benefits that would not otherwise be created, the Planning Commission may grant increased FAR, density, and/or height in return for provision of specific community benefits, as listed below or subsequently identified by the City Council, if doing so is in the City’s interest and will help implement the General Plan and further, if these benefits cannot be realized without granting increased FAR, height, and/or density. A variety of objectives are listed to ensure that proposed project features are appropriate for the site and surroundings, and to allow for a wide range of possible project types. 2. Tier 2 – Number of Community Benefits. The Planning Commission may approve Tier 2 projects if it determines that the project includes at least two community benefits from subsection 3 of this Section (Community Benefits Objectives). At least one affordable and workforce housing objective from 4.a shall be chosen. 3. Tier 3 – Number of Community Benefits. The Planning Commission may approve Tier 3 projects if it determines that the project includes at least three community benefits from subsection 3 of this Section (Community Benefits Objectives). At least one affordable and workforce housing objective from 4.a shall be chosen. 4. Community Benefit Objectives. a. Affordable and Workforce Housing. i. The project provides affordable housing at the rate of five percent for low-income households, or 10 percent for moderate-income households, as a percentage of the total number of housing units built (no in-lieu fee option). ii. The project qualifies for, and utilizes, a density bonus in compliance with the City’s affordable housing incentives (Chapter 25.63). b. Pedestrian Amenities. The project includes major pedestrian connections in excess of minimum paseo requirements. c. Public Plazas Beyond Minimum. Public plazas or other publicly accessible open spaces at least 50 percent larger than the minimum required. Where provided, such public plazas and open spaces shall be subject to the following: i. The public plaza shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the developer or property manager in accordance with an approved maintenance plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director; 13 ii. Each part of the public plaza shall be accessible from other parts of the open space without leaving the open space area; iii. The public plaza shall be on the ground level and directly accessible from the sidewalk, and be accessible to persons with disabilities; iv. The public plaza shall be open to the public, without charge, each day of the year, except for temporary closures for necessary maintenance or public safety; and v. At a minimum, the following elements shall be included: trees and landscaping, seating, bicycle racks, trash and recycling receptacles, and signage that include hours of operation. d. Off-Site Streetscape Improvements. Does not include improvements along the frontage of a development site that would normally be required. Examples include: i. Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle-oriented streetscapes; ii. Protected bicycle lanes and pedestrian pathways, improved bicycle and pedestrian crossings/signals, bicycle racks/shelters; iii. New pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit facilities, neighborhoods, trails, commercial areas, etc.; iv. Removal of existing pedestrian and bicycle barriers (e.g. dead-ends and cul-de- sacs); v. Upgrading traffic signals to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety e. Cultural Arts Space. Includes space for visual arts, performing arts, artist housing, and other activities that support arts and culture. f. Pedestrian and Similar Paths and Connections between Adjacent Properties. To effectuate the goal of creating walkable and bikeable environments, improved pedestrian ways and other paths open to the public that accommodate easy movement across and between properties under separate ownership. g. Historic Preservation (Off-Site). Where there are no historic resources on the project site, the project provides for the permanent preservation of a building off site that is listed in the City’s inventory of historical resources through the recordation of a historic preservation agreement. h. Mode Split. The project provides for a permanent mobility mode shift towards alternative transportation of up to 25 percent for building occupants through a Transportation Demand Management Program. Prior to the issuance of building 14 permits, a covenant agreement shall be recorded that discloses the required Transportation Demand Management provisions. This agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property of any ongoing programmatic requirements. i. Zero Net Energy. The project provides 100 percent of total building energy load measured as kilowatt per square foot through solar panels, wind turbines, or other renewable sources. j. Publicly Accessible Park Space. Contribution towards the provision of public parks in the North Rollins Road area. Contribution can be in the form of dedication of land, provisions of improvements, or payment of fee in excess of that normally required for parks. k. Public Parking Facilities. The project provides publicly accessible parking to serve area-wide parking needs. To qualify, the parking spaces should be permanently available for public use and subject to easements or restrictions acceptable to the City. l. Flexible (Miscellaneous) Benefit. The applicant agrees to provide a currently undefined community benefit approved by the City Council that is significant and substantially beyond normal requirements. Examples are inclusion of a child care center or community event space in a new development project , off-site utility infrastructure improvements above and beyond those required to serve the development, additional funding for City programs such as contribution to a local façade improvement program, or subsidy for existing commercial tenants or other local small businesses. 25.39.040 Design Standards and Objective Design Criteria. A. Design Standards. All new development shall be designed to achieve the following objectives: 1. The overall design intent of the RRMU zone is to provide for an eclectic mix of residential, live/work, commercial, and light industrial development that has an industrial and contemporary look in terms of materials used, architectural styles, and building forms. 2. Site and building design shall provide for internal compatibility among the different uses in terms of noise, hours of operation, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, access, use of open space, and similar operating characteristics. 3. Potential noise, odors, glare, pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant impacts on residents shall be minimized to allow a compatible mix of residential and nonresidential uses on the same site. 15 4. The design of any live/work or mixed-use project shall take into consideration potential impacts on adjacent properties and shall include specific design features to minimize potential impacts. 5. The design of the mixed-use project shall ensure that the residential units are of a residential character and that privacy between residential units and between other uses on the site is maximized. 6. The design of the structures and site planning shall encourage integration of the street pedestrian environment with the nonresidential uses through the use of plazas, courtyards, walkways, and street furniture. 7. Site planning and building design shall be compatible with and enhance the adjacent and surrounding built environment in terms of scale, building design, color, exterior materials, roof styles, lighting, landscaping, and signage. B. Building Orientation, Entrances, and Articulation. 1. Building Design. Recognizing the varied commercial and industrial character of the area, new development and redevelopment projects should be encouraged to feature a blend of both commercial and residential design features, including modern, industrial type building design. 2. Orientation. The main building of a development shall be oriented to face a public street. Building frontages shall be generally parallel to streets. For all residential, retail, and office uses, at least one primary entrance to a ground-floor use shall face the adjacent street right-of-way. Ground-related entrances include entrances to ground-floor uses. 3. Ground Floor Transparency. At least 45 percent of the exterior walls on the ground floor facing the street shall include windows, doors, or other openings. 4. Nonresidential Entrances. Entries shall be clearly defined features of front façades and of a scale that is in proportion to the size of the building and number of units being accessed. Larger buildings shall have a more prominent building entrance while maintaining a pedestrian scale. 5. Transitional Space at Residential Entries. New residential buildings shall provide transitional spaces in the form of stoops, overhangs, and porches between public areas fronting the primary street and entrances. This type of element or equivalent shall be required for each unit or group of units, but no less than one of this type of element shall be provided. 6. Building Articulation. Except for buildings housing industrial uses, no street frontage wall may run in a continuous plane for more than 25 feet without an opening (door or window) 16 or offsets, or as approved by the review authority if the project is constrained by unusual parcel size, shape, use, or other features that the responsible review authority accepts as rendering this requirement infeasible. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces. Offsets shall vary in depth and/or direction of at least 18 inches, or a repeated pattern of offsets, recesses, or projections of similar depth. 7. Structured Parking. Structured parking facing public streets should be fronted or wrapped with actively occupied spaces such as storefronts, live/work units, residential community amenities, and lobbies. Access to parking shall be designed so that it is not prominent and ties into the adjacent architectural style. C. Site Layout 1. Streetscape. Street frontages shall meet the standards set forth in Table 25.39-3 (RRMU Street Frontage Standards). TABLE 25.39-3: RRMU STREET FRONTAGE STANDARDS Street Type Frontage – Measured from Back of Curb to Building Face Mixed-Use Arterial (Rollins Road) Building Frontage Setback 15 ft. minimum Walk Zone (Public) 10 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 5 ft. minimum Tree Wells 5 ft. by 5 ft. minimum Mixed-Use Collector (Adrian Road) Building Frontage Setback 12 feet Walk Zone (Public) 6 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 5 ft. minimum Tree Wells 5 ft. by 5 ft. min Mixed-Use Access (Adrian Court, Broderick Road, Guittard Road, Ingold Road) Building Frontage Setback 10 feet Walk Zone (Public) 6 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 4 ft. minimum Tree Wells 4 ft. by 4 ft. minimum Build-To Lines At least sixty (60) percent of the structure shall be located at the Building Frontage Setback. Exceptions Exceptions to Building Frontage Standards may be granted to accommodate conflicts with recorded easements, rights-of-ways, etc. 2. Pedestrian Access. On-site pedestrian circulation and access shall be provided per the following standards: a. Internal Connections. A system of pedestrian walkways shall connect all buildings on a site to each other, to on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, and to any on- site open space areas or pedestrian amenities. 17 b. To Circulation Network. Regular and convenient connections between on-site walkways and the public sidewalk and other existing or planned pedestrian routes, such as safe routes to school, shall be provided. An on-site walkway shall connect the primary building entry or entries to a public sidewalk on each street frontage. c. To Adjacent Areas. Direct and convenient access shall be provided among adjoining residential and commercial areas and along creeks to the maximum extent feasible while still providing for safety and security. Public access easements minimum 10 feet in width shall be provided to allow for future connections. d. To Transit. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from adjacent transit stops to building entrances. 3. Location of Parking. Any surface parking facilities shall be located to the side or rear of any proposed project. No more than 33 percent of the site area at the ground level may be used for surface parking facilities. 4. Service and Delivery Areas. Unenclosed service and loading areas shall be screened from residential areas and integrated with the design of the building. Special attention shall be given when designing loading facilities in a location that is proximate to residential uses. Techniques such as block walls, enhanced setbacks, or enclosed loading shall be used to minimize adverse impacts to residents. 25.39.050 Parking A. Off-Street Vehicle Parking. Parking shall be provided as set forth in Chapter 25.70 (Off-Street Parking), with the following exceptions for live/work units, stand-alone residential development, and the residential component of a mixed-use development: TABLE 25.39-4: RRMU OFF-STREET VEHICLE PARKING Number of Bedrooms in a Unit Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required 0 (Studio or Loft) 1 space/unit 1 1 space/unit 2 1.5 spaces/unit for multifamily housing; 2 spaces/unit for live/work 3 or more 2 spaces/unit Guest parking None required B. Vehicle Parking Stall Dimensions. All parking stalls may be provided in a single dimension, eight and one-half feet in width by 17 feet in length, except for required accessible parking spaces which shall meet the dimensions required in the California Building Code in ef fect at the time a project is submitted for City review. No compact parking stalls shall be allowed if only a single dimension stall is used. 18 C. Aisle Dimensions. All aisles within a parking area shall be as follows: TABLE 25.39-5: RRMU PARKING AISLE DIMENSIONS Parking Space Angle Required Backup Aisle 90 degree 24 feet 60 degree 18 feet 30 degree 13 feet D. Stacked/Mechanical Parking. Parking utilizing stackers or mechanical systems may be approved with a Conditional Use Permit. E. Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided as follows: TABLE 25.39-6: RRMU BICYCLE PARKING Class Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required Class I – Resident bicycles 0.5 spaces/unit Class II – Guest bicycles 0.05 spaces/unit F. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stalls. 5 percent of all spaces shall be prepared for EV charging equipment. G. Parking Reductions for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Projects utilizing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan per Section 25.39.030.C.4.f. shall be allowed up to 10 percent reduction in required off -street vehicle parking (not including bicycle parking and EV stalls) provided the project provides for a permanent mobility mode shift towards alternative transportation of 25 percent or greater for building occupants through the TDM program. 25.17.060 Review Procedures A. Design Review Required. Design review is required pursuant to Chapter 25.57 (Design Review). B. Planning Commission Approval of Community Benefits Bonuses. The Planning Commission shall be the final review authority for an application for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects. 1 Chapter 25.40 North Burlingame Mixed-Use Zone – Interim Standards November 8, 2018 25.40.010 Purpose and Applicability The purpose of the North Burlingame Mixed-Use (NBMU) zone is to implement the General Plan North Burlingame Mixed Use designation by providing a distinct, defining area at the City’s north gateway on El Camino Real, with housing and complementary commercial and office uses at urban-level intensities, and that takes advantage of the adjacent multimodal transit center. This transit-oriented development district accommodates housing at progressively higher densities based on the level of community benefits provided , with the goal of ensuring that new development adds value for all in the City. 25.40.020 Land Use Regulations A. Table 25.40-1 identifies the land use regulations for the NBMU zone. Any use not listed below shall be prohibited, unless the Director finds that the proposed uses is similar in characteristics to allowed uses. B. Stand-alone commercial and residential developments are permitted. TABLE 25.40-1: NBMU LAND USE REGULATIONS P Permitted CUP Conditional Use Permit MCUP Minor Conditional Use Permit A Accessory Use -- Not Permitted Land Use Permit Requirement Specific Use Regulations COMMERCIAL - RETAIL Eating and Drinking Establishments  Bars, Taverns  Night Club  Restaurant – Sit Down  Restaurant – Quick Serve  Restaurant – Take-out  Restaurant – Drive-through CUP CUP P P P -- Any restaurant or other eating and drinking establishment that includes the sale of alcohol shall require a CUP. Food and Beverage Sales  General Market  Convenience Store  Liquor Store P CUP CUP Any food or beverage sales establishment that includes the sale of alcohol shall require a CUP. 2 TABLE 25.40-1: NBMU LAND USE REGULATIONS P Permitted CUP Conditional Use Permit MCUP Minor Conditional Use Permit A Accessory Use -- Not Permitted Land Use Permit Requirement Specific Use Regulations Nurseries and Garden Centers -- Retail Sales  General  Large Format  Restricted P -- CUP Vehicle Fuel Sales and Service CUP Vehicle Sales and Rentals  Auto and Light Truck – New  Auto and Light Truck – Used  Heavy Equipment Rental and Sales CUP A -- Used vehicle sales only as accessory use in business selling new vehicles. COMMERCIAL – SERVICES AND RECREATION Adult Entertainment Businesses -- Animal Care Services  Boarding/Kennels  Grooming  Veterinarian – Large Animal  Veterinarian – Small Animal -- P -- -- Grooming - No overnight animal stays permitted. Banks and Financial Institutions P Check Cashing and Pay Day Loan Establishments -- Commercial Recreation CUP Day Care Centers CUP Food Preparation (catering) CUP Funeral Services and Cemeteries -- Office – Medical or Dental P Office – Professional P Personal Services – General P Personal Services - Restricted CUP Research and Development P Studios – Dance, Martial Arts, and the Like MCUP Theaters  Live  Movie or similar CUP CUP 3 TABLE 25.40-1: NBMU LAND USE REGULATIONS P Permitted CUP Conditional Use Permit MCUP Minor Conditional Use Permit A Accessory Use -- Not Permitted Land Use Permit Requirement Specific Use Regulations Vehicle Service, Repairs, and Rentals  Car Wash  Major Repair/Body Work  Minor Repair/Body Work  Rental Facilities -- -- -- A EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Schools K-12 – Private CUP Trade Schools -- LODGING Bed and Breakfast CUP Emergency Shelters -- Hostels -- Hotels and Motels CUP Short-term Rentals -- PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC USES Community Open Space P Design Review required Hospitals and Clinics CUP Pubic Assembly Facilities -- Public Parks P Places of Religious Assembly -- RESIDENTIAL USES Multi-Family Residential P Subject to Design Review Residential Care Facilities – 7 or more residents CUP Supportive and Transitional Housing P MIXED USES Mixed Use Developments P With individual specific uses subject to land use regulatory requirements set forth in this table. TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, AND UTILITIES Parking facilities, including parking garages A See limitations on street frontage Transit Facilities CUP Utilities MCUP Wireless Telecommunication Facilities MCUP 4 TABLE 25.40-1: NBMU LAND USE REGULATIONS P Permitted CUP Conditional Use Permit MCUP Minor Conditional Use Permit A Accessory Use -- Not Permitted Land Use Permit Requirement Specific Use Regulations SPECIFIC AND TEMPORARY USES Outdoor Temporary and Seasonal Sales A Temporary Uses TUP Vending machines A Outdoor dining A 25.40.030 Development Standards A. Development Standards Generally; Calculation of FAR and Density. 1. Development projects shall comply with the development standards set forth in Table 25.40-2 (NBMU Development Standards). The floor area ratio (FAR) standards shall apply to the non-residential component on a development on a site; the density standards shall apply to any residential component. The non-residential (FAR) and residential (density) components are additive. 2. A developer may elect to develop consistent with either Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 development standards. Projects using Tier 2 or Tier 3 standards shall provide community benefits pursuant to subparagraph 25.40.030.D, below. TABLE 25.40-2 NBMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) Additional Regulations a. Density – Maximum (applies to residential component) 40 du/ac 80 du/ac 120 du/ac Tier 2 and 3 must provide community benefits per subparagraph D, below. b. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – Maximum (applies to non-residential component)1 0.50 Office 0.25 Commercial 1.25 Office 0.50 Commercial 2.0 Office 1.0 Commercial Tier 2 and 3 must provide community benefits per subparagraph D, below. 5 TABLE 25.40-2 NBMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) Additional Regulations c. Height (Unless otherwise controlled by maximum heights established by the Federal Aviation Administration for parcels affected by airport safety zones) 4 stories/ 45 ft. maximum 5 stories/ 55 ft. maximum 7 stories/ 75 ft. maximum For properties on the east side of El Camino Real, 9 stories/ 100 ft. subject to additional setback standards, below Tier 2 and 3 must provide community benefits per subparagraph D, below. Special Requirements and Exceptions: 1. Building frontages facing Trousdale Drive (west of El Camino Real), Murchison Drive (west of El Camino Real), Magnolia Drive, Ogden Drive, and Marco Polo Way: a. 35% of the linear frontage above 35 feet must step back a minimum 5 feet, in the form of insets, balconies, or stepbacks, or b. 80% of a building’s linear frontage above 55 feet stories must step back a minimum of 10 feet, in the form of insets, balconies, or stepbacks d. Setbacks  For any building adjacent to properties zoned R-1 or R-2 Any building façade that faces the adjacent R-1 or R-2 property line and that is above 15 feet in height shall have additional 6 TABLE 25.40-2 NBMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) Additional Regulations setback distance added to the required setback. That additional setback shall apply to any portion of the building above 15 feet in height and shall be a minimum horizontal distance of one foot for every one foot of building height above 30 feet.  Front: El Camino Real 0 to 10 ft. for first 35 ft. Subject to streetscape frontage standards in Table 25.40-3  Front: Mixed-Use Arterial (Trousdale Drive, Murchison Drive, California Drive) 0 to 10 ft., with at least 60 percent of the structure located at the streetscape frontage line per Table 25.40-3 Subject to streetscape frontage standards in Table 25.40-3  Front: Mixed-Use Collector (Magnolia Drive) and Neighborhood Access (Ogden Drive, Marco Polo Way) 0 to 10 ft., with at least 40 percent of the structure located at the streetscape frontage line per Table 25.40-3 Subject to streetscape frontage standards in Table 25.40-3  Side – Interior: El Camino Real 10 ft.  Side – Interior: Trousdale Drive, Murchison Drive, California Drive, Ogden Drive, and Marco Polo Way 10 ft.  Side – Street 0 to 10 ft., with at least 40 percent of the structure located at the streetscape frontage line per Table 25.40-3 Subject to streetscape frontage standards in Table 25.40-3  Rear 15 ft. minimum 20 ft. minimum if abutting a lot zoned R-1 or R-2 e. Lot Dimensions – Minimum  Size  Width at street frontage 20,000 sf 150 ft. Minimum applies to new subdivisions of land; legally established lots of smaller size may be developed consistent with the requirements of this Chapter 25.40. f. Lot Coverage – Maximum2 80% Lot coverage may be increased if 7 TABLE 25.40-2 NBMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) Additional Regulations additional, usable common open space generally equivalent to the additional lot coverage (in square feet) is provided on a rooftop garden and hardscape. g. Open Space and Landscaping  Open space for residential units – Minimum  Percent landscape coverage - Minimum 100 sf per unit of open space per unit. Open space may be either private, common, or include both. 10% of entire site; see also 25.40.040. Minimum dimensions of open space:  Private: 5 ft. deep, 8 ft. wide  Common: 15 ft. in any direction h. Parking 1. Parking shall be provided as set forth in Chapter 25.70. 2. Garages may be constructed entirely below ground level, and such underground garages may project into any required yard or building setback area. 3. No at-grade parking shall be visible or accessed from El Camino Real. Notes: 1 Above-ground parking structures shall be exempt from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations. 2 Lot coverage may be increased if additional useable common open space equivalent to the additional lot coverage (in square feet) is provided on a podium-level landscaped courtyard or plaza. B. Community Benefits – Required Enhancements for Tier 2 and 3 Increased FAR, Density, and Height. 1. Purpose and Applicability. The community benefits program is established to provide incentives for higher intensity development not otherwise allowed by these zoning regulations, and to create new community benefits that may not otherwise result from development activity. The Planning Commission, through a discretionary review and public hearing process, may grant increased FAR, density, or building height in return for provision of specific community benefits, as listed below or subsequently identified by the City Council, if doing so is in the City’s interest and will help implement the General Plan, and in finding that these benefits cannot be realized without granting increased FAR, 8 height, and/or density. A variety of objectives are listed to ensure that proposed project features are appropriate for the site and surroundings, and to allow for a wide range of possible project types. 2. Tier 2 - Number of Community Benefits. The Planning Commission may approve Tier 2 projects if it determines that the project includes at least two community benefits from subsection (4) of this Section (Community Benefits Objectives). At least one affordable and workforce housing objective from (4)(a) shall be chosen. 3. Tier 3 - Number of Community Benefits. The Planning Commission may approve Tier 3 projects if it determines that the project includes at least three community benefits from subsection (4) of this Section (Community Benefits Objectives). At least one affordable and workforce housing objective from (4)(a) shall be chosen. 4. Community Benefit Options. a. Affordable and Workforce Housing. i. The project provides affordable housing at the rate of five percent for low-income households, or 10 percent for moderate-income households, as a percentage of the total number of housing units built (no in-lieu fee option). ii. The project qualifies for, and utilizes, a density bonus in compliance with the City’s affordable housing incentives (Chapter 25.63). b. Pedestrian Amenities. The project includes major pedestrian connections in excess of minimum pedestrian requirements. c. Public Plazas. i. The minimum area of any public plaza shall be 2,000 square feet; ii. The public plaza is owned, operated, and maintained by the developer or property manager in accordance with an approved maintenance plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director; iii. Each part of the public plaza shall be accessible from other parts of the open space without leaving the open space area; iv. The public plaza shall be on the ground level and directly accessible from the sidewalk, and be accessible to persons with disabilities; v. The public plaza shall be open to the public, without charge, each day of the year, except for temporary closures for necessary maintenance or public safety; and 9 vi. At a minimum, the following elements shall be included within the open space: trees and landscaping, seating, bicycle racks, trash and recycling receptacles, and signage that include hours of operation. d. Off-Site Streetscape Improvements. These provisions do not include improvements along the frontage of a development site that would normally be required. Examples of amenities include: i. Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle-oriented streetscapes. ii. Protected bicycle lanes and pedestrian pathways, improved bicycle and pedestrian crossings/signals, bicycle racks/shelters. iii. New pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit facilities, neighborhoods, trails, commercial areas, etc. iv. Removal of existing pedestrian and bicycle barriers (e.g. dead-ends and cul-de- sacs). v. Upgrading traffic signals to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. e. Cultural Arts Space. Includes space for visual arts, performing arts, artist housing, and other activities that support arts and culture. f. Pedestrian and Similar Paths and Connections between Adjacent Properties. To effectuate the goal of creating walkable and bikeable environments, improved pedestrian ways and other paths open to the public that accommodate easy movement across and between properties under separate ownership . g. Historic Preservation (Off-Site). Where there are no historic resources on the project site, the project provides for the permanent preservation of a building off site that is listed in the City’s inventory of historical resources through the recordation of a historic preservation agreement. h. Mode Split. The project provides for the permanent mode shift towards alternative transportation for building occupants through a Transportation Demand Management Program that achieves the objectives of General Plan Chapter VI: Mobility. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a covenant agreement shall be recorded that discloses the required Transportation D emand Management provisions. This agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property of any ongoing programmatic requirements. 10 i. Zero Net Energy. The project provides 100 percent of total building energy load measured as kilowatt per square foot through solar panels, wind turbines, or other renewable sources. j. Public Parking Facilities. The project provides publicly accessible parking to serve area-wide parking needs. To qualify, the parking spaces should be permanently available for public use and subject to easements or restrictions acceptable to the City. k. Flexible (Miscellaneous) Benefit. The applicant agrees to provide a currently undefined community benefit approved by the City Council that is significant and substantially beyond normal requirements. Examples are inclusion of a child care center or community event space in a new development project , off-site utility infrastructure improvements above and beyond those required to serve the development, additional funding for City programs such as contribution to a local façade improvement program, or subsidy for existing commercial tenants or other local small businesses. 25.40.040 Design Standards and Objective Design Criteria. In addition to the development standards in Section 25.40.030, the following design standards and criteria shall apply to all new development projects. A. Design Standards. All new development shall be designed to achieve the following objectives: 1. The design shall provide for internal compatibility between the different uses in terms of noise, hours of operation, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, access, use of open space, and other operating characteristics that affect quality of life. 2. Potential noise, odors, glare, pedestrian traffic, and other impacts on residents shall be minimized to allow a compatible mix of residential and nonresidential uses on the same site. 3. The design of the mixed-use project shall ensure that the residential units are of a residential character and that privacy between residential units and between other uses on the site is maximized. 4. The design of the structures and site planning shall encourage integration of the street pedestrian environment with the nonresidential uses through the use of plazas, courtyards, walkways, and street furniture. 5. Site planning and building design shall be compatible with and enhance the adjacent and surrounding built environment in terms of scale, building design, color, exterior materials, roof styles, lighting, landscaping, and signage. 11 B. Building Orientation, Entrances, and Articulation. 1. Orientation. The main building of a development shall be oriented to face a public street. Building frontages shall be generally parallel to streets. For all residential, retail, service, and office uses, at least one primary entrance to a ground-floor use shall face the adjacent street right-of-way. Ground-related entrances include entrances to ground-floor uses, residential units, clusters of residential units, lobbies, or private courtyards. 2. Ground-Floor Transparency. At least 75 percent of the of exterior walls on the ground floor facing the street shall include windows, doors, or other openings. 3. Nonresidential Entrances. Entries shall be clearly defined features of front façades and of a scale that is in proportion to the size of the building and number of units being accessed. Larger buildings shall have a more prominent building entrance while maintaining a pedestrian scale. 4. Transitional Space at Residential Entries. New residential buildings shall provide transitional spaces in the form of stoops, overhangs, and porches between public areas fronting the primary street and entrances. This type of element or equivalent shall be required for each unit or group of units, but no less than one of this type of element shall be provided. 5. Building Articulation. No street frontage wall may run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening (door or window) or offsets, or as approved by the review authority if the project is constrained by unusual parcel size, shape, use, or other features that the responsible review authority accepts as rendering this requirement infeasible. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces. Offsets shall vary in depth and/or direction of at least 18 inches, or a repeated pattern of offsets, recesses, or projections of similar depth. 6. Parking Lot and Structure Location. Surface parking lots, to the greatest extent practicable, shall be located to the rear of a lot. Parking structures shall be integrated into building design unless a separate structure is require for fire safety purposes or due to the shape or configuration of a lot. C. Site Layout 1. Streetscape. Street frontages shall meet the standards set forth in Table 25.40-3 (NBMU Street Frontage Standards). 12 TABLE 25.40-3: NBMU STREET FRONTAGE STANDARDS Street Type Frontage – Measured from Back of Curb to Building Face El Camino Real – with frontage road Building Frontage Setback 15 ft. minimum from frontage road curb Walk Zone (Public) 10 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 5 ft. minimum Tree Wells 5 ft. by 5 ft. min. El Camino Real – without frontage road Building Frontage Setback 20 ft. minimum from frontage road curb Walk Zone (Public) 10 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 5 ft. minimum Tree Wells 5 ft. by 5 ft. minimum Mixed-Use Arterial (Trousdale Drive, Murchison Drive, California Drive) Building Frontage Setback 15 ft. minimum Walk Zone (Public) 10 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 5 ft. minimum Tree Wells 5 ft. by 5 ft. minimum Mixed-Use Collector (Magnolia Avenue) Building Frontage Setback 12 feet Walk Zone (Public) 6 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 5 ft. minimum Tree Wells 5 ft. by 5 ft. minimum Neighborhood Access (Ogden Drive, Marco Polo Drive) Building Frontage Setback 10 ft. Walk Zone (Public) 6 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 4 ft. minimum Tree Wells 4 ft. by 4 ft. minimum Build-To Lines At least sixty (60) percent of the structure shall be located at the Building Frontage Setback. Exceptions Exceptions to Building Frontage Standards may be granted to accommodate conflicts with recorded easements, rights-of- ways, etc. 2. Pedestrian Access. On-site pedestrian circulation and access shall be provided per the following standards: a. Internal Connections. A system of pedestrian walkways shall connect all buildings on a site to each other, to on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, and to any on- site open space areas or pedestrian amenities. b. To Circulation Network. Regular and convenient connections between on-site walkways and the public sidewalk and other existing or planned pedestrian routes, such as safe routes to school, shall be provided. An on-site walkway shall connect the primary building entry or entries to a public sidewalk on each street frontage. 13 c. To Adjacent Areas. Direct and convenient access shall be provided from mixed-use projects to adjoining residential and commercial areas to the maximum extent feasible while still providing for safety and security. d. To Transit. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from adjacent transit stops to building entrances. 3. Service and Delivery Areas. Service and loading areas shall be screened from residential areas and integrated with the design of the building. Special attention shall be given when designing loading facilities in a location that is proximate to residential uses. Techniques such as block walls, enhanced setbacks, or enclosed loading shall be used to minimize adverse impacts to residents. 4. Location of Residential Units. In mixed-use developments, it is the intent that residential units not occupy the ground floor within the first 50 feet of floor area mea sured from each building face adjacent to the street unless the review authority finds that the project is designed in a manner that a residential ground-floor component enhances the pedestrian environment. D. Landscaping. 1. Front and Street Side Setbacks. Within any required front setback area or side yard setback adjacent to a public street, at least 60 percent of the required setback area shall be landscaped to provide a transition to the sidewalk. 2. Parking Lot Screening. Where a surface parking lot abuts a public street, a minimum 10- foot-deep landscape buffer shall be provided between the sidewalk and the first parking row. 3. Parking Garage. Where the wall of a parking garage directly faces a public street, a minimum 10-foot-deep landscaped area shall be provided between the sidewalk and the parking structure wall. 4. Other. All landscaping shall comply with the provisions of Chapter XXXX of the Municipal Code. 14 25.39.050 Parking A. Off-Street Vehicle Parking. Parking shall be provided as set forth in Chapter 25.70 (Off- Street Parking), with the following exceptions for live/work units, stand-alone residential development, and the residential component of a mixed-use development: TABLE 25.40-4: NBMU OFF-STREET VEHICLE PARKING Number of Bedrooms in a Unit Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required 0 (Studio) 1 space/unit 1 1 space/unit 2 1.5 spaces/unit for multifamily housing; 2 spaces/unit for live/work 3 or more 2 spaces/unit Guest parking None required B. Vehicle Parking Stall Dimensions. All parking stalls may be provided in a single dimension, eight and one-half feet in width by 17 feet in length, except for required accessible parking spaces which shall meet the dimensions required in the California Building Code in effect at the time a project is submitted for City review. No compact parking stalls shall be allowed if only a single dimension stall is used. C. Aisle Dimensions. All aisles within a parking area shall be as set forth in Table 25.40-5 (NBMU Parking Aisle Dimensions) TABLE 25.40-5: NBMU PARKING AISLE DIMENSIONS Parking Space Angle Required Backup Aisle (minimum) 90 degree 24 feet 60 degree 18 feet 30 degree 13 feet D. Stacked/Mechanical Parking. Parking utilizing stackers or mechanical systems may be approved with a Conditional Use Permit. E. Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided as set forth in Table 25.40-6 (NBMU Bicycle Parking). TABLE 25.40-6: NBMU BICYCLE PARKING Class Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required Class I – Resident bicycles 0.5 spaces/unit Class II – Guest bicycles 0.05 spaces/unit 15 F. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stalls. Five percent of all spaces shall be prepared for EV charging equipment. G. Parking Reductions for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Projects utilizing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan per Section 25.40.030.B.4.f. shall be allowed up to 20 percent reduction in required off-street vehicle parking (not including bicycle parking and EV stalls), provided the project provides for a permanent mobility mode shift towards alternative transportation of 25 percent or greater for building occupants through the TDM program. 25.40.060 Review Procedures. A. Design Review Required. Design review shall be required pursuant to Chapter 25.57. B. Planning Commission Approval of Community Benefits Bonuses. The Planning Commission shall be the final review authority for an application for Tier 2 or 3 projects. In Attendance: Planning Commissioners Loftis and Terrones Community Development Director Gardiner, Planning Manager Hurin 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA No members of the public were in attendance. 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS Comments applicable to all areas/general comments:  Need to develop concepts for streetscapes and urban design to accompany building standards. The appearance of a building is influenced by the design of the streetscape.  Would have one type of streetscape standard for the major thoroughfares such as Rollins Road and California Drive; another standard for the side streets.  Suggest referencing the Better Streets Plan in San Francisco for an example of how street types can be established.  Large parcel sizes suggest buildings could be very wide. Would want design increments of 25 feet, 50 feet, or 75 feet to break down exceedingly wide building facades. Consider maximum parcel sizes, otherwise could end up with really large buildings.  The ground floor is most important, and needs to be heavily articulated. The upper floors could tolerate wider facades if the ground floor is articulated. Suggests ground floors should be highly regulated.  Would like to see how wide Burlingame Avenue is in the new streetscape. The width seems appropriate for allowing a range of furnishings and activities such as street trees, sidewalk dining, and seating.  Difficult to visualize what the various Floor Area Ratios would look like on typical lots. Would like to have the standards tested.  Interested in the Minor Conditional Use Permit concept. Would allow staff to make a determination, with FYI memo to the Planning Commission to allow them to weigh in if commissioners have concerns. Suggests Commercial Recreation could be a Minor CUP within the Rollins Road area (but remain a regular CUP outside of the Rollins Road area). Comments applicable to North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone – Interim Standards:  Could consider buildings taller than 75 feet if they are located on El Camino Real. Would like to see how tall the mixed use buildings in Millbrae on El Camino Real City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Zoning Ordinance Update Subcommittee Monday, October 1, 2018 8:00 AM Conference Room A are. They are set back from the street behind the frontage roads, so the height is less imposing than if they were built right to the sidewalk.  Taller buildings can work if the upper floors are stepped back. Suggestion of allowing the façade at the edge of the street to be up to 5 stories, then step back the upper floors. A five story façade can be comfortable provided the sidewalk and setback is generous enough, and the façade is well articulated.  North Burlingame seems to be an appropriate location for taller buildings. It is no t Downtown, it is a transit center.  Likes the direction of the requirement that on taller buildings, 35% of the linear frontage of the upper floors be stepped back. Suggests the step backs be required above the fourth or fifth floors, rather than the second floor as proposed in the draft standards.  Amenable to the concept of private and common open space being able to be interchanged, as proposed. Needs to distinguish between common open space associated with a project’s residents compared to public open space associated with a community benefit. The community benefit open space should be above and beyond the common open space requirements.  The area to the west of Marco Polo Way/Ogden Drive needs to be treated differently, to provide a transition to the lower-scale neighborhoods adjacent. Comments applicable to North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone – Interim Standards:  Taller buildings can be appropriate for the North Rollins Road area. 75 feet seems to be an appropriate standard.  Concern with having live/work uses on the ground floor. Ground floors need to be vibrant; concern live/work will not provide activity on the ground floor.  Could be OK to have live/work on the ground floor if it is associated and connected to a unit directly above. Comments applicable to California Drive Mixed Use Zone – Interim Standards:  Should allow a range of uses. It is a diverse area.  Only multifamily residential is listed as an allowed residential use. There are existing nonconforming single family houses in the zone as well. 3. FUTURE MEETING ITEMS  Streetscape standards  Visualize/test proposed FARs  Will need to meet more than once per month if the interim standards are to be adopted within a close timeframe of the General Plan. Suggest meeting in one or two weeks. 4. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m. In Attendance: Planning Commissioners Kelley, Loftis and Terrones Community Development Director Gardiner, City Attorney Kane Member of the Public: Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Apartment Communities 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes were approved with two clarifications:  In the comment to allow a “Minor Conditional Use Permit” for Commercial Recreation uses, the interest would only apply to the Rollins Road area given the symbiotic relationship between Commercial Recreation and Industrial uses. A regular Conditional Use Permit would continue to be required outside of t he Rollins Road area.  The suggestion that a five story façade could be comfortable provided the sidewalk and setback is generous enough, clarification should be added that the façade would also need to be well-articulated. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA No public comments on non-agenda matters. 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS City Attorney Kane provided direction that the intent is for the interim zoning to be adopted by the City Council concurrently with the General Plan. Comments applicable to all areas/general comments:  The nature of the streetscapes will be different, depending on the width, volume of traffic, and land uses along each street.  The General Plan Circulation Network provides a good framework for establishing types of street frontages.  Incentives or requirements should be established to provide connections between properties, given how large some of the parcels are.  Street frontage standards should be measured from back of curb, so that the width of the curb does not need to be subtracted from the wi dth of the sidewalk area. City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Draft Meeting Minutes Zoning Ordinance Update Subcommittee Friday, October 19, 2018 8:00 AM Conference Room A  Public benefit options could include a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to allow greater public benefits on a site.  Could consider an option for providing an off -site park/open space option.  Should establish maximum setbacks/build-to line as well as minimum setbacks, to ensure buildings interface with the street. Could require a certain percentage of a building to be situated at the build-to line, such as 60%.  Unclear why there is a standard for minimum lot sizes, given the are as have already been subdivided. Suggested removing the standard. Comments applicable to North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone – Interim Standards:  Rollins Road has to possibility to be calmed through streetscape design such as sidewalk bulbouts and a canopy of street trees.  Questioned why Residential and Live/Work were proposed to require Conditional Use Permits rather than be allowed as a Permitted use. Given the detailed development standards, could allow them as a Permitted use.  Suggestion that the residential notice provision note potential noise and odors from “non-residential” uses, rather than “commercial and industrial” uses in the draft. Also suggest that the notice be provided in residential leases, as well as CC&Rs, so that tenants in rentals are also advised.  Site layout standards for location of parking and service and delivery areas in Sections C.3 and C.4 should clarify that they apply to exposed/surface parking areas, not enclosed garage areas. Comments applicable to North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone – Interim Standards:  Could consider buildings taller than 75 feet if they are located on the east side of El Camino Real, particularly in the block between Murchison Drive and Trousdale Drive. Could consider buildings taller than 100 feet provided they meet the frontage and articulation standards.  Interest in allowing taller buildings on the east side of El Camino Real south of Trousdale Drive, but concern with the interface with the low-density residential neighborhood on Dufferin Avenue. Uncertain where or how to lower the height closer to Dufferin Avenue. 4. FUTURE MEETING ITEMS The subcommittee will next review the draft General Provisions chapter. 5. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m. December 11, 2012 BURLINGAME AVE. STREETSC APE IMPROVEMENTS 0 1” =2’ 1 2 4 A. CHARCOAL (~20%) B. AGAVE (~50%) C. MOCHA BROWN (~10%) D. GRANADA WHITE (~20% and zone designation) Pages from Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Commercial throughways such as Van Ness Avenue or Divisadero Street move significant volumes of people across town in a variety of travel modes and attract them to shop, eat, and play from across the city. Vehicular trac on these throughways tends to be relatively fast and continuous and transit service is often have a comfortable pedestrian realm with significant pedestrian amenities and public spaces. Considerations High levels of pedestrian activity  Desire for generous pedestrian environment  and public realm High volume and speed of through trac  Important transit functions  Access needs for local businesses  Commercial throughways attract a high volume of pedestrians and visitors, and are also signicant transpo rtation corridors Additional Guidelines Tree grates should be considered in high  pedestrian volume areas, where capital and maintenance budgets allow. For specic stormwater control measures,  see Section 6.2. Commercial Throughways 15’ Typical section Marked crosswalks with curb ramps (Section 5.1) Pedestrian signals (countdown and APS) (5.2) Street trees (6.1) Corner curb extensions (5.2) Pedestrian- scale lighting (6.3) Site furnishings (6.5) Special paving in furnishings zone (6.4) Stormwater control measures (6.2) Sidewalk planters (planter boxes) (6.1) Standard Improvements CHAPTER 4.0| B E TTE R STREET S P L A N62 Pages from Better Streets Plan - San Francisco 08 09 01 02 05 06 10 11 12 13 03 04 07 ** Site plans in this chapter are for representational puposes only; individual elements may not be appropriate as shown. For specific guidelines, see Chapters 5 and 6. Boulevard treatment (5.8) Center median (5.4) Flexible use of parking lane (5.6) Mid-block bulb-out (5.2) Extended bulb-out (5.2) Perpendicular or angle parking (5.6) Transit bulb- out or boarding island (5.5) 04 06 05 09 08 10 11 Parking lane planters (5.6) 12 13 Sidewalk pocket park (5.8) 07 Pedestrian refuge island (5.4) Mid-block crossing (5.1) 01 High visibility crosswalks (5.1) 02 03 Special crossing treatments (warning signs, beacons, etc. (5.1) Case by Case Additions CHAPTER 4.0bETTER STREETS PlAN | 63 15’ Neighborhood commercial streets, such as Clement, Taraval, Valencia, Polk, and Leland Avenue, include many of San Francisco’s most vibrant streets, handling continuous activity throughout the day. They are the streets where San Francisco residents do their daily errands, meet with friends, and shop and play on the weekends. Short-term parking for customers and space for loading facilities are essential components of commercial districts. However, parking and loading facilities often compete for the same space as desired features such as corner bulb- outs or pedestrian plazas. Managing parking and loading facilities efficiently and effectively can serve both the needs of local businesses while enabling improvements to the public realm. Considerations High levels of pedestrian activity ƒ Desire for generous pedestrian envi- ƒ ronment and public realm Important transit functions ƒ Access needs for local businesses ƒ Neighborhood commercial streets are the heart of, and serve the daily needs of San Francisco’s many neighborhoods Additional Guidelines Tree grates should be considered in high ƒ pedestrian volume areas, or where capital and maintenance budgets allow. For specific stormwater control measures, ƒ see Section 6.2. Neighborhood Commercial Typical section Marked crosswalks with curb ramps (Section 5.1) Pedestrian signals (countdown and APS) (5.2) Street trees (6.1) Corner curb extensions (5.2) Pedestrian- scale lighting (6.3) Site furnishings (6.5) Special paving in furnishings zone (6.4) Stormwater control measures (6.2) Sidewalk planters (planter boxes) (6.1) Standard Improvements CHAPTER 4.0| bETTER STREETS PlAN64 08 09 01 02 05 06 10 11 12 13 03 04 07 ** Site plans in this chapter are for representational puposes only; individual elements may not be appropriate as shown. For specific guidelines, see Chapters 5 and 6. Mid-block bulb-out (5.2) Mid-block crossing (5.1) 04 01 06 05 09 08 10 11 Rasied crossing (5.1) Flexible use of parking lane (5.6) Sidewalk pocket park (5.8) Parking lane planters (5.6) Perpendicular or angle parking (5.6) Transit bulb-out or boarding island (5.5) 12 High visibility crosswalks (5.1) Pedestrian refuge island (5.4) 13 Extended bulb-out (5.2) Shared public way (5.8) 02 07 03 Special crossing treatments (warning signs, beacons, etc. (5.1) Case by Case Additions CHAPTER 4.0bETTER STREETS PlAN | 65 As the city continues to experience economic and population growth, more areas in and adjacent to the downtown, such as Rincon Hill and South Beach, have come to share the density and intensity of the commercial areas of downtown. These areas have high residential densities and large buildings. As these areas change to residential uses, the streets should be appropriate for residential living, with generous sidewalks, plantings, and furnishings. As many of these areas are deficient in open space, the streets should include places for neighbors to gather, relax, and recreate. Considerations High levels of pedestrian activity ƒ Need for increased public open space ƒ High volume of through traffic ƒ Downtown residential streets often must be reformatted to create an appropriate living environment Additional Guidelines Tree grates should be considered in high ƒ pedestrian volume areas, or where capital and maintenance budgets allow. For specific stormwater control measures, ƒ see Section 6.2. Street trees (6.1) Pedestrian- scale lighting (6.3) Corner curb extensions (5.2) Marked crosswalks with curb ramps (Section 5.1) Site furnishings (6.5) Special paving in furnishings zone (6.4) Stormwater control measures (6.2) Pedestrian signals (countdown and APS) (5.2) 15’ Typical section Sidewalk planters (6.1) Downtown Residential Standard Improvements CHAPTER 4.0| bETTER STREETS PlAN66 08 06 01 04 09 10 11 12 05 02 03 07 ** Site plans in this chapter are for representational puposes only; individual elements may not be appropriate as shown. For specific guidelines, see Chapters 5 and 6. 04 01 06 05 09 08 11 10 12 Boulevard treatment (5.8) Sidewalk pocket park (5.8) Parking lane planters (5.6) Perpendicular or angle parking (5.6) Transit bulb- out or boarding island (5.5) Center median (5.4) Mid-block bulb-out (5.2) High visibility crosswalks (5.1) Pedestrian refuge island (5.4) Extended bulb-out (5.2) Mid-block crossing (5.1) 02 07 03 Special crossing treatments (warning signs, beacons, etc. (5.1) Case by Case Additions CHAPTER 4.0bETTER STREETS PlAN | 67 Residential throughways such as 19th Avenue, Guerrero, California, Oak and Fell Streets have high levels of fast-moving traffic with residential land uses. As such, they are often not designed to serve residential uses, and can be unpleasant to walk or live along. Streetscape improvements should focus on buffering the sidewalk and adjacent homes from vehicles passing in the street and providing a generous, useable public realm through landscaping, curb extensions, or widened sidewalks where roadway space allows. Considerations High volume and speed of through traffic ƒ Need for increased public open space ƒ Need for improved pedestrian buffering from through traffic ƒ Frequent driveway cuts ƒ Additional Guidelines For specific stormwater control measures, ƒ see Section 6.2. Special paving in furnishings zone and site ƒ furnishings should be considered as capital and maintenance budgets allow. Sidewalk planters (6.1) Street trees (6.1) Pedestrian- scale lighting —at corners (6.3) Corner curb extensions (5.2) Marked crosswalks with curb ramps (Section 5.1) Stormwater control measures (6.2) Pedestrian signals (countdown and APS) (5.2) Residential Throughways 15’ Typical section Standard Improvements CHAPTER 4.0| bETTER STREETS PlAN68 08 12 01 04 05 06 10 11 09 02 03 07 ** Site plans in this chapter are for representational puposes only; individual elements may not be appropriate as shown. For specific guidelines, see Chapters 5 and 6. 04 01 06 09 08 10 11 Boulevard treatment (5.8) Sidewalk pocket park (5.8) Parking lane planters (5.6) Perpendicular or angle parking (5.6) Transit bulb-out or boarding island (5.5) Center median (5.4) High visibility crosswalks (5.1) Pedestrian refuge island (5.4) Extended bulb-out (5.2) Mid-block crossing (5.1) 02 07 03 Special crossing treatments (warning signs, beacons, etc. (5.1) 05 Mid-block bulb-out (5.2) 12 Case by Case Additions CHAPTER 4.0bETTER STREETS PlAN | 69 Neighborhood residential streets are quieter residential streets with relatively low traffic volumes and speeds. Though they have low levels of activity relative to other street types, they play a key role to support the social life of a neighborhood. Residential streets should feel safe, comfortable, and cared for. Residents may think of the street outside their home as an extension of their home or a neighborhood commons. Improvements should focus on slowing traffic, providing useable space and amenities, and making improvements that encourage residents to take pride and ownership of the streetscape outside their front door. Considerations Need for traffic calming in some cases ƒ Need for increased public open space ƒ Opportunities for community stewardship ƒ Frequent driveway cuts ƒ Neighborhood residential streets are San Francisco’s front yards, and should encourage neighborly interaction Curb ramps (5.1) Additional Guidelines Neighborhood residential streets with wider crossings ƒ (generally > 40’), or higher traffic volumes and speeds (generally > 25 mph) should consider corner curb exten- sions and marked crosswalks. Neighborhood residential streets may include a continuous ƒ landscaped permeable strip in the Furnishings Zone. For specific stormwater control measures, see Section 6.2. ƒ Special paving in furnishings zone and site furnishings ƒ should also be considered as capital and maintenance budgets allow. Sidewalk planters —continuous planting strip (6.1) Street trees (6.1) Pedestrian- scale lighting —at corners (6.3) Stormwater control measures (6.2) Neighborhood Residential 12’ Typical section Standard Improvements CHAPTER 4.0| bETTER STREETS PlAN70 05 06 01 02 03 04 07 08 09 ** Site plans in this chapter are for representational puposes only; individual elements may not be appropriate as shown. For specific guidelines, see Chapters 5 and 6. Traffic circle (5.7) Rasied crossing — at throughway intersections (5.1) Chicane (5.7) 0201 0403 0605 0807 09 Extended bulb-out (5.2) Sidewalk or median pocket park (5.8) Parking lane planters (5.6) Perpendicular or angle parking (5.6) Mid-block bulb-out (5.2) Shared public way (5.8) Case by Case Additions CHAPTER 4.0bETTER STREETS PlAN | 71 Industrial streets are defined by large-scale production, distribution, and repair facilities that have an assortment of challenging impacts on streetscape character. These streets typically have a less active street frontage punctuated by large driveways, loading docks, and other auto-serving facilities, and front on wide streets that accommodate large trucks. Sidewalks and streetscape amenities are often minimal. While these streets must serve heavy trucks and loading functions, they should also consider the pedestrian realm for workers and others passing through. Considerations Access needs for local businesses, including ƒ loading activities and heavy trucks Relatively low pedestrian volumes; however, ƒ need for pedestrian safety and comfort in challenging environment Need for public spaces for workers to take ƒ breaks Industrial streets must serve major freight and loading activities, but should still have a safe and comfortable pedestrian realm Additional Guidelines Industrial streets should use property line ƒ plantings and street trees where trees are not possible adjacent to the curb For specific stormwater control measures, see ƒ Section 6.2. Curb ramps (5.1) Street trees (6.1) Stormwater control measures (6.2) Industrial 10’ Typical section Standard Improvements CHAPTER 4.0| bETTER STREETS PlAN72 01 02 03 04 05 ** Site plans in this chapter are for representational puposes only; individual elements may not be appropriate as shown. For specific guidelines, see Chapters 5 and 6. 0201 0403 Transit bulb- out or boarding island (5.5) Mid-block bulb-out (5.2) Extended bulb-out (5.2) Center median (5.4) Perpendicular or angle parking (5.6) 05 Case by Case Additions CHAPTER 4.0bETTER STREETS PlAN | 73 Mixed-use streets such as those in SoMa or Showplace Square serve a variety of low-intensity industrial uses, as well as a growing number of residences, shops, and services. Their use and character are in a state of constant change, and streets must reflect this changing character and serve a variety of needs. Mixed use streets are often wide streets, with high volumes of fast-moving traffic. Streetscape treatments should include landscaping, pedestrian safety elements, public space uses, and other amenities to complement current and future land use. Considerations Access needs for local businesses, including ƒ loading activities and light trucks High volume and speed of through traffic ƒ Need for increased public open space ƒ Need for improved pedestrian buffering from ƒ through traffic Need for flexibility to accomodate changing uses ƒ Industrial mixed-use streets serve a changing mix of land uses Additional Guidelines Tree grates, pedestrian lighting, special paving in ƒ the furnishings zone and site furnishings should be considered in high pedestrian volume areas, or where capital and maintenance budgets allow. For specific stormwater control measures, see ƒ Section 6.2. Sidewalk planters (6.1) Street trees (6.1) Corner curb extensions (5.2) Marked crosswalks with curb ramps (Section 5.1) Stormwater control measures (6.2) Pedestrian signals (countdown and APS) (5.2) Mixed-Use 15’ Typical section Standard Improvements CHAPTER 4.0| bETTER STREETS PlAN74 08 0912 01 04 05 06 11 10 10 02 03 07 ** Site plans in this chapter are for representational puposes only; individual elements may not be appropriate as shown. For specific guidelines, see Chapters 5 and 6. Boulevard treatment (5.8) Center median (5.4) Mid-block bulb-out (5.2) Mid-block crossing (5.1) 04 01 06 05 09 08 10 11 Flexible use of parking lane (5.6) Sidewalk pocket park (5.8) Parking lane planters (5.6) Perpendicular or angle parking (5.6) Transit bulb-out or boarding island (5.5) 12 High visibility crosswalks (5.1) Pedestrian refuge island (5.4) 13 Extended bulb-out (5.2) 02 07 03 Special crossing treatments (warning signs, beacons, etc. (5.1) Case by Case Additions CHAPTER 4.0bETTER STREETS PlAN | 75 Mixed-Use 52 | City of Mountain View Sidewalks The follow ing sidewalk g uide lines will he l p i m ple m ent a wide a nd comfortable walking area, bue red from noise and fast-moving cars. They also create attractive transition areas between the public and private spaces along the front of buildings. Sidewalks are divided into three zones from curb to building face. The first is the PLANTER ZONE , where street trees, traffic control devices and lighting are located; the planter zone provides a buer between the walk zone and the street. The second is the WALK ZONE , where movement of people is the priority. Last is the FRONTAGE ZONE , which is on private property and provides buer f rom walls and allows people to access buildings without interfering with the walk zone. These zones are illustrated in Figure 28. 1. Planter zone dimensions. The planter zone should be five feet from the face of curb to the walk zone. This could be slightly less if necessary to ensure a comfortable and adequate walk zone. In bulbout locations, the planter zone should be widened to the new curb location. 2. Planter lengths. Planters in the Primary Pedestrian Area should be no more than 8 feet long. In the Secondary Pedestrian Area, they should be more continuous, with gaps to provide periodic access to street parking. 3. Planter z one ch aracter (comme r c i al). In locations f ronting commercial uses, the space between planters should be designed as an extension of the walk zone, though special materials may be used to die rentiate the area. 4. W alk zone dimensions. The walk zone should be a minimum seven feet wide, remain completely clear of obstructions and encroachments and meet all applicable ADA regulations. The walk zone may take up a portion of the front yard setback area to meet walk zone and planter zone width requirements. 5. Fr ontage zone. This area may be appropriate for outdoor display, seating, stoops, porches, accent landscaping, trees to screen residential and office uses, etc. Standards and guidelines for this zone are located in Chapter 2: Development Standards and Guidelines. 6. Pedestrian easements. Public access easements on private property are encouraged (when not required) to expand the sidewalk and usable pedestrian area. Pages from El Camino Real Precise Plan - Mountain View Chapter 3: Streets and Streetscapes El Camino Real Precise Plan | 53 Figure 28: Pedestrian Zones and Sidewalk Character EL CAMINO REAL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA | DECEMBER 2014 | CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 010'20' SIDEWALK DESIGNProperty LineCOMMERCIAL USE RESIDENTIAL/ OFFICE USES 6' to 11' FRONTAGE/ SETBACK ZONE 7'-0" WALK ZONE 5'-0" EDGE/ AMENITY PLANTER ZONE 16' to 25' 12' to 21' FRONTAGE/ SETBACK ZONE 7'-0" WALK ZONE 5'-0" EDGE/ AMENITY PLANTER ZONE REQUIRED SETBACK 8'10' to 15' EXISTING SIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE REQUIRED SETBACK 8' EXISTING SIDEWALK PROPERTY LINEPUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT Property Line CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU DAILY J OURNAL CORPORATION Mailing Address: 915 E FIFIST ST, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 Telephone (800) 788-7840 / Fax (800) 464.2839 Visit us @ www. LegalAdstore.com PLANNING DEPABTMENT CIry OF BURLINGAME/COMM. DEV, DEPT 501 PRIMROSE BOAD BURLINGAME, CA 940'I O COPY OF NOTICE Nolice Type: Ad Descdption NPEN 3190104 NOTICEOFPUBLrc HEAF'IGIhE CITY OF 6UELI'}GAIE Ptrta{t6 co}rclo *rl hord a FJ c heanoo lo c6sid., arendrenrs'ro Tlie 25 0l fle Bud'nqm Munrc'pal C.{b,rhe zonrng odnane. lo adoE intsim $andards rq 'le tlorh Bdlins Ftoad Mix€d L,se Z@ .nd tbrnrB{ni.@ Mixedt e Zm.rhs Frd,ng Cdmssonwill 'eres lh3 propoG€d intenm lBlulations, andrEte a lmlmdrlsrid b lhe lx:Enm s[ b€ ndd dTo.&r, t.o!,! n!.. ll, 2orl, al70o P.n 'n fie Cry Herr annd chrrti.G 5Ir1 Pdhr@ Boed, Bu,nnqam, C6l omia Tne sbtl EF,l lo. |has nm and copis ol th€ FopGdaftndiMls rlay be €Mev€d Prtor io ihe lElho ar lhe co(mJnty Devdoe,rEn Depatho.ri PtdninqD'Mso, EunhoanE CilyHalr 501 Pn i& Ftoad.8uir.sare: dd d theCrys E&& alm.budinqEre oq Fs adon'6ar inldnEiorl ceae carr fi€ Emnno orEo al t650) 5sa-7250 To be pldished Thu6day, 11t1118 IPEI'I31g0llxt EIAMTEN . BOUTOUE t VILLAGEF HRG NOTICE OF HEARING rc 11.13.18 - amend muni code inlerim sland tor No RR Mixed Use & No Bgame Mixed Use To the right is a copy ol the notice you sent to us for publication in the BOUTIOUE & VILLAGER. PIease .ead this notjce carelully and call us with any conections. The Proof ol Publication will be filed with the County Clerk, il required, ard mailed to you atler lhe last date below. Publication date(s) for this notice is (are): 11/01/2018 The charge(s) lor this order is as follows. An invoice will be sent after the last dale ol publication. ll you prepaftl this order in full, you will not receive an Publicalion Total $54.00 $9.00 llilllilr!iltilililililt!ilt!il]ilr!ilfliltfliltililililil*A000004900883* 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10a MEETING DATE: November 19, 2018 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date:November 19, 2018 From:Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director –(650) 558-7307 Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject:Approval of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Plan for the New Community Center RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the new community center. BACKGROUND Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC), and community members, has been working on developing plans for a new community center in Washington Park. The work includes development of a Master Plan for the active areas of the park and identifies the site locations of the park amenities (Community Center Master Plan) and conceptual designs of the proposed building within the Master Plan. The City Council approved the Community Center Master Plan on July 7, 2014. Since that time, the City Council has held study sessions, and the City has gathered input through an Advisory Committee, at Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission meetings, as well as at community meetings and public events. Information about the process and public outreach plan can be found at https://www.burlingame.org/parksandrec/facilities/projects/community_center_conceptual_plan.ph p At the July 2, 2018 Council meeting, the City Council chose to move forward with the pavilions style building, a 35,700 square foot community center with parking under and adjacent to the new center. The project also includes a new relocated playground, picnic area, and basketball court, and an indoor and outdoor stage. The tennis courts, Lions Club building, ballfields, and Parking Lot X will remain unchanged. At the September 17, 2018 City Council study session, staff and Group 4 presented a Schematic Design progress update and received input and direction on the project scope and budget, including add alternates, selection of the underground parking option, approval of the early site package, and approval of the exterior material palette. At the September 20, 2018 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting and the September 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, City staff and IS/MND for the New Community Center November 19, 2018 2 Group 4 presented a schematic design progress update, including relaying the input that the Council provided at its study session. At the November 5, 2018 City Council meeting, staff and Group 4 provided a progress update and received additional input and direction on the project scope and budget. DISCUSSION Environmental Review Environmental Review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. on behalf of the City to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, consistent with CEQA. The draft IS/MND has determined that there would be no environmental impacts identified that could not be mitigated to less than significant levels. Since the community center is a municipal facility rather than a development project, City staff is requesting that the City Council take action to adopt the IS/MND and the Mitigated Monitoring Report Program (MMRP). As mandated by State Law, the minimum public review comment period for this document is 20 days. During this public review period for the IS/MND (September 13, 2018 to October 3, 2018), no public comments were received. On the basis of the Initial Study and the whole record, it has been determined that the proposed action, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures described below, will not have a significant impact on the environment. Areas identified with potential environmental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant levels were in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and noise. Mitigation measures for these areas are included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-601P) is attached for reference. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the IS/MND. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND prepared for the proposed project and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements. State law requires the Lead Agency to adopt an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND during implementation of the project. The MMRP is attached for reference. The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. Columns identify the potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures, the party responsible for implementing each mitigation measure, the agency and/or department responsible for oversight or ensuring that each mitigation measure is implemented, and the schedule when monitoring will occur. Memorandum to Evaluate the Potential Effects Related to Minor Modifications to the Project The November 5, 2018 City Council staff report included a memorandum that was prepared by LSA to evaluate the potential effects of swapping the locations of the proposed basketball court IS/MND for the New Community Center November 19, 2018 3 and playground in the project (refer to Figure 2-6 in the IS/MND). Aside from these different locations, all other aspects of the proposed project would remain the same. (LSA October 25, 2018 memorandum attached for reference). As stated in the memorandum, it is LSA’s professional opinion that swapping the locations of the basketball court and playground would not result in any new or more significant impacts compared with those already analyzed in the IS/MND. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires a pre- construction nesting bird survey to be completed prior to vegetation removal if it occurs between February 1 and October 31, would still be required. Additionally, while the total number of protected trees removed from the project site may be different than what was identified and analyzed in the IS/MND, the City would still be required to provide replacement plantings as part of the proposed project. All other mitigation measures included in the IS/MND would still be required. FISCAL IMPACT In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a ¼ cent sales tax measure that will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal-setting session, the City Council discussed the City Manager’s recommended expenditure plan for the Measure I funds, which included an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the issuance of lease revenue bonds. The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018. An additional $1 million annual General Fund transfer was approved in the 2018-19 fiscal year budget, also intended to fund the debt service, to allow for a lease revenue bond issuance of approximately $30 million for the Community Center project. Staff will return with a recommendation for funding for construction of Package 1 (the playground, multi-court, and picnic area) as part of the mid-year budget review process. As the total costs of the entire project are expected to exceed $50 million, the City will need to rely on an additional combination of Measure I revenues plus ongoing General Fund revenues and/or monies from the Capital Investment Reserve. Exhibits: Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/MND) – Public Review Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LSA Memorandum Council Resolution September 2018        PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT      INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE  DECLARATION  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA          This page intentionally left blank  September 2018        PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT      INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE  DECLARATION  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA              Submitted to:    Teresa Rom  Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning  211 Linden Avenue  South San Francisco, CA 94080          Prepared by:    LSA  157 Park Place  Pt. Richmond, California  94801  510.236.6810    Project No. GRP1802  This page intentionally left blank  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) i TABLE OF CONTENTS  FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................. ii  LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ iii  1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................... 1‐1  2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2‐1  2.1 PROJECT SITE ..................................................................................................................... 2‐1  2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................ 2‐7  2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................................................... 2‐7  2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS ...................................................................................................... 2‐11  3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 3‐1  3.1 Determination ................................................................................................................... 3‐1  4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................. 4‐1  4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 4‐1  4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 4‐3  4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4‐5  4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 4‐15  4.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4‐18  4.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 4‐21  4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 4‐24  4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 4‐29  4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 4‐33  4.10 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 4‐38  4.11 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 4‐40  4.12 Noise................................................................................................................................ 4‐41  4.13 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 4‐49  4.14 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 4‐50  4.15 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 4‐52  4.16 Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................................... 4‐53  4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 4‐71  4.18 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 4‐73  4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 4‐77  5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 5‐1  6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 6‐1    APPENDICES  A: CALEEMOD Output Sheets  B: Transportation Impact Analysis      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) ii FIGURES AND TABLES  FIGURES  Figure 2‐1: Project Location and Regional Vicinity Map ..................................................................... 2‐2  Figure 2‐2: Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses .................................. 2‐3  Figure 2‐3: Photos of Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................... 2‐4  Figure 2‐4: Photos of Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................... 2‐5  Figure 2‐5: Photos of Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................... 2‐6  Figure 2‐6: Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 2‐9  Figure 4‐1: Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................. 4‐59  Figure 4‐2: Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 4‐60  Figure 4‐3: Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 4‐61  Figure 4‐4: Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 4‐62  Figure 4‐5: Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 4‐65    TABLES  Table 2.A: Potential Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................... 2‐11  Table 4.A: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day ......................................................... 4‐10  Table 4.B: Project Operational Emissions ......................................................................................... 4‐12  Table 4.C: GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) ............................................................................ 4‐26  Table 4.D: Maximum Allowable Noise Levels from Construction Equipment .................................. 4‐42  Table 4.E: Planning Criteria – Maximum Outdoor Noise Levels (dBA) ............................................. 4‐43  Table 4.F: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................. 4‐44  Table 4.G: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay .......................... 4‐56  Table 4.H: Project Trip Generation Estimates ................................................................................... 4‐57  Table 4.I: Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary ................................................................ 4‐58  Table 4.J: Background Plus Project Level of Service Summary ......................................................... 4‐63  Table 4.K: Cumulative Level of Service Summary ............................................................................. 4‐64        PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS   AB 52 California Assembly Bill 52  ACM Asbestos Containing Material  ADA American with Disabilities Act  ADWF average dry weather flow  ALUCP  Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan   APN Assessor’s Parcel Number  AWSC  All‐Way Stop Control  BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District  BART Bay Area Rapid Transit  Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan   BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency  Bay San Francisco Bay  BMP Best Management Practices  BPD Burlingame Police Department  C/CAG City/County Association of Governments   Cal/OSHA  California Occupational Safety and Health Administration  CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model  CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code   Caltrans California Department of Transportation   CAP City of Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan  CCFD Central County Fire Department  CCR  California Code of Regulations  CEQA California Environmental Quality Act    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) iv CH4 Methane  Clean Air Plan  BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan  CMP San Mateo County Congestion Management Program  CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level  CO Carbon monoxide  CO2 Carbon dioxide  CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent   Construction General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction  General Permit and Land Disturbance Activity   CTP San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan  CY cubic yards  dB decibel  dBA A‐weighted decibel  DHS California Department of Health Services  DOT Department of Transportation  DTSC  California Department of Toxic Substances Control  FTE full‐time equivalent  GHG Greenhouse Gas  GWP  Global Warming Potential  HCM Highway Capacity Manual  HFCs  Hydrofluorocarbons  I‐280 Interstate 280  IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration   Ldn Day‐night equivalent noise level   LEED  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) v Leq Continuous equivalent noise level  LID Low Impact Development  Lmax Maximum instantaneous noise level  Lmin Minimum instantaneous noise level  LOS Levels of Service  LUST Leaking underground storage tank  mgd million gallons per day  MLD  Most Likely Descendant  MRP Water Board Municipal Regional Permit  N2O Nitrous oxide  NO2 Nitrogen dioxide  NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  O3  Ozone  OSHA  United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health  Administration  Pb Lead  PCEP Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project  PFCs  Perfluorocarbons  PG&E  Pacific Gas & Electric Company  PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter  PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter  POTW  publicly owned treatment work   PRC Public Resources Code  proposed project  Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project   RCRA  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) vi Recology  Recology San Mateo   ROG Reactive organic gases  SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District  SCP Stormwater Control Plan  SDSs  Safety Data Sheets   sec  seconds  SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride  SFO San Francisco International Airport  SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission  SO2 Sulfur dioxide  SQG small‐quantity generator  SSSC  Side‐Street Stop Control  SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan   TAC Toxic air contaminant  TDM Travel Demand Management  TIA Transportation Impact Analysis  UCMP  University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley  US 101 US Highway 101   US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency  UWMP Urban Water Management Plan  VOC Volatile organic compound  Water Board San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board  WWTP Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant  μg/m3  Micrograms per cubic meter  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 1‐1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION  1. Project Title:  Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project  2. Lead  Agency Name and Address:   City of Burlingame  Parks and Recreation Department  850 Burlingame Avenue  Burlingame, CA 94010    3. Contact Person and Phone Number:   Margaret Glomstad, (650)558‐7307  4. Project Location:   850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010  5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:   City of Burlingame  Parks and Recreation Department  850 Burlingame Avenue  Burlingame, CA 94010    6. General Plan Designation:  Parks ‐ Community  7. Zoning: Unclassified  8. Description of Project: The proposed project would include three components: 1)  redevelopment of the Burlingame Community Center; 2) improvements to the playground,  outdoor basketball court, picnic area, and site; and 3) improvements to allow for more parking  area. The existing Burlingame Community Center would be demolished and the new,  approximately 35,700‐square‐foot Burlingame Community Center would be constructed in  approximately the same location with a different footprint. The existing playground adjacent to  the existing Community Center would be moved north to accommodate the proposed location  for the new Community Center and address the City’s request for the playground to be further  away from the street. A surface parking lot and a below‐ground level parking garage would be  constructed in the eastern corner of the project site.  See Section 2.0, Project Description of this Initial Study, for a full project description.  9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located in a developed area of the City of  Burlingame and is surrounded primarily by residential and public uses.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 1‐2 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (i.e., permits, financial approval, or  participation agreements): Pacific Gas & Electric  11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project  area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has  consultation begun? California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with  the project site and area have been notified of the proposed project. No tribes have requested  consultation.      PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION  The following describes the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project1 (proposed project)  that is the subject of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared per the  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is the redevelopment of the  existing Burlingame Community Center to create the new Burlingame Community Center on  Burlingame Avenue in Burlingame, San Mateo County.  2.1 PROJECT SITE  The following section describes the project location, existing conditions, surrounding land uses, and  the regulatory setting.  2.1.1 Project Location  The project site is located in the southeastern portion of Washington Park in the City of Burlingame  (City), within San Mateo County. The approximately 2.41‐acre project site (a portion of Assessor’s  Parcel Number [APN] 029‐141‐030) is located at 850 Burlingame Avenue and is bound by  Washington Park and the former Gunst Estate grounds to the north, residential uses to the east and  Burlingame Avenue to the south, and the Burlingame Lions Club and Washington Park to the west.  The project’s location and regional vicinity is shown in Figure 2‐1:, and an aerial of the project site  and surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 2‐2.  2.1.2 Existing Conditions  The project site is currently developed with the existing Burlingame Community Center; which  includes the offices of the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department, an auditorium, social hall, art  room, ceramics room, conference room, and various other community‐oriented uses; and the  Washington Park Playground, which includes a playground and picnic areas. The existing Burlingame  Community Center is approximately 25,000 square feet in total. While originally constructed in the  late 1940s, the existing building has been renovated many times over the years to address the needs  of the community and the City has determined that the building has no historic merit or significance.  Additionally a building survey has determined that the building would need seismic improvements to  meet the current California Building Code.2 Existing conditions are depicted in Photos 1 through 6 in  Figure 2‐3, Figure 2‐4, and Figure 2‐5. The project site is generally level and contains 158 trees.    1  Burlingame, City of, 2014. Burlingame Community Center Master Plan. July 7.  2  Cecil H. Wells, Jr & Associates. 2009. Partial Seismic Evaluation for City of Burlingame Recreation Center.  June.   Airport Blvd B lo o mfi el d R d 9th A vePa lmAv S B S tTiltonAveEucalyptusAveEBellevueAveVillaTer£¤101 £¤101 ST82 ST82 N A mp h l e t t B l v dBroadwayBayshoreHwyH u mb o l d t R d Airport B l v d FloribundaAvePeninsula Av eW3rdAveC h a te a u D rE 5th AveOccidentalAveBurlingame Ave E3rdA veCalifornia Dr ForestV iew A v e W 5th A veW S a n t a In e z A v e W P o p la rA v e N H um b o l d t S t El Ce r r ito Ave E 4th Ave CrystalSpringsRdHillsboroughBlvdOak G rove Ave Carmelita AveN S a nMa t e o D r Barroi lhet D r SanRaymundoRdR o l l i ns R d RalstonAveSharonAve How ardA veBurlingam eAveCr e s c e nt A v e Ea s t L n Amphlett Blvd N D e l aw a r e S tDwi g h t R d N B a y s h o r eBl v dMahlerRdCoyot e Poin tD rAnzaBlvd Hurli ng h a mAve RalstonAve Bellevu e Ave2nd Ave R o b l arAv e B rid g e R dEucalyptusAveClark DrPark AvePalmDrLincolnAvePe p p e r Av eB u r lin g a m e C l u b R d DeSab l a Rd N e w P la ce R d Prospect R o wWillowRd Pi nehi l lRd W B e lle vu e A v e Cortez Ave Pal o m a Av e Lin d e n A v e N Cl a r em o n t S t Edgewood RdEl C a m i n o R ea l BarroilhetDrWin c h e s t e r D r W a ln u t A v e Baysw ater AveC ountr y ClubDrE Santa Inez AveN Ra i l r o a d A v e Ra n e l a g hRd Monte Diablo AveConcord W ayRo bi nRdBaldw in AveN ElCa min o Real N I d a h o S tNGr a n t S t C h a n n in g R d A n i t a R d N K i n g s t o n S t Brentw o o d R d Carola n A ve Fall e n L eaf D rBrookvaleRdSan Francisco Bay Burlingame Country Club Poplar Creek Golf Course SouthSouth SanSan FranciscoFranciscoST15 ¨§¦880 ¨§¦280 ST35 ST82 SanSan BrunoBruno AshlandAshland M ST35 PaloPalo AltoAlto EastEast PaloPalo AltoAlto BurlingameBurlingame AlamedaAlameda CountyCounty £¤101 DalyDaly CityCity SanSan FranciscoFrancisco ¨§¦280 £¤101 ST1 San MateoSan Mateo CountyCounty PacificaPacifica ST1 RedwoodRedwood CityCity SanSan MateoMateo ST82 ST84 ST92 ST84 AlamedaAlameda SanSan LeandroLeandro SanSan LorenzoLorenzo HaywardHayward OaklandOakland ¨§¦580 ST92 Pacific Ocean Project Location rPojectSite 0 1000 2000 FEET FIGURE 2-1 Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Project LocaƟon and Regional Vicinity Map I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_2-1.ai (7/31/18) SOURCE: ESRI STREETMAP NORTH AMERICA (2012). Burlingame AveBurlingam e AveCar o l a n A v e Carolan Ave Concord Way Concord W ayHoward AveH ow ard AveVernon Way Vernon W ayLexington Way Lexington W ayPlymouth Way Plym outh W ayA r u n d e l R o a d A r u n d e l R o a d A n i t a R o a d A n it a R o a d My r t l e R o a dMy r tl e R o a d Eas t L a n e East Lane California Dr Burlingame Ave Car o l a n A v e Concord Way Howard AveVernon WayLexington Way Plymouth Way A r u n d e l R o a d A n i t a R o a d My r t l e R o a d Eas t L a n e California Dr SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL WASHINGTON PARK BURLINGAME LIONS CLUB FEET 2000 100 Project Site FIGURE 2-2 Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_2-2.ai (7/31/18) SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, 9/1/17; LSA 2018. Photo 1: View of the front of the Burlingame Community Center Photo 2: View of the rear of the Burlingame Community Center FIGURE 2-3 SOURCE: LSA, MAY 2018. I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Figs_2-3_2-5.ai (7/31/18) Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Photos of ExisƟng Site CondiƟons Photo 3: View from the west corner of the project site looking east Photo 4: View looking south towards the project site FIGURE 2-4 Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Photos of ExisƟng Site CondiƟonsSOURCE: LSA, MAY 2018. I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Figs_2-3_2-5.ai (7/31/18) Photo 5: View from the project site looking north Photo 6: View from the southern corner of the project site looking north FIGURE 2-5 SOURCE: LSA, MAY 2018. I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Figs_2-3_2-5.ai (7/31/18) Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Photos of ExisƟng Site CondiƟons PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐7 2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses  As shown in Figure 2‐2, a variety of land uses are located within the vicinity of the project site.  A  portion of Washington Park and the lands of the former Gunst Estate are immediately north of the  project site. Further north of the project site are single‐family residential units and US Highway 101  (US 101). The project site is bounded to the east by single‐family residential uses, which also make  up the land uses further east. Burlingame Avenue bounds the project site to the south, with single‐  and multi‐family residential uses, as well as institutional uses, including Washington Elementary  School. The Burlingame Lions Club and Washington Park bound the project site to the west. Further  west is Burlingame High School, the Burlingame Aquatic Club, and the Burlingame Caltrain Station  and tracks.  2.1.4 Parking, Circulation, and Access  A surface parking lot on the eastern border of the project site provides approximately 22 parking  spaces for staff members at the Burlingame Community Center. Another surface parking lot along  Burlingame Avenue provides two parking spaces compliant with the American with Disabilities Act  (ADA) as well as a drop‐off and pickup loop. Automobiles access both of these parking lots via three  driveways along Burlingame Avenue, one of which provides ingress and egress to the staff parking  lot, one of which provides only ingress to the drop‐off and pickup loop, and the last of which only  provides egress from the loop. Regional access to the project site is provided by the Broadway on‐  and off‐ramp of US 101. Local access to the project site is provided by Rollins Road to the north,  Bloomfield Road to the south, and Carolan Avenue/East Lane to the west. The Burlingame Caltrain  station is located approximately 0.2 miles west of the project site. Pedestrian access to and  throughout the project site is provided by sidewalks and concrete pathways.   2.1.5 Regulatory Setting  The project site is designated as Parks – Community on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map3 and is  within the Unclassified zoning district on the City’s Zoning Map.4  2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES  On March 19, 2018, the Burlingame City Council approved the current scope of the proposed  project. The proposed project would implement the portion of the Master Plan east of the Lion’s  Club Hall through redevelopment of the existing Burlingame Community Center and associated site  work as well as additional parking to meet the needs of the community and to have the flexibility to  meet the ever‐changing needs of future patrons.  2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT  The proposed project would include three components: 1) redevelopment of the Burlingame  Community Center; 2) improvements to the playground, outdoor basketball court, picnic area, and  site; and 3) improvements to and additional parking. Each of these components is described below.  3  Burlingame, City of, 2000. City of Burlingame General Plan Land Use Map. April.  4  Burlingame, City of, 2016. Burlingame General Plan: Zoning – Southeast Areas. Available online:  www.burlingame.org/document_center/Zoning/ZoningMap‐Burlingame‐SE.pdf (accessed June 8, 2018).    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐8 2.3.1 Community Center Redevelopment  The existing Burlingame Community Center would be demolished and the new Burlingame  Community Center would be constructed in approximately the same location with a different  footprint, as shown in Figure 2‐6. The new Community Center building would be two stories in  height and approximately 35,700 square feet in size. The first floor of the new Community Center  building would include space for a community hall with a raised platform and associated storage  space, a kitchen, a large lobby, lounge, meeting room, staff offices, a maker room, kids and teen  spaces, and a creative arts and ceramics space. Additionally, the first floor would include restrooms  for the Community Center and the adjacent park and various storage spaces. The second floor of the  new Community Center would include a large meeting room, active lounge, fine arts space, musical  arts space, an enrichment classroom, and a dance and fitness studio as well as two outdoor decks  and storage spaces.  The new Community Center would allow the City to provide approximately 420 hours of program‐ ming on a weekly basis in the fall, winter, and spring, and 600 hours of weekly programming in the  summer.    2.3.2 Playground, Basketball Court, Picnic Area, and Site Improvements  The existing playground adjacent to the existing Community Center would be moved north to  accommodate the proposed location for the new Community Center and address the City’s request  for the playground to be further away from the street. Additional site improvements would include  a relocated basketball court in the western corner of the project site, relocated picnic tables and a  sculpture planter in the center of the project site, outdoor seating around the new Community  Center, and event lawn seating in the northern corner of the project site. The existing entrance  pillars in the southern corner of the project site along Burlingame Avenue would be retained.  2.3.3 Parking Improvements  A surface parking lot and a below‐ground level parking garage would be constructed in the eastern  corner of the project site. The surface parking lot would include a drop‐off area adjacent to the new  Community Center building. In total, 84 parking spaces would be provided, with approximately 40  parking spaces in the below‐ground level and 44 spaces in the surface parking lot. The parking lot  would also include a vegetated sound wall along its northeastern border.  2.3.4 Construction Schedule  Construction of the proposed project would take 24 months. Construction staging areas would be  determined by the construction manager, but would be contained on the project site. Approximately  41 trees are expected to be removed from the project site, and 36 trees would be replanted.  NOT TO SCALEFIGURE 2-6SOURCES: CITY OF BURLINGAME, 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_2-6.ai (7/31/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectConceptual Site Plan   BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐10 This page intentionally left blank     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐11 2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS  A number of permits and approvals would be required for the proposed project. While the City is  the Lead Agency for the project, other agencies also have discretionary authority related to the  project and approvals. A list of these agencies and potential permits and approvals that may be  required is provided in Table 2.A.  Table 2.A: Potential Permits and Approvals  Lead Agency Potential Permits/Approvals  City of Burlingame  Project approval   IS/MND adoption   Provision of grading, demolition, construction, tree removal, parking, traffic,  erosion, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan permits and approvals   Approval of water lines, water hookups, wastewater lines, wastewater hookups  Other Agencies  Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)  Connection/Reconnection of utilities  Source: LSA (2018).      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐12 This page intentionally left blank     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 3‐1 3.0 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 Impact” as indicated by the checklist in Chapter 4.0.    Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forestry Resources  Air Quality   Biological Resources   Cultural Resources  Geology/Soils   Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology/Water Quality   Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise   Population/Housing  Public Services  Recreation   Transportation/Traffic  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities/Service Systems    Mandatory Findings of Significance     3.1 DETERMINATION  On the basis of this initial evaluation:   I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE  DECLARATION will be prepared.   I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not  be a significant 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.   I find 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 attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.   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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or  mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,  including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is  required.       September 12, 2018    Date        BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 3‐2 This page intentionally left blank  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐1 4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST  4.1 AESTHETICS    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Incorporated  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:   a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?  b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not  limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings  within a state scenic highway  c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality  of the site and its surroundings?   d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would  adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?    4.1.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  A scenic vista is generally defined as a public vantage point with an expansive view of a significant  landscape feature. Scenic vistas within the City include the hillside leading to Skyline Ridge as seen  from the San Francisco Bay (Bay), and the Bay as seen from the hillside.5  The project site is located in an urban area, is surrounded by urban uses, and is currently developed  with the existing community center and Washington Park Playground. The proposed project would  include demolition of the existing community center and Washington Park Playground and the  construction of a new community center and playground, as well as associated site improvements.  The proposed project would not be readily visible from any scenic vista, nor would the project block  existing public views of a scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐ significant impact on publicly‐accessible scenic vistas.  b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,  rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less‐Than‐Significant  Impact)  Interstate 280 (I‐280) is the closest officially designated State scenic highway to the project site. At  its closest, I‐280 is located approximately 2.6 miles west of the project site.6 Therefore, the  proposed project would not be visible from any State designated scenic highway, and this impact  would be less than significant.  5  Burlingame, City of, 2015. General Plan of the City of Burlingame. As amended.   6  California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:  www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed July 6, 2018).  September 7.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐2 c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its  surroundings? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing community center and  Washington Park Playground and the construction of a new community center and playground, as  well as associated site improvements. While the proposed project would be visually different than  the existing structures on the project site, it would not create a degradation of the existing visual  character of the site. The change would be consistent with the existing community uses and park  setting. The proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the  project site and its surroundings. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant  impact related to visual character.  d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect  day or nighttime views in the area? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Lighting is currently installed around the existing buildings, parking lots, and in the uses surrounding  the project site. The proposed project would include exterior security lighting for the new  community center, playground, and parking areas. Lighting installed as a part of the proposed  project would result in lighting levels similar to current conditions on the project site and would not  result in a significant increase in light and glare over current conditions. Therefore, the proposed  project would not result in a significant impact to day or nighttime views in the project area, and this  impact would be less than significant.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐3 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES  In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead  agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)  prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on  agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,  are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the  California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,  including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and  the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California  Air Resources Board.    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Incorporated  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:   a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of  Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps  prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring  Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐ agricultural use?  b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a  Williamson Act contract?  c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest  land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),  timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section  4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as  defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?  d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land  to non‐forest use?  e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,  due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of  Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest  land to non‐forest use?    4.2.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide  Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and  Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use? (No Impact)  The project site is currently developed with the existing community center and Washington Park  Playground, and is surrounded by residential and other community uses. There are no agricultural  resources located on or near the project site. The project site is classified as “Urban and Built‐Up  Land” by the State Department of Conservation.7 Therefore, the proposed project would not result  7  California Department of Conservation, 2016. Division of Land Use Resource Protection. California  Important Farmland Finder. Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF (accessed July 6, 2018).    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐4 in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and  would have no impact.  b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?  (No Impact)  The project site is designated as Parks – Community on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map.8 The  project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.9 Therefore, the proposed project would have no  impact.  c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in  Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code  Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code  Section 51104(g))? (No Impact)  The project site is currently developed with the existing community center and Washington Park  Playground, and is surrounded by residential and other community uses, and is designated Parks –  Community. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,  forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the proposed  project would have no impact.  d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non‐forest use?  (No Impact)  Refer to Section 4.2.1.c. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or  conversion of forest land to a non‐forest use. Therefore, the proposed project would have no  impact.  e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location  or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest  land to non‐forest use? (No Impact)  Refer to Section 4.2.1.a and 4.2.1.c. The proposed project would not involve any other changes to  the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of  Farmland to a non‐agricultural use, or conversion of forest land to a non‐forest use. Therefore, the  proposed project would have no impact.  8  Burlingame, City of, 2000. City of Burlingame General Plan, Land Use Map. April.  9  California Department of Conservation, 2012. San Mateo County Williamson Act FY 2006/2007 (map).  Available online at: ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/SanMateo_06_07_WA.pdf (accessed July 6, 2018).  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐5 4.3 AIR QUALITY  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.    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable  air quality plan?   b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to  an existing or projected air quality violation?   c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any  criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐  attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air  quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed  quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?  d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant  concentrations?   e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of  people?     4.3.1 Impact Analysis  The proposed project is located in the City of Burlingame, and is within the jurisdiction of the Bay  Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco  Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved significantly since the  BAAQMD was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days  during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen substantially. In Burlingame, and  the rest of the air basin, exceedances of air quality standards occur primarily during meteorological  conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny  summer afternoons.   Within the BAAQMD, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen  dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (Pb) have been set by  both the State of California and the federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate  and visibility. The BAAQMD is under State non‐attainment status for ozone and particulate matter  standards. The BAAQMD is classified as non‐attainment for the federal ozone 8‐hour standard and  non‐attainment for the federal PM2.5 24‐hour standard.  a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan),10 which was  adopted on April 19, 2017. The Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air  quality and protect public health. The Clean Air Plan defines control strategies to reduce emissions  10  Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Clean Air Plan. April 19.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐6 and ambient concentrations of air pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air  pollutants that pose the greatest heath risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most  heavily affected by air pollution; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the climate.  Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project: 1) supports the goals of the  Clean Air Plan; 2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and 3) would not  disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.   Clean Air Plan Goals. The primary goals of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan are to: attain air quality  standards; reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and reduce  greenhouse gas emissions and protect climate.  The BAAQMD has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational  impacts at a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an  adverse impact on the region’s attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards  thresholds were established to help protect public health. As discussed in Section 3.3.1b,  implementation of the proposed project would result in less‐than‐significant operation‐period  emissions and, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, the project would result in less‐ than‐significant construction‐period emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the  Clean Air Plan goals.   Clean Air Plan Control Measures. The control strategies of the Clean Air Plan include measures in  the following categories: Stationary Source Measures, Transportation Measures, Energy Measures,  Building Measures, Agriculture Measures, Natural and Working Lands Measures, Waste  Management Measures, Water Measures, and Super‐Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Pollutants Measures.  Stationary Source Control Measures. The stationary source measures, which are designed to  reduce emissions from stationary sources such as metal melting facilities, cement kilns,  refineries, and glass furnaces, are incorporated into rules adopted by the BAAQMD and then  enforced by the BAAQMD’s Permit and Inspection programs. Since the project would not  include any stationary sources, the Stationary Source Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not  applicable to the project.  Transportation Control Measures. The BAAQMD identifies Transportation Measures as part of  the Clean Air Plan to decrease emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and  GHGs by reducing demand for motor vehicle travel, promoting efficient vehicles and transit  service, decarbonizing transportation fuels, and electrifying motor vehicles and equipment. The  proposed project would redevelop the Burlingame Community Center which would include  playground and site improvements and parking improvements. The Burlingame Community  Center would be located near Washington Park, Burlingame Lions Club, Burlingame High School,  and single‐family residential land uses, and therefore would provide community, meeting,  fitness, art, and educational uses near existing residential and recreational uses in addition to  public transportation. The overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area has  adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to school, transit services, and  other points of interest in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, although few of the local  streets within the project study area are designated as bike routes, due to their low speed limits  and traffic volumes, many streets in the vicinity of the project site are conducive to bicycle  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐7 travel. In addition, existing transit service to the study area is provided by the San Mateo County  Transit District (SamTrans), the City of Burlingame, and Caltrain. The project area is served  directly by a limited bus route, an express bus route, and a shuttle route. The nearest bus stop is  located at the Myrtle Road/Burlingame Avenue intersection, which is about 500 feet walking  distance west of the project site. The proposed project is also located within approximately 650  feet to the Burlingame Caltrain station. Additionally, the availability of LimeBikes, a shared  bicycle service, within the City promotes further bicycle use. Therefore, the project would  promote the BAAQMD’s initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled and would  increase the use of alternate means of transportation.  Energy Control Measures. The Clean Air Plan also includes Energy and Climate Control  Measures, which are designed to reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants and  reduce emissions of CO2. Implementation of these measures is intended to promote energy  conservation and efficiency in buildings throughout the community, promote renewable forms  of energy production, reduce the “urban heat island” effect by increasing reflectivity of roofs  and parking lots, and promote the planting of (low‐volatile organic compound [VOC]‐emitting)  trees to reduce biogenic emissions, lower air temperatures, provide shade, and absorb air  pollutants. The measures include voluntary approaches to reduce the heat island effect by  increasing shading in urban and suburban areas through the planting of trees. Implementation  of the proposed project would include paved areas that could result in a heating effect. The  proposed project would include 36 new trees throughout the project site. In addition, the  proposed project would be required to comply with the latest California Green Building  Standards Code (CALGreen) standard building measures and Title 24 standards. Therefore the  proposed project would not conflict with the Energy and Climate Control Measures.   Building Control Measures. The BAAQMD has authority to regulate emissions from certain  sources in buildings such as boilers and water heaters, but has limited authority to regulate  buildings themselves. Therefore, the strategies in the control measures for this sector focus on  working with local governments that do have authority over local building codes, to facilitate  adoption of best GHG control practices and policies. As identified above, the proposed project  would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standard building measures and Title 24  standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with these measures.  Agriculture Control Measures. The Agriculture Control Measures are designed to primarily  reduce emissions of methane. Since the project does not include any agricultural activities, the  Agriculture Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.  Natural and Working Lands Control Measures. The Natural and Working Lands Control  Measures focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands, as well as  encouraging local governments to ordinances that promote urban‐tree plantings. Since the  project does not include the disturbance of any rangelands or wetlands, the Natural and  Working Lands Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐8 Waste Management Control Measures. The Waste Management Measures focus on reducing  or capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic  materials away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce,  reuse, and recycle. The project would comply with local requirements for waste management  (e.g., recycling and composting services). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the  Waste Management Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.  Water Control Measures. The Water Control Measures focus on reducing emissions of criteria  pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from  publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems.  Since these measures apply to POTWs and local government agencies (and not individual  projects), the Water Control Measures are not applicable to the project.  Super GHG Control Measures. The Super‐GHG Control Measures are designed to facilitate the  adoption of best GHG control practices and policies through the BAAQMD and local government  agencies. Since these measures do not apply to individual projects, the Super‐GHG Control  Measures are not applicable to the project.  Clean Air Plan Implementation. As discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would  generally implement the applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including Transportation  Control Measures. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of a control  measure from the Clean Air Plan and this impact would be less than significant.  b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or  projected air quality violation? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  Both State and federal governments have established health‐based Ambient Air Quality Standards  for six criteria air pollutants: CO, ozone (O3), NO2, SO2, Pb, and suspended particulate matter (PM).  These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable  margin of safety. As identified above, the BAAQMD is under State non‐attainment status for ozone,  PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The Air Basin is also classified as non‐attainment for both the federal  ozone 8‐hour standard and the federal PM2.5 24‐hour standard.  Air quality standards for the proposed project are regulated by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality  Guidelines. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to meet air quality standards for  operational‐related criteria air pollutant and air precursor impacts, the project must not:   Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards;   Generate average daily construction emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), NOx or PM2.5  greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or   Generate average operational emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 of greater than 10 tons per year  or 54 pounds per day or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐9 The following sections describe the proposed project’s construction‐ and operation‐related air  quality impacts and CO impacts.  Construction Emissions. During construction, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to  the release of particulate emissions generated by demolition, excavation, grading, hauling, and  other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO,  NOx, ROG, directly‐emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust  particulate matter.  Site preparation and project construction would involve demolition, grading, paving, and building  activities. Construction‐related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest  during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these  activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include  disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would  deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it  dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of  construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture,  silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would  settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the  construction site.  Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50  percent or more. The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust  emissions (PM10). With the implementation of these Basic Construction Mitigation Measures,  fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.   In addition to dust‐related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by  gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs, and some soot particulate (PM2.5  and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the  area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic.  These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the  construction site.  Construction emissions were estimated for the project using the California Emissions Estimator  Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2, consistent with BAAQMD recommendations. The project would  include the demolition of approximately 25,000 square feet of building area, which was included as  an input to the CalEEMod analysis. Other construction details are not yet known; therefore, default  assumptions (e.g., construction fleet activities and excavation depths associated with the below‐ ground level parking) from CalEEMod were used. The entire construction duration is expected to  occur for approximately 24 months, commencing in fall 2020. Construction‐related emissions are  presented in Table 4.A. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐10 Table 4.A: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day  Project Construction ROG NOx  Exhaust PM10  Exhaust PM2.5   Average Daily Emissions 1.9 11.7 0.6 0.5  BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0  Exceed Threshold? No No No No  Source: LSA (July 2018).     As shown in Table 4.A, construction emissions associated with the project would be less than  significant for ROG, NOx, PM2.5, and PM10 exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD requires the implementa‐ tion of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction fugitive dust  impacts to a less‐than‐significant level as follows:   Mitigation Measure AIR‐1:  Consistent with the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures required  by the BAAQMD, the following actions shall be incorporated into  construction contracts and specifications for the project:   All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,  graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two  times per day.   All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material  off‐site shall be covered.   All visible mud or dirt tracked‐out onto adjacent public roads  shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at  least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.   All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.   All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be  completed as soon as possible.   Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading  unless seeding or soil binders are used.   Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off  when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5  minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control  measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations  [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers  at all access points.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐11  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly  tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All  equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and  determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.   A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number  and person to contact at the City of Burlingame regarding dust  complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action  within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible  to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.   Operational Air Quality Emissions. Long‐term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated  with area sources and mobile sources related to the proposed project. In addition to the short‐term  construction emissions, the project would also generate long‐term air pollutant emissions, such as  those associated with changes in permanent use of the project site. These long‐term emissions are  primarily mobile source emissions that would result from vehicle trips associated with the proposed  project. Area sources, such as natural gas heaters, landscape equipment, and use of consumer  products, would also result in pollutant emissions.  PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into  the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when  vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The  contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes.  Gasoline‐powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel‐ powered vehicles.    Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are  used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of electricity or  natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. Major sources of energy demand include  building mechanical systems, such as heating and air conditioning, lighting, and plug‐in electronics,  such as refrigerators or computers. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of  energy for a given activity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is  determined by the fuel source, with cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer  emissions than conventional sources. Area source emissions associated with the project would  include emissions from water heating and the use of landscaping equipment.  Emission estimates for operation of the project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are  shown in Table 4.B. Trip generation rates for the project were based on the project’s trip generation  estimates, as identified in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA),11 which estimates that the  proposed project would generate approximately 308 net new average daily trips, with 19 trips  occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 trips occurring during the PM peak hour.  11  Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2018. Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation  Impact Analysis. June 27.     BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐12 The primary emissions associated with the project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants  are rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the project;  emissions are released in other areas of the Air Basin. The daily emissions associated with project  operational trip generation, energy and area sources are identified in Table 4.B for ROG, NOx, PM10,  and PM2.5. The results shown in Table 4.B indicate the project would not exceed the significance  criteria for daily ROG, NO2, PM10 or PM2.5 emissions; therefore, the proposed project would not have  a significant effect on regional air quality and mitigation would not be required. This impact would  be less than significant.   Table 4.B: Project Operational Emissions    ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5  Pounds Per Day  Area Source Emissions 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0  Energy Source Emissions 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0  Mobile Source Emissions 0.4 1.5 1.1 0.3  Total Emissions 1.3 1.7 1.1 0.3  BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0  Exceed Threshold? No No No No  Tons Per Year  Area Source Emissions 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0  Energy Source Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Mobile Source Emissions 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1  Total Emissions 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1  BAAQMD Thresholds 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0  Exceed Threshold? No No No No  Source: LSA (July 2018).     Localized CO Impacts. The BAAQMD has established a screening methodology that provides a  conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in  significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project would  result in a less‐than‐significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening  criteria are met:    The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the  county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional  transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans;    Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000  vehicles per hour; and    The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000  vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel,  parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below‐grade roadway).  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐13 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the San Mateo Countywide  Transportation Plan (CTP) for designated roads and highways, a regional transportation plan, or  other agency plans. The project site is not located in an area where vertical or horizontal mixing of  air is substantially limited. As identified in the TIA, the project’s trip generation would be approxi‐ mately 308 net new average daily trips, with 19 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 trips  occurring during the PM peak hour; therefore, the project’s contribution to peak hour traffic  volumes at intersections in the vicinity of the project site would be well below 44,000 vehicles per  hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed  State or federal standards and this impact would be less than significant.  c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for  which the project region is non‐ attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air  quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone  precursors)? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  CEQA defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects, which when considered  together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. According  to the BAAQMD, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to,  by itself; result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual  emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, if  daily average or annual emissions of operational‐related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable  threshold established by the BAAQMD, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively  significant impact.   As discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would generate less‐than‐significant  operational emissions. As shown in the project‐specific air quality impacts discussion above, the  proposed project would not result in individually significant impacts and therefore would also not  make a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. This impact would be  considered less than significant.  d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less‐ Than‐Significant Impact)  Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and  medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose  lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be  aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with  construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non‐cancer health risks.  According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would: individually  expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one  million, increased non‐cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an  annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). A  significant cumulative impact would occur if the project in combination with other projects located  within a 1,000‐foot radius of the project site would expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in  an increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million, an increased non‐cancer risk of greater    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐14 than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic), or an ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 µg/m3 on an  annual average basis. Impacts from substantial pollutant concentrations are discussed below.   As described above, construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive  receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants  (i.e., usually diesel‐fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be  required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 described above. With implementation of this  mitigation measure, project construction pollutant emissions would be below the BAAQMD  significance thresholds. Once the project is constructed, the project would not be a source of  substantial pollutant emissions. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial  pollutant concentrations during project construction or operation, and potential impacts would be  considered less than significant.  e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less‐ Than‐Significant Impact)  During project construction, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these  odors would be temporary and limited to the construction period. The proposed project would not  include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors and once operational,  the project would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not create  objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than  significant.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐15 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  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 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 local or  regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California  Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service?   c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected  wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act  (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,  etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological  interruption, or other means?   d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any 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?   e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting  biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or  ordinance?   f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat  Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or  other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation  plan?    4.4.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project 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 Game  or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The topography of the City of Burlingame varies from mudflat adjacent to the San Francisco Bay to  hills in the west. However, most of the City, including the project site, is developed and contains  very little suitable habitat available for plant and animal species to exist. Some special‐status species  that have known occurrences in Burlingame include Ridgway’s rail, in coastal salt and brackish  marsh areas, and California red‐legged frog, in riparian corridors.12 The project site does not include  any coastal salt, brackish marsh, or riparian areas. Due to the developed nature of the project site  and the presence of buildings and associated hardscape, it is unlikely that the project site would  12  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐16 support any special‐status species. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐ significant impact related to special‐status species.  b. Would the project 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 California  Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact)  The project site is within a developed area and does not support any riparian or other sensitive  natural communities.13 Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to riparian  habitat or other sensitive natural communities.  c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined  by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,  etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)  The project site is within a developed area and is not located in an area that supports wetlands,  drainages, or water bodies as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.14 The proposed project  would not result in the direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of such wetlands.  Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on federally protected wetlands.  d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any 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? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The project site is a developed, landscaped area that supports wildlife species typically associated  with urban and suburban areas. Because the project site is within a developed area, there are not  major wildlife movement corridors that pass through or are adjacent to the site. Existing trees are  located throughout and around the project site. Trees and other landscape vegetation generally  have the potential to support nests of common native bird species. All native birds, regardless of  their regulatory status, are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish  and Wildlife Code. The proposed project would result in the removal of 41 trees. If conducted during  the breeding season (February through August), vegetation removal and construction activities  could directly impact nesting birds by removing trees or vegetation that support active nests.  Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting  birds to a less‐than‐significant level.  13  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. National Wetlands Inventory (Map). Website: www.fws.gov/ wetlands/data/Mapper.html (accessed July 26, 2018). June 25.  14  Ibid.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐17 Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: If feasible, all vegetation removal shall be conducted during the  non‐breeding season (i.e., September 1 to January 31) to avoid  direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work is scheduled during the  breeding season, a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall conduct  a pre‐construction survey to determine if any birds are nesting  within the project sites. The pre‐construction survey shall be  conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March  through May (since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate  nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of  work from June through July. If active nests are found during the  survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall determine an  appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be  allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the  buffer shall be determined by the biologist or ornithologist in  consultation with the California department of Fish and Wildlife,  and would be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to  disturbance, and the expected types of disturbance.  e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,  such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The City of Burlingame requires a permit for tree removals with the following characteristics:   Street trees, which are defined as any woody perennial plant having a single main axis or  stem more than 10 feet in height; or   Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural  grade; or   A tree or stand of trees 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 or  other factor; or   A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the  others for survival.15  As noted above, 41 of the 158 trees on the project site would be removed as a part of the proposed  project. The City would obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any protected trees.  Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting  biological resources, and this impact would be less than significant.  15  Burlingame, City of, 2018. Burlingame Municipal Code, as amended. May.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐18 f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural  Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation  plan? (No Impact)  The project site is not within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community  Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore,  the proposed project would have no impact.  4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a  historical resource as defined in §15064.5?   b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an  archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?   c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological  resource or site or unique geologic feature?  d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside  of formal cemeteries?    4.5.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource  as defined in §15064.5? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e., eligible for listing in the California  Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]), it generally must be 50 years or older. Under CEQA,  historical resources can include pre‐contact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic‐ period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts. The project site includes the  existing Community Center, a portion of which was constructed in the late 1940s, and which has  been significantly modified over time.16 However, the existing Community Center is not listed on the  State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory, which includes listings of the CRHR,  California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National  Register of Historic Places. Additionally, there are no known or recorded archaeological resources at  the project site.17 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change  in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5, and this impact would be  less‐than‐significant.  16  Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc., 2018. Burlingame’s New Community Center Conceptual  Design Executive Report. March.  17  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐19 b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological  resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The project site is currently developed with the existing community center and Washington Park  Playground, and is surrounded by residential and public uses. As noted above, there are no known  or recorded archaeological resources at the project site.18 However, it is possible that a currently  unknown cultural resource, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, could be encountered  during construction activities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure  that potential impact to archaeological resources that may be encountered during project activities  would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.  Mitigation Measure CULT‐1: Should an archaeological resource be encountered during project  construction activities, the construction contractor shall halt  construction within 25 feet of the find and immediately notify the  City. Construction activities shall be redirected and a qualified  archaeologist, in consultation with the City, shall: : 1) evaluate the  archaeological deposit to determine if it meets the CEQA definition  of a historical or unique archaeological resource and 2) make  recommendations about the treatment of the deposit, as  warranted. If the deposit does meet the CEQA definition of a  historical or unique archaeological resource then it shall be avoided  to the extent feasible by project construction activities. If avoidance  is not feasible, then adverse effects to the deposit shall be mitigated  as specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) (for historic  resources) or CEQA Section 21083.2 (for unique archaeological  resources). This mitigation may include, but is not limited to, a  thorough recording of the resource on Department of Parks and  Recreation Form 523 records, or archaeological data recovery  excavation. If data recovery excavation is warranted, CEQA  Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), which requires a data recovery  plan prior to data recovery excavation, shall be followed. If the  significant identified resources are unique archaeological resources,  mitigation of these resources shall be subject to the limitations on  mitigation measures for archaeological resources identified in CEQA  Sections 21083.2(c) through 21083.2(f).  18  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐20 c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or  unique geologic feature? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  Although there is no documentation that suggests paleontological resources are present within the  project site, there is a possibility that construction activities could uncover paleontological resources  beneath the surface. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that  potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.  Mitigation Measure CULT‐2: If paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation  or grading activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be  redirected until a qualified paleontologist has assessed the  discoveries and made recommendations. Paleontological resources  include fossil plants and animals, and evidence of past life such as  trace fossils and tracks.  If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, adverse  effects to such resources shall be avoided by project activities to the  extent feasible. If project activities cannot avoid the resources, the  adverse effects shall be mitigated in accordance with CEQA  Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). Mitigation may include data  recovery and analysis, preparation of a final report, and the formal  transmission or delivery of any fossil material recovered to a  paleontological repository, such as the University of California  Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). Upon completion of project  activities, the final report shall document methods and findings of  the mitigation and be submitted to the City’s Community  Development Department and a suitable paleontological repository.  d. Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal  cemeteries? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The potential to uncover Native American human remains exists in locations throughout California.  Although not anticipated, human remains could be identified during site‐preparation and grading  activities and could result in a significant impact to Native American cultural resources.   Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential adverse impacts to  human remains to a less‐than‐significant level.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐21 Mitigation Measure CULT‐3: If human remains are encountered during construction activities,  work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the San  Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately. At the same  time, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the  situation and consult with the appropriate agencies. If the human  remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the  Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this  identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will  identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and  provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains  and associated grace goods.  Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare  a report documenting the methods and results, and provide  recommendations for the treatment of human remains and any  associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination  with the recommendations of the MLD. The City shall follow the  recommendations outlined in the report and the report shall be  submitted to the City’s Community Development Department and  the Northwest Information Center.  4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse  effects, including the risk of loss, injury, 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 for 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 a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that  would become unstable as a result of the project, 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‐B of  the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks  to life or property?   e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of  septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems  where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste  water?     BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐22 4.6.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including  the risk of loss, injury, 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 for 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?  Fault Rupture. Fault rupture is generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have  exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., 11,000 years). Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault  Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would  require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within  the delineated area. The project site is not located within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.19  Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to fault rupture.  Seismic Ground Shaking. The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region of  intense seismic activity, as noted above. Ground shaking is likely to occur within the life of the  proposed project as a result of future earthquakes. The closest known active fault to the project site  is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 3 miles west of the project site. Other  active faults within 15 miles of the project site include the San Gregorio Fault and the Pilarcitos  Fault. Due to the proposed project’s location in a seismically active area, strong seismic ground  shaking at the project site is highly probable during the life of the proposed project. The intensity of  the ground shaking would depend on the characteristic of the fault, distance from the fault, the  earthquake magnitude and duration, and site‐specific geologic conditions. Conformance with the  California Building Code would ensure potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground  shaking would be reduced to less‐than‐significant levels.  Seismic Ground Failure. The potential for different types of ground failure to occur during a seismic  event is discussed below.  Liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers  located close to the ground surface. During ground shaking, these soils lose strength and acquire  “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most  susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine‐grained sands that  lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount  of fines (silt and clay) may also liquefy. The project site is located in an area of low liquefaction  19  California, State of, 1974. Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation – San  Mateo Quadrangle. July 1.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐23 risk.20 Additionally, compliance with the California Building Code would ensure potential impacts  associated with liquefaction would be less‐than‐significant.  Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which surficial soil displaces along a  shear zone that has formed within an underlying liquefied layer. Upon reaching mobilization,  the surface soils are transported downslope or in the direction of a free face by earthquake and  gravitational forces. The project site is relatively flat and development of the proposed project  would not exacerbate lateral spreading. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐ than‐significant impact related to lateral spreading.  Landslides. A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by  weak materials. The project site is located on a relatively flat area and is not located next to any  hills. The project site is considered Flatland, and therefore would not be susceptible to landslides.21  Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to expose people or structures to risk as a result of  landslides would be less than significant.  b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less‐Than‐Significant  Impact)  Topsoil is defined as the upper part of the soil profile that is relatively rich in humus and is  technically known as the A‐horizon of the soil profile.22 Grading and earthmoving during project  construction has the potential to result in erosion and loss of topsoil. Exposed soils could be  entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the project sites. However, this impact would be  reduced to a less‐than‐significant level through compliance with water quality control measures,  which include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (refer to Section 4.9,  Hydrology and Water Quality). Although designed primarily to protect stormwater quality, the  SWPPP would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion. Additional  details regarding the SWPPP are provided in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial  Study.  c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become  unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral  spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  As described in Section 4.6.1.a, soils on the project site would not be subject to liquefaction, lateral  spreading, or landslides. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to conform with the  California Building Code, which would reduce risks related to unstable soils. Therefore, the proposed  project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to unstable soils.  20  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.  21  Ibid.  22  California State Mining and Geology Board, 2014. Surface Mining Reclamation Act Regulations. California  Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐24 d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform  Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Less‐Than‐Significant  Impact)  Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content  of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink‐swell potential is influenced by the amount  and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume.23  Soils within the Alluvial zone, where the project site is located, contain clay, and therefore have  shrinking and swelling potential.24 However, compliance with California Building Code requirements  would ensure that geotechnical design of the proposed project would reduce potential impacts  related to expansive soils to a less‐than‐significant level. As such, the risk of expansive soil affecting  the proposed project is considered low and would represent a less‐than‐significant impact.  e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or  alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of  waste water? (No Impact)  The proposed project would connect to the City’s wastewater conveyance system. On‐site  treatment and disposal of wastewater is not proposed for the project; therefore, the proposed  project would have no impacts associated with soils incapable of supporting alternative wastewater  disposal systems.  4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or  indirectly, 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 emissions of greenhouse  gases?    4.7.1 Impact Analysis  Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or  are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen  as the principal contributors to human‐induced global climate change are:  23  Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2017. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed September 4).  24  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐25  Carbon dioxide (CO2);   Methane (CH4);   Nitrous oxide (N2O);   Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);   Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and   Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6).  Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the  atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and  enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, believed to be causing global warming. While manmade  GHGs include naturally‐occurring GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs,  and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere.  Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short‐lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmos‐ phere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is  excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short‐lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric  concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.   These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a concept developed to  compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP is  based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation  and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of  each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular  GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one  unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of  pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).  a.  Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may  have a significant impact on the environment? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  This section describes the proposed project’s construction‐ and operational‐related GHG emissions  and contribution to global climate change. The BAAQMD has not addressed emission thresholds for  construction in their CEQA Guidelines; however, the BAAQMD encourages quantification and  disclosure. Thus, construction emissions are discussed in this section.   Construction Activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce  combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through  the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each  of which typically use fossil‐based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil‐based fuels creates  GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐26 equipment. Exhaust emissions from on‐site construction activities would vary daily as construction  activity levels change.  The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG  emissions. However, lead agencies are encouraged to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that  would occur during construction. Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that construction of the proposed  project would generate approximately 621.8 metric tons of CO2e. Implementation of Mitigation  Measure AIR‐1 would reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of construction vehicle idling  and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment. Therefore, project construction impacts  associated with GHG emissions would be considered less than significant.  Operational Emissions. Long‐term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG  emissions from area and mobile sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with  energy consumption. Mobile‐source GHG emissions would include project‐generated vehicle trips  associated with trips to the proposed project. Area‐source emissions would be associated with  activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site, and other sources.  Following guidance from the BAAQMD, GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Table 4.C  shows the calculated GHG emissions for the proposed project. Motor vehicle emissions are the  largest source of GHG emissions for the project at approximately 64 percent of the total. Energy use  is the next largest category at 30 percent. Solid waste and water are about 5 percent and 1 percent  of the total emissions respectively. Additional calculation details are included in Appendix A.  Table 4.C: GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year)  Emissions Source  Operational Emissions  CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percent of  Total  Area Source Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0  Energy Source Emissions 93.0 0.0 0.0 93.6 30  Mobile Source Emissions 198.3 0.0 0.0 198.5 64  Waste Source Emissions 6.7 0.4 0.0 16.5 5  Water Source Emissions 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.3 1  Total Annual Emissions 311.9 100  BAAQMD Threshold 1,100 ‐  Exceed? No ‐  Source: LSA (July 2018).     According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a less‐than‐significant GHG impact if it would:    Result in operational‐related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 1,100 metric tons of CO2e a  year; or   Result in operational‐related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per  service population (residents plus employees).  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐27 Based on the results of the construction and operation analysis, the project would not generate  GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project would  generate 311.9 metric tons of CO2e which would be well below the BAAQMD numeric threshold of  1,100 metric tons CO2e. Operation of the proposed project would not generate significant GHG  emissions and would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to operational GHG emissions.  b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose  of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The City of Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan (CAP),25 adopted in June 2009, serves as a guiding  document to identify methods that the City and community can implement to significantly reduce  GHG emissions toward meeting the requirements mandated by Assembly Bill 32, California’s Global  Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires emissions to be reduced 15 percent below current  levels (as measured in 2005) by the year 2020 and to be reduced by 80 percent by the year 2050.  The CAP also provides a baseline of emissions, sets achievable targets as stipulated by AB 32, and  recommends steps to be taken to reduce emissions, increase sustainability, and improve quality of  life. The CAP provides strategies related to energy efficiency and green building, transportation and  land use, waste reduction and recycling, education and promotion, and municipal operations. The  following strategies are applicable to the proposed project:   Research methods to expand and enhance shuttles and public transportation services to  increase shuttle ridership and public transportation alternatives;   Encourage development that is mixed use, infill, and higher density;   Require recycling at major public events in Burlingame (of cardboard, paper, containers and  food/organics);   Adopt a Recycling Policy to achieve a citywide diversion rate of 75 percent measured diversion  by 2015; and   Adopt a Civic Green Building Policy that requires “Leadership in Energy and Environmental  Design” (LEED) a green building standard for new municipal construction and major remodels.  The proposed project would redevelop the Burlingame Community Center which would include  playground and site improvements and parking improvements. In 2016, the City adopted Chapter  18.30 Green Buildings Standards Code as part of the Municipal Code, which encourages projects to  comply with the 2016 CALGreen standard building measures and Title 24 standards. As discussed in  the Project Description, the proposed Burlingame Community Center would be designed to meet  seismic standards and meet the current California Building Code. Therefore, the proposed project  would comply with Chapter 18.30 of the Municipal Code. The City has not adopted a Civic Green  Building Policy, however, compliance with the latest CALGreen and Title 24 building standards, as  required by Chapter 9.35 of the Municipal Code, would result in enhanced energy efficiency over the  current building.   25  Burlingame, City of, 2009. City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan. June.     BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐28 In addition, the Burlingame Community Center would be located near Washington Park, Burlingame  Lions Club, Burlingame High School, and single‐family residential land uses, and therefore would  provide community, meeting, fitness, art, and educational uses near existing residential and  recreational uses in addition to public transportation. The overall network of sidewalks and  crosswalks in the study area has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to  school, transit services, and other points of interest in the vicinity of the project site. In addition,  although few of the local streets within the project study area are designated as bike routes, due to  their low speed limits and traffic volumes, many streets in the vicinity of the project site are  conducive to bicycle travel. In addition, existing transit service to the study area is provided by  SamTrans, the City of Burlingame, and Caltrain. The project area is served directly by a limited bus  route, an express bus route, and a shuttle route. The nearest bus stop is located at the Myrtle  Road/Burlingame Avenue intersection, which is about 500 feet walking distance west of the project  site. The proposed project is also located approximately 650 feet to the Burlingame Caltrain station.  Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with CAP strategies related to energy  efficiency and green building and transportation and land use.   In addition, as discussed above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in  GHG emissions and, therefore, is consistent with the CAP and would not generate emissions that  would exceed the project‐level significance criteria established by the BAAQMD. The project would  also be consistent with the strategies and policies included in the CAP. Therefore, the proposed  project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing  GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐29 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment  through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous  materials?   b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment  through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident  conditions involving 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 of an existing or proposed school?   d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous  materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code  Section 65962.5 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 2 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?   f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would  the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or  working in the project area?   g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an  adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation  plan?   h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury  or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands  are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are  intermixed with wildlands?     4.8.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the  routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Small quantities of commercially‐available hazardous materials (e.g., paint, cleaning supplies) would  be routinely used at the project site and in the new community center during operation. However,  the City would be required to comply with existing government regulations26 in its use and disposal  of these materials, and such materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quantity to create  a substantial risk to human or environmental health. Therefore, the proposed project would have a  less‐than‐significant impact related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.  26  The United States Environmental Protection Agency regulates “small‐quantity generators” (SQGs) of  hazardous wastes, which are defined as facilities that generate more than 100 kg (approximately 220 lbs),  but less than 1,000 kg (2,200 lbs), of hazardous waste per month.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐30 b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through  reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous  materials into the environment? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  As described above, small quantities of common hazardous materials would be used at the project  site during construction and operation of the proposed project. Improper use, storage, or handling  could result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment which could pose a risk to  construction workers and the public. However, the City would be required to comply with existing  government regulations in its use and disposal of these materials, and such materials would not be  used in sufficient strength or quantity to create a substantial risk to human or environmental health.  In July 2017, RestCon Environmental prepared an Asbestos Investigation at the existing Community  Center.27 The investigation found that there were Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) present in  building materials and paints throughout the existing Community Center.  The proposed project would be required to conform to all applicable local, State, and federal  regulations and standards pertaining to treatment and disposal of ACMs. These requirements would  include compliance with regulations set forth by the California State License Board, the Division of  Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US  EPA), and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) for removal of ACMS during  construction. Compliance with all applicable regulations would reduce any significant hazards to the  public or the environment.  Construction of the proposed project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of chemical  agents, solvents, paints, fuel and oil for construction equipment, and other hazardous materials that  are commonly associated with construction activities. The routine handling and use of hazardous  materials by construction workers would be performed in accordance with Occupational Safety and  Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, which include training requirements for construction  workers and a requirement that hazardous materials are accompanied by manufacturer’s Safety  Data Sheets (SDSs). Cal/OSHA regulations include requirements for protective clothing, training, and  limits on exposure to hazardous materials. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure  that construction workers are protected from exposure to hazardous materials that may be used on  site.  Because the proposed project would result in soil disturbance greater than 1 acre, management of  hazardous materials during construction activities would be subject to the requirements of the  Stormwater Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of an  SWPPP that includes hazardous materials storage requirements. For example, construction site  operators must store chemicals in watertight containers (with appropriate secondary containment  to prevent any spillage or leakage) or in a storage shed (completely enclosed).  In 1990 and 1994, the federal Hazardous Material Transportation Act was amended to improve the  protection of life, property, and the environment from the inherent risks of transporting hazardous  27  RestCon Environmental, 2017. Asbestos Investigation for 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010.  July 3.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐31 material in all major modes of commerce. The Department of Transportation (DOT) developed  hazardous materials regulations, which govern the classification, packaging, communication,  transportation, and handling of hazardous materials, as well as employee training and incident  reporting. The transportation of hazardous materials is subject to both federal Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act (RCRA) and DOT regulations. The California Highway Patrol, California Department of  Transportation (Caltrans), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) are responsible for  enforcing federal and State regulations pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials.  The proposed project would comply with existing government regulations (federal, State, regional,  and local) regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the  proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to the potential release of  hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities into the environment.  c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous  materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less‐ Than‐Significant Impact)  Refer to Section 4.8.1.a and 4.8.1.b. The City would be required to comply with all applicable local,  State, and federal regulations and standards related to hazardous emissions and materials. As noted  above, compliance with all applicable regulations would reduce any significant hazards to the public  or the environment related to hazardous materials, and the proposed project would have a less than  significant impact.  d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites  compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a  significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact)  The project site does not include any active storage sites listed on the San Francisco Bay Regional  Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) Leaking Underground Storage (LUST) database or the  Water Board’s site cleanup program,28 two of the component databases that comprise of the State  Cortese List of known hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.  Active sites are not listed for the project on other components of the Cortese List, including the  DTSC hazardous waste and substance list.29 Therefore, no impacts associated with locating a project  on a site included on a list of hazardous materials is expected to occur.  28  San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2018. GeoTracker. Website:  geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map (accessed July 24, 2018).  29  California, State of, 2018. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site  List. Website: www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public (accessed July 24, 2018).    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐32 e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been  adopted, within 2 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? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is the closest airport to the project site, located  approximately 2.5 miles to the north. The project site is within the boundary of the SFO Airport  Influence Area B, which requires new projects to demonstrate consistency with the goals and  policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed project would be two  stories in height, and would be consistent with existing building heights in the adjacent areas. The  proposed project would not increase the proposed residential density, would not be an  incompatible land use, would not increase the height such that it would create a hazard or  obstruction, and would not result in the addition of a characteristic that would create a hazard to air  navigation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to  airport safety hazards.  f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard  for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact)  The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed  project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project due to the  proximity of a private airstrip.  g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency  response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The proposed project would not result in any alterations of existing roadways. Therefore, the  proposed project would not interfere with any emergency evacuation routes within San Mateo  County or an adopted emergency response plan, and this impact would be less‐than‐significant.  h. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death  involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where  residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact)  The project site is located in an urban area and is not located within a very high fire hazard severity  zone.30 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss,  injury or death involving wildland fires and there would be no impact.      30  Cal Fire, 2008. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐33 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge  requirements?   b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere  substantially with groundwater recharge such that there  would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the  local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of  pre‐existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would  not support existing land uses or planned uses for which  permits have been granted)?  c. Substantially alter the 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  substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site?   d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or  area, including through the alteration of the course of a  stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount  of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding  on‐ or off‐site?   e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the  capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems  or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?   f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?   g. Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as  mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood  Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?   h. Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures which  would impede or redirect flood flows?   i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury  or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of  the failure of a levee or dam?   j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?    4.9.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Less‐ Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate  water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. In the Bay Area,  including the project site, the Water Board is responsible for implementation the Water Quality  Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water  bodies within the region.  Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)  Program (established through the federal Clean Water Act). The NPDES program objective is to  control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies. Compliance with NPDES permits is    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐34 mandated by State and federal statutes and regulations. Locally, the NPDES Program is administered  by the Water Board. According to the water quality control plans of the Water Board, any construc‐ tion activities, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of 1 acre or more would require  compliance with the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and  Land Disturbance Activity (Construction General Permit). The project site is approximately 2.41 acres  and as such, would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit.  The proposed project would be subject to the Water Board Municipal Regional Permit (MRP),  implemented in October 2009 by Order R2‐2009‐0074. Provision C.3 of the MRP requires new  development and redevelopment projects that would replace more than 10,000 square feet of  existing impervious surfaces to include post‐construction stormwater control in project designs.  Under the C.3 requirements, the preparation and submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP)  would be required for the project site. The purpose of an SCP is to detail the design elements and  implementation measures necessary to meet the post‐construction stormwater control  requirements of the MRP. In particular, SCPs must include Low Impact Development (LID) design  measures, which reduce water quality impacts by preserving and recreating natural landscape  features, minimizing imperviousness, and using stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste  product. The proposed project would also be required to prepare a Stormwater Facility Operation  and Maintenance Plan to ensure that stormwater control measures are inspected, maintained, and  funded for the life of the project.  As previously described, the proposed project would increase the total amount of impervious  surface on the project site. The increase in impervious surface could result in increased stormwater  runoff (both flow rate and volume) from the project site relative to pre‐project conditions, which  may result in hydromodification impacts (i.e., increased potential for erosion of creek beds and  banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased  erosive force.  Construction activities associated with the proposed project would cause disturbance of soil during  excavation work, which could adversely impact water quality. Contaminants from construction  vehicles and equipment and sediment from soil erosion could increase the pollutant load in runoff  being transported to receiving waters during development. Although surface runoff from the site  would likely decrease with the proposed project (due to the proposed stormwater treatment  measures), runoff from the proposed landscaped areas may contain residual pesticides and  nutrients (associated with landscaping) and sediment and trace metals (associated with atmospheric  deposition) during operation of the project. Operation of the proposed project could incrementally  contribute to the long‐term degradation of runoff water quality and as a result, adversely affect  water quality in the receiving waters and San Francisco Bay. The proposed project would be  considered a “regulated project” under the MRP, indicating that the State Water Resources Control  Board has determined the size and nature of the project has the potential to discharge a significant  pollutant load to stormwater runoff and receiving waters. Therefore, the potential discharges  associated with the proposed project are considered to be a potentially significant impact.  Implementation of the following two mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed project  complies with the Water Board’s water quality standards by reducing the potential construction‐  and operation‐period impacts to water quality to a less‐than‐significant level.   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐35 Mitigation Measure HYD‐1: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall prepare and  implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),  meeting Construction General Permit requirements (State Water  Resources Control Board Order No. 2009‐000–DWQ, as amended)  designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water  quality through the project construction period. The SWPPP shall be  submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance  of any permits for ground disturbing activities.  The SWPPP shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer in  accordance with the requirements of the Construction General  Permit. These include: Best Management Practices (BMPs) for  erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/ waste management, management of non‐stormwater discharges,  run‐on and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/ repair activities. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the  BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California  Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management  Handbook‐Construction.  The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program  that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of  pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending  on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving  waters. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall be responsible for  implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all required  monitoring and inspection/maintenance/repair activities.  Mitigation Measure HYD‐2: The project applicant shall fully comply with San Francisco Bay  Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater permit  requirements, including Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional  Permit. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a  Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) for the project. The SCP shall be  submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance  of any permits for ground disturbing activities. The SCP would act as  the overall program document designed to provide measures to  mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with the  operation of the proposed project. At a minimum, the SCP for the  project shall include:    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐36  An inventory and accounting of existing and proposed  impervious areas.   Low Impact Development (LID) design details incorporated into  the project. Specific LID design may include, but is not limited  to: using pervious pavements and green roofs, dispersing runoff  to landscaped areas, and/or routing runoff to rain gardens,  cisterns, swales, and other small‐scale facilities distributed  throughout the site.   Measures to address potential stormwater contaminants. These  may include measures to cover or control potential sources of  stormwater pollutants at the project site.   A Draft Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan for  the project site, which will include periodic inspection and  maintenance of the storm drainage system. Persons responsible  for performing and funding the requirements of this plan shall  be identified. This plan must be finalized prior to issuance of  building permits for the project.  b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with  groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of  the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would  drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits  have been granted)? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The proposed project would connect to the existing water lines located within Burlingame Avenue  and would not use groundwater at the site. Although no use of groundwater is proposed for the  proposed project, some dewatering may be required during construction. Any dewatering activities  would be expected to be temporary in nature. Therefore, the proposed project would not deplete  groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.  c. Would the project substantially alter the 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  substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The proposed project would not result in the alteration of the course of a stream or river. The  project site is located in a developed area and would not substantially alter the existing drainage  patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site.  Furthermore, compliance with construction‐ and operation‐phase stormwater requirements  (Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2) would further ensure that development of the project  would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site. Therefore, the proposed project  would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to existing drainage patterns.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐37 d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including  through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or  amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site? (Less‐Than‐ Significant with Mitigation)  Refer to Section 4.9.1.c. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage or  flooding pattern of the project site.  e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing  or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted  runoff? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  Refer to Section 4.9.1.a and 4.9.1.c. The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff that  would exceed the existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The proposed project could  potentially provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; however, implementation of  Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2 would ensure that potential impacts are reduced to less‐ than‐significant levels.  f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Less‐Than‐Significant  Impact)  Operation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial changes to on‐site water  quality, with the exception of the potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff described in  Section 4.9.1.a. The proposed project would not adversely affect water quality, and would have a  less‐than‐significant impact.  g. Would the project place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal  Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No  Impact)  The project site is not located within a 100‐year flood zone as mapped by FEMA.31 In addition, no  housing is included in the proposed project, and therefore no impact related to placement of  housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area would occur.  h. Would the project place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures which would impede or  redirect flood flows? (No Impact)  The project site is not located within a 100‐year flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA.32 Therefore,  the proposed project would have no impact related to the placement of structures within a  floodplain.  31  Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015. Flood Insurance Rate Map San Mateo County, California.  July 16.  32  Ibid.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐38 i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death  involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact)  The project site is not located within a mapped dam failure inundation area or within a 100‐year  flood hazard area.33 In addition, there are no levees protecting the site from flooding and as a result,  no risk of failure. Therefore, the potential of the proposed project to be subject to a significant risk  of loss, injury, or death involving flooding is less than significant.  j. Would the project be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact)  The project site and surrounding areas are generally level and would not be subject to mudflows.  The project site is located within close proximity to the San Francisco Bay. However, the project site  is not located within a mapped tsunami inundation area for Burlingame,34 and no seismically  induced seiche waves have ever been documented in the San Francisco Bay.35 Therefore, the  proposed project would not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or  mudflow.  4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Physically divide an established community?   b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or  regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project  (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,  local coastal program, 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?     4.10.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project physically divide an established community? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical  feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a  local road or bridge) that would impair mobility with an existing community, or between a  community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an  33  Ibid.   34  California, State of, 2009. California Emergency Management Agency. Tsunami Inundation Map for  Emergency Planning: San Mateo Quadrangle.   35  Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2017. Plan Bay Area  2040 Final Environmental Impact Report. July 16.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐39 existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such  construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.  Implementation of the proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing community  center and adjacent park, and the construction of a new community center and park. The proposed  project would not result in the realignment or closure of any existing roads. Therefore, the proposed  project would have a less‐than‐significant impact.  b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency  with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,  local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an  environmental effect? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The project site is designated as Parks – Community on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map36 and  has an unclassified zoning district on the City’s Zoning Map.37 Following is an evaluation of the  proposed project’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and Zoning  Ordinance. In reviewing this section, it is important to understand that the determination of  whether a project is consistent with a specific policy can be subjective, and that consistency  determinations are best made with a broad understanding of the often‐competing policy objectives  in a planning document. As a result, policy consistency determinations are ultimately made by the  local decision‐making body. As previously discussed, the City is the lead agency for environmental  review. Therefore, the City Council would determine the proposed project’s consistency with the  City’s applicable plans and policies. The analysis in this chapter is intended to provide decision‐ makers with a list of the goals and policies that are pertinent to the proposed project and the  project site, and a recommendation regarding whether or not the proposed project would directly  conflict with relevant planning directives. These recommendations are intended to supplement  decision‐makers’ own understanding of the various policy considerations. A conflict with an  applicable policy is not itself a significant impact unless it results in a significant environmental  impact, as described below.  Per CEQA Guidelines, policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, constitute significant environ‐ mental impacts. Policy conflicts are considered to be environmental impacts only when they would  result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or mitigating  environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this  Initial Study under specific topical sections.  As the project site has an unclassified zoning district and the proposed project would expand the  existing legally permitted use, a Conditional Use Permit would be required.38 The proposed project  would be consistent with the type and intensity of development assumed for the project site in the  General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and would not require any variances. Therefore, the proposed  36  Burlingame, City of, 2000. City of Burlingame General Plan, Land Use Map. April.  37  Burlingame, City of, 2016. Burlingame General Plan: Zoning – Southeast Areas. Available online:  www.burlingame.org/document_center/Zoning/ZoningMap‐Burlingame‐SE.pdf (accessed June 8, 2018).  38  Burlingame, City of, 2018. op. cit.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐40 project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of  avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect and this impact would be less than significant.  c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community  conservation plan? (No Impact)  Refer to Section 4.4.1.f. The proposed project would have no impact related to any applicable  Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.  4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource  that would be of value to the region and the residents of the  state?   b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral  resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,  specific plan or other land use plan?     4.11.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of  value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact)  There are no known mineral resources within or in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed  project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region  or residents of the State.39 Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.  b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource  recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact)  Refer to Section 4.11.1.a. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any  known locally‐important mineral resource recovery sites. Therefore, the proposed project would  have no impact.  39  Burlingame, City of, 2015. City of Burlingame General Plan. As amended.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐41 4.12 NOISE    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project result in:  a. Exposure of persons to or generation of 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 of excessive  groundborne vibration or groundborne noise 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  noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing  without the project?   e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,  where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a  public airport or public use airport, would the project expose  people residing or working in the project area to excessive  noise levels?  f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would  the project expose people residing or working in the project  area to excessive noise levels?     4.12.1 Impact Analysis  Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce  physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation,  or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular  location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound.  Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10‐fold  increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and 30 dB is 1,000 times more  intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness;  and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is  normally measured through the A‐weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the  frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A‐weighted sound level is the  basis for 24‐hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.   As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from  the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the  sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each  doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.    There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise  affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level  (Leq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant  rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq, the community noise  equivalent level (CNEL), and the day‐night average level (Ldn) based on dBA. CNEL is the time varying    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐42 noise over a 24‐hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring  from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise  occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but  without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are  within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the  noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.  A project would have a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise  levels for adjoining areas or be in conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable  regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Burlingame.  The City of Burlingame addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan40 and in the  Municipal Code. The Noise Element of the General Plan provides goals, policies, and implementation  programs in order to exclude and prohibit all annoying, excessive, and unnecessary noises from all  sources. The Noise Element also identifies maximum noise emission standards for construction  equipment operating within the City, which are summarized in Table 4.D below. The Noise Element  also states that no project shall emit noise past the property line so as to create a noise level  increase of more than 5 dBA over the ambient noise level.   Table 4.D: Maximum Allowable Noise Levels from  Construction Equipment  Equipment Peak Noise Level in dBA at 50 Feet  Earthmoving Front loader 75   Backhoes 75   Dozers  75   Tractors 75   Scrapers 80   Graders 75   Truck 75   Paver  80  Materials Handling Concrete Mixer 75   Concrete Pump 75   Crane 75   Derrick 75  Stationary Pumps 75   Generators 75   Compressors 75  Impact Pile Drivers 95   Jackhammers 75   Rock Drills  80   Pneumatic tools 80  Other Saws 75   Vibrators  75  Source: City of Burlingame (1975).     40  Burlingame, City of, 1975. City of Burlingame General Plan, Noise Element. September 15.   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐43 The Noise Element also sets noise exposure land use compatibility standards, as shown in Table 4.E  below.  Table 4.E: Planning Criteria – Maximum Outdoor Noise Levels (dBA)  Land Use Categories CNEL  Public, Quasi‐Public, and Residential:  Schools, Hospitals, Libraries, Auditoriums, Intensively Used Parks and Playgrounds, Public Buildings, Single  Family Home, Multiple Family Apartments and Condominiums, Mobile Home Parks   60  Passively‐Used Open Space:  Wilderness‐Type Parks, Nature or Contemplation Areas of Public Parks 45  Commercial:  Shopping Centers, Self‐Generative Business, Commercial Districts, Offices, Banks, Clinics, Hotels and Motels 65  Industrial:  Non‐Manufacturing Industry, Transportation, Communications, Utilities, Manufacturing 75  Source: City of Burlingame (1975).   Note: These criteria may be invoked for the following purposes:  a To determine the suitability of development on lands considered as receptors to which the standards apply; and   b To determine the suitability of building types and proposed construction materials to be applied on the site.    The Building Construction Section of the Municipal Code establishes permissible hours for  construction in the City of Burlingame.41 Chapter 18.07.110 states that no person shall erect,  demolish, alter, or repair any building or structure other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and  7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall erect (including  excavation and grading), demolish, alter, or repair any building or structure on Sundays or holidays.  In addition, Chapter 10.40.039 limits loading/unloading activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m.  and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on  Saturdays and Sundays if they would result in a noise disturbance across a residential real property  line.  Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these land uses  include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. A  portion of Washington Park and the lands of the former Gunst Estate are immediately north of the  project site. are Single‐family residential units and US 101 are further north of the project site. The  project site is bounded to the east by single‐family residential uses, which also make up the land  uses further east. Burlingame Avenue bounds the project site to the south, with single‐ and multi‐ family residential uses, as well as institutional uses, including Washington Elementary School. The  Burlingame Lions Club and Washington Park bound the project site to the west. Further west is  Burlingame High School, the Burlingame Aquatic Club, and the Burlingame Caltrain Station and  tracks. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include the single‐ family residences  located immediately east of the project site, along Burlingame Avenue and Concord Way.  41  Burlingame, City of, 2018. Burlingame Municipal Code. May.     BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐44 a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of  standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of  other agencies?  The following section describes how the short‐term construction and long‐term operational noise  impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant.  Short‐Term (Construction) Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short‐term noise  impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short‐term,  generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver  distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from  one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. The level and types of noise  impacts that would occur during construction are described below.   Short‐term noise impacts would occur during grading and site preparation activities. Table 4.F lists  typical construction equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments,  based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, obtained from the  FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. Construction‐related short‐term noise levels would be  higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur  once construction of the project is completed.  Table 4.F: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels  Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1  Backhoes 40 80  Compactor (ground) 20 80  Compressor 40 80  Cranes 16 85  Dozers 40 85  Dump Trucks 40 84  Excavators 40 85  Flat Bed Trucks 40 84  Forklift 20 85  Front‐end Loaders 40 80  Graders 40 85  Impact Pile Drivers 20 95  Jackhammers 20 85  Pick‐up Truck 40 55  Pneumatic Tools 50 85  Pumps 50 77  Rock Drills 20 85  Rollers 20 85  Scrapers 40 85  Tractors 40 84  Welder 40 73  Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006).  Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number.  1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be  consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.  Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐45 Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The  first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and  materials to the site, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As  shown in Table 4.F, there would be a relatively high single‐event noise exposure potential at a  maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 feet.   The second type of short‐term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading,  and construction on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each  with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various  sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise  levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction  equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction‐ related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.  Table 4.F lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical  construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise  receptor. Typical maximum noise levels range up to 87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest  construction phases. The site preparation phase, including excavation and grading of the site, tends  to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction  equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers,  draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors,  scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may  involve 1 or 2 minutes of full‐power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.  Excavation for the below ground level parking levels would take place on the eastern side of the  project site adjacent to the backyards of single‐family homes.   As shown in Table 4.F, typical construction equipment noise levels could exceed the standard  established by the City, which are shown in Table 4.D. However, construction noise would be  intermittent and sporadic as construction occurs over the 2.41‐acre site. Noise levels would  attenuate at sensitive receptors as construction activity moves further into the site due to distance  divergence factors. In addition, construction noise is permitted by the Municipal Code when  activities occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00  p.m. on Saturdays.  As discussed above, construction noise would result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient  noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Implementation of the  following mitigation measure for project construction would reduce potential construction period  noise impacts for the indicated sensitive receptors to less‐than‐significant levels.     BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐46 Mitigation Measure NOI‐1:  The project contractor shall implement the following best  management practice measures during construction of the project:   Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly  operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufac‐ turers' standards.   Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted  noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the  active project site.    Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the  greatest possible distance between construction‐related noise  sources and noise‐sensitive receptors nearest the active project  site during all project construction.   Install temporary noise barriers around stationary noise sources  (such as compressors) and locate stationary noise sources as far  from adjacent or nearby sensitive receptors as possible.   Prohibit extended idling time of internal combustion engines.    All construction equipment shall not exceed the noise levels  established in the General Plan (Table 4).    All noise producing construction activities shall be limited to  between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and  9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.   Designate a "disturbance coordinator" at the City of Burlingame  who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints  about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would  determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too  early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement  reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.   Operational Noise Impacts. The project would generate long‐term noise impacts from both traffic  and stationary noise sources, as discussed below.    Traffic Noise Impacts. Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the  dominant noise source in the project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many  factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic  speed, and distance from the observer. Implementation of the proposed project would result in  new daily trips on local roadways in the project site vicinity. A characteristic of sound is that a  doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perceptible (3 dBA or greater)  increase in the resulting noise level.   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐47 As identified in the TIA, the proposed project would generate approximately 308 net new  average daily trips, with 19 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 trips occurring  during the PM peak hour. The adjacent Burlingame Avenue carries approximately 2,240 average  daily trips. Project trips would represent a small fraction of the overall roadway traffic volumes.  Therefore, project daily trips would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes along any roadway  segment in the project vicinity and would not result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise  levels at receptors in the project vicinity. This impact would be less than significant.   Stationary Noise Impacts. The proposed project would redevelop the Burlingame Community  Center which would include playground and site improvements and parking improvements,  which could result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site with  additional parking and improved and increased outdoor play areas. Outdoor activity typically  generates maximum noise levels of 70 dBA Lmax.    The closest residential receptors are located approximately 390 feet east of the nearest outdoor  activity areas, which would provide a minimum of 38 dBA reduction in noise levels due to  distance. Therefore, maximum noise levels generated by the outdoor activity would be  approximately 32 dBA. The dominant noise source in the project vicinity is from traffic noise.  Vehicle passing on roadways result in approximately 60 dBA Lmax, while truck pass‐bys typically  generate noise levels of 80 dBA Lmax. Therefore, noise levels associated with the project,  including the outdoor active use areas would not be substantially greater than existing noise  sources. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial increases in noise at noise  sensitive land uses due to distance attenuation; therefore, this impact would be less than  significant.   In addition, with the increase in daily vehicle trips, use of the parking lot would intensify.  Implementation of the proposed project would include a surface parking lot and a below‐ground  level parking garage in the eastern corner of the project site. The surface parking lot would  include a drop‐off area adjacent to the new Community Center building.  Representative parking  lot activities, such as visitors conversing and slamming doors, would generate approximately 60  to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The proposed parking lot area is approximately 15 feet east of the  nearest sensitive receptors. Adjusted for distance, the nearest sensitive receptors would be  exposed to a noise level of 70 to 80 dBA Lmax generated by parking lot activities. Noise levels  associated with the surface parking lot would be higher than the below‐ground level parking  garage as the garage would shield the residences from project‐related parking lot noise. In  addition, as identified in Section 2.0, Project Description, the parking garage would also include  a vegetated sound wall along its norther border, which would reduce parking lot noise at the  nearest sensitive receptors. When averaged over a 24‐hour period, parking lot activities would  not cause an increase in noise levels of more than 3 dBA. Therefore it is not expected that the  proposed project would substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions and impacts  would be less than significant.  However, peak noise levels from loading and unloading would be intermittent and when  averaged over 30 minutes, these sources would not exceed the Municipal Code standard.  Additionally, when averaged over the 24‐hour period, noise would not cause an increase in  noise levels of more than 3 dBA. Therefore it is not expected that the proposed project would    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐48 substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions and impacts would be less than  significant.  b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne  vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost  exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Vibration  energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the foundations of  nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of  the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as the motion of building  surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a low‐frequency rumbling noise. The  rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves.  Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by  10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.  Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., pavement breaking and  operating heavy‐duty earthmoving equipment), and occasional traffic on rough roads. In general,  groundborne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25  feet of sensitive uses. Groundborne vibration levels from construction activities very rarely reach  levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are perceptible near the active construc‐ tion site. With the exception of old buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of historic  significance, potential structural damage from heavy construction activities rarely occurs. When  roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible.  The streets surrounding the project area are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant  groundborne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on‐ road vehicles make it unusual for on‐road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration  problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur and,  therefore, no vibration impact analysis of on‐road vehicles is necessary. Additionally, once  constructed, the proposed project would not contain uses that would generate groundborne  vibration. This impact would be less than significant.  c. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the  project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  As discussed above, audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or more, as  this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments.  Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial increases in traffic noise  levels on local roadways in the project vicinity or operational noise at sensitive receptor locations.  Therefore, project‐related noise increases would be less than significant.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐49 d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in  the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less‐Than‐Significant with  Mitigation)  Although there would be temporary high intermittent construction noise at times in the project area  during project construction, construction of the proposed project would not significantly affect land  uses adjacent to the project site. In addition, construction of the project would comply with the  hourly limits specified by the City, as required by Mitigation Measure NOI‐1. Therefore, the project  would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels.  e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,  within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing  or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)  The project area is not located within an airport land use plan, or within 2 miles of a public airport or  public use airport. The closest airport to the project site is San Francisco International Airport,  located approximately 2.2 miles north of the project site. In addition, the Oakland International  Airport is located approximately 10.8 miles northeast of the project site and the San Jose  International Airport is located approximately 26.3 miles south of the project site. Although aircraft‐ related noise is occasionally audible on the project site, the site does not lie within an airport land  use plan area or within the 60 dBA Ldn noise contours of any of these public airports or private  airfields. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the  project area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport.  f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or  working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)  The project is not located within 2 miles of a public or public use airport and would not expose  future site users to excessive noise levels.   4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Induce substantial population growth 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 of existing housing,  necessitating the construction of replacement housing  elsewhere?   c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the  construction of replacement housing elsewhere?      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐50 4.13.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,  by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads  or other infrastructure)? (No Impact)  The proposed project would be undertaken to provide the residents of the City with a new and  updated community center and improved park facilities and parking. The proposed project does not  include residential units and would not directly induce population growth on the project site. The  new community center would include similar staffing levels to the existing community center, and  therefore would not indirectly induce substantial population growth. Therefore, the proposed  project would have no impact related to population growth.  b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the  construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)  The project site is currently developed with park uses and City buildings, which does not include any  residential units. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of  existing housing. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to the displacement  of homes.  c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of  replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)  Refer to Section 4.13.1.b. The proposed project would have no impact related to displacement of  people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.  4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated  with the provision of new or physically altered governmental  facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental  facilities, the construction of which could cause significant  environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable  service ratios, response times or other performance  objectives for any of the public services:  i. Fire protection?  ii. Police protection?  iii. Schools?  iv. Parks?  v. Other public facilities?    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐51 4.14.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision  of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered  governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,  in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives  for any of the public services:  i. Fire protection?; ii. Police protection?; iii. Schools?; iv. Parks?; v.  Other public facilities? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The following section addresses the proposed project’s potential effects on: fire service, police  service, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Impacts to public services would occur if the  proposed project increases demand for services such that new or expanded facilities would be  required, and construction or operation of these new facilities would cause environmental impacts.  Fire Protection. The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) provides fire protection and emergency  medical services to the project site. The CCFD continuously operates six fire stations, including six  fire engines and one ladder truck. The CCFD responds to approximately 5,000 calls for service on an  annual basis.42 Primary service to the project site would be provided by Fire Station 34, which is  located at 799 California Drive, approximately 0.7 miles east of the project site. Fire Station 34  houses both an Engine Company and the Truck Company. Currently, the CCFD is staffed with 76  sworn firefighters and 9.95 full‐time equivalent (FTE) civilian staff.  The proposed project would result in an increase in the daytime population of the project site and  incrementally increase the demand for emergency fire service and emergency medical services  compared to existing conditions. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with  all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access. In addition, the CCFD would also review  the project site plans to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided prior to issuance of  building permits.  The CCFD would continue providing services to the project site and would not require additional  firefighters to serve the proposed project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would  not be required. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the physical  environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services,  and the potential increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing  responses times to the site or within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the  proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on fire protection and safety services  and facilities.  Police Protection. The Burlingame Police Department (BPD) provides police protection to the  project site. The BPD headquarters are located at 1111 Trousdale Drive, approximately 2.7 miles  northwest of the project site. BPD currently employs 37 sworn police officers and 25 civilian staff.43  The proposed project would result in an increase in daytime population on the project site and  42  Central County Fire Department, 2018. CCFD Overview. Website: www.ccfdonline.org/about‐ccfd/ccfd‐ overview (accessed June 26, 2018).  43  Burlingame Police Department, 2018. About Us. Website: www.burlingame.org/departments/ police_department/about_us.php (accessed June 26, 2018).    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐52 incrementally increase demand for emergency police services to the project site compared to  existing conditions. However, BPD would continue to provide services to the project site and would  not require additional officers to serve the project site. The construction of new or expanded police  facilities would not be required. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial  adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services, and impacts  to police services represent a less‐than‐significant impact.  Schools. The proposed project does not include the construction of any new residential uses. As  described in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not substantially  induce housing or population growth, either directly or indirectly, within the City. Therefore, the  proposed project would not result in an increase in the number of school‐age children in the area.  As such, the proposed project would not increase demand for schools and no impact would occur.  Parks. The project site is located within the existing Washington Park, which includes tennis courts,  a children’s playground, and baseball facilities, among other amenities. As a part of the proposed  project, improvements would be made to Washington Park, including updating the children’s  playground and moving it further away from Burlingame Avenue, and updating the basketball court.  Portions of Washington Park would be inaccessible during construction of the proposed project,  therefore increasing demand for other nearby parks. However, this impact would be temporary in  nature and would subside after construction of the proposed project is complete. Therefore, the  proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to the provision of park facilities.  Other Public Facilities. The project site includes the existing Burlingame Community Center. During  construction of the proposed project, the existing Community Center would be inaccessible to  residents of the City. However, this impact would be temporary in nature and would subside after  construction of the proposed project is complete. Once complete, the proposed project would result  in a larger community center with more capacity to serve users. Therefore, the proposed project  would reduce demand at other public facilities, and this impact would be less‐than‐significant.  4.15 RECREATION    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood  and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that  substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur  or be accelerated?  b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the  construction or expansion of recreational facilities which  might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐53 4.15.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other  recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be  accelerated?  Refer to Section 4.14.1.a. The proposed project would temporarily increase use at other parks  during the construction period; however, this impact would be temporary in nature and would  subside after construction of the proposed project is complete. Additionally, improvements made to  Washington Park as a part of the proposed project may decrease use at other parks once the project  is completed. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on existing  parks.   b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of  recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?  Refer to Section 4.14.1.a and 4.15.1.a. The proposed project would have a minor beneficial impact  on existing recreation facilities, and this impact would be less‐than‐significant.  4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy  establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance  of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of  transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized  travel and relevant components of the circulation system,  including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways  and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass  transit?  b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management  program, including, but not limited to level of service  standards and travel demand measures, or other standards  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 which results  in substantial safety risks?  d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,  sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible  uses (e.g., farm equipment)?  e. Result in inadequate emergency access?  f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding  public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise  decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐54 The following section is based on information provided in the Transportation Impact Analysis44 (TIA)  prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, included in Appendix B.  The TIA evaluates the transportation impacts that could result from the proposed project, including  impacts associated with traffic congestion, transit services, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation.   4.16.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of  effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of  transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the  circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,  pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Overview. The TIA for the proposed project was conducted in accordance with the standards set  forth by the City of Burlingame and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San  Mateo County. The C/CAG administers the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program  (CMP). Given that the project is expected to add fewer than 100 peak hour trips to nearby CMP  roadways (El Camino Real), a C/CAG trip reduction analysis was not prepared. The traffic study  includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for six (6) unsignalized intersections  in the vicinity of the project site.45 The study also includes an analysis of site access and on‐site  circulation, vehicle queuing, and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access. Based on consultation with  the City as the Lead Agency, the following intersections were analyzed for the proposed project:  1. Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue  2. California Drive and North Lane  3. Carolan Avenue and North Lane  4. Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue  5. Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue  6. Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue  Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for both the weekday AM and PM peak  hours of adjacent street traffic. The AM peak hour typically occurs between 7:00 am and 9:00 am  and the PM peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm on a regular weekday. These  are the peak commute hours during which traffic volume is highest on the roadways in the study  area.   44  Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2018, op. cit.  45  Intersections along Rollins Road and El Camino Real, as well as other intersections in the vicinity of the  project site, were not analyzed due to their distance from the project site and the small number of trips  that would be added to these intersections as a result of the proposed project.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐55 Study intersections were evaluated under five different scenarios to determine the proposed  project’s effects on level of service. These scenarios provide detailed analysis of the incremental  effects of the proposed project on traffic conditions, and allow a comparison of the traffic  anticipated to be generated by the proposed project to the amount of traffic expected to be  generated by future development. Each of the scenarios is described below.   Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes at the study intersections were obtained from  traffic counts conducted in May of 2017 and 2018. The study intersections were evaluated with  a level of service analysis using Synchro software in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity  Manual methodology.Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes reflect traffic added  by projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments in the project area.  The approved project trips and/or approved project information were obtained from recent  traffic studies in the City of Burlingame.   Existing plus Project Conditions. Existing traffic volumes with the project were estimated by  adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Existing plus  Project conditions were evaluated relative to Existing Conditions in order to determine the  effects the project would have on the existing roadway network.   Project Conditions. Background traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic  volumes) were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic  generated by the project. Project Conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions  to determine potential project impacts.   Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes represent traffic growth through the year  2028. Cumulative traffic volumes were estimated by applying an annual growth factor of 1.0  percent to the existing volumes, then adding trips from approved developments, as well as  project‐generated traffic. Cumulative plus Project conditions were evaluated relative to  cumulative no project conditions to determine potential project impacts.    Analysis Methodology. Traffic conditions within the study area are assessed through the evaluation  of intersection Levels of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions  ranging from LOS A, or free‐flowing conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions  with excessive delays.  Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for  modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all‐way stop or signalization). As part of the  evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the  existing intersection control is appropriate.  The City of Burlingame evaluates intersection level of service based on the Highway Capacity Manual  (HCM) 2010 method using Synchro software.46 This method is applicable for both side‐street and all‐ 46  The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) does not support intersections with three stop or yield‐ controlled approaches and one free‐flowing approach. Intersections with these features were evaluated  as an all‐way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐56 way stop‐controlled intersections. At side‐street stop‐controlled intersections (e.g., the Myrtle  Road/Burlingame Avenue and Anita Road/Burlingame Avenue intersections), the levels of service  reported are for the worst stop‐controlled approach delay. For all‐way stop‐controlled intersections  (e.g., the Carolan Avenue/Oak Grove Avenue, Carolan Avenue/North Lane, and the Carolan  Avenue/Burlingame Avenue intersections), a weighted average delay of the entire intersection is  presented.  The City of Burlingame does not have a formally‐adopted level of service standard for unsignalized  intersections. While the City of Burlingame does not have a Council‐adopted level of service  threshold for unsignalized intersections, a standard of LOS D or better has typically been applied in  local traffic studies and EIRs. The correlation between average control delay and LOS for  unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 4.G.  Table 4.G: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay  Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle  (sec.)  A Little or no traffic delay Up to 10.0  B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0  C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0  D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0  E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0  F Extreme traffic delays Greater than 50.0  Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010).  As previously mentioned, the City of Burlingame does not have any Council‐adopted definitions of  significant traffic impacts. Standards that have been typically used in traffic studies and EIRs are  described below. The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at an  unsignalized intersection if for any peak‐hour:  1. The level of service at the intersection (or movement/approach at side‐street stop controls)  degrades from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E or F and causes the intersection to  meet the peak hour signal warrant; or  2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E, or F and the addition of project  trips causes the intersection to meet the peak hour signal warrant and the intersection (or  movement/approach at side‐street stop controls) to increase by five (5) or more seconds.  A significant impact typically is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented  that would restore intersection level of service to insignificant conditions or better.  Project Trip Estimates. The amount of traffic produced by a new development and the locations  where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three‐step process: (1) trip generation;  (2) trip distribution; and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude  of traffic traveling to and from the proposed community center was estimated for the AM and PM  peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips  would travel were estimated.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐57 Project trip generation was estimated by applying to the size and uses of the development the  appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip  Generation Manual, 10th Edition.47 The average trip generation rates for Recreational Community  Center (Land Use 495) were applied to the project. The ITE trip rates reflect between 10 and 13  surveyed recreational community center locations during peak hours and comprise building sizes  ranging from 30,000 square feet to 350,000 square feet. The project as proposed would replace the  existing 25,000‐square‐foot recreation center with a new 35,700‐square‐foot community center.  Based on ITE trip generation rates for Land Use 495, the project would generate 308 new daily  vehicle trips, with 19 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 new trips occurring during  the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 4.H.   Table 4.H: Project Trip Generation Estimates    Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour  Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total  Proposed Uses             Burlingame Community Center1 35.7 ksf 28.82 1,029 1.76 41 22 63 2.31 39 43 82  Existing Uses             Recreation Center1 25.0 ksf 28.82 (721) 1.76 (29) (15) (44) 2.31 (27) (31) (58)  Net Project Trips    308  12 7 19  12 13 25  Source: Draft Transportation Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2018)  1 Recreational Community Center (Land Use 495) average rates published in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, 106y Edition, 2017.  ksf = 1,000 square feet    The trip distribution pattern, shown in Figure 4‐1, for the project was developed based on existing  travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses.  The peak hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in  accordance with the trip distribution pattern.  Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4‐2 and  the result of the intersection LOS analysis under Existing Conditions are shown in Table 4.I. As shown  in Table 4.I, all intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS.  47  Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2018. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. March.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐58 Existing plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4‐3and the results of the intersection LOS  analysis under Existing plus Project Conditions are shown in Table 4.I. As shown in Table 4.I, all of  the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak  hours. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the operations of  any study area intersections under Existing plus Project Conditions.  Table 4.I: Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary      No Project With Project  Study  Number Intersection Traffic  Control  Peak  Hour  Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS  1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 14.0 B 14.1 B  PM 12.1 B 12.1 B  2 California Drive and North Lane SSSC3 AM 21.2 C 21.8 C  PM 29.1 D 29.7 D  3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane1 AWSC2 AM 10.2 B 10.2 B  PM 8.9 A 8.9 A  4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and  Burlingame Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 8.3 A 8.4 A  PM 8.6 A 8.7 A  5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 10.4 B 10.5 B  PM 10.6 B 10.8 B  6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 7.8 A 7.8 A  PM 7.7 A 7.7 A  Source: Draft Transportation Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2018)  1 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane,  and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield‐controlled approaches and one free‐flowing approach.  Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all‐way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service  analysis.  2 Average delay for an all‐way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection.  3 Average delay for a side‐street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop‐controlled approach.  AWSC = All‐Way Stop Control  sec = seconds  LOS = level of service+  SSSC = Side‐Street Stop Control  Background and Background Plus Project Conditions. The results of the intersection LOS analysis  under Background Conditions are shown in Table 4.J. As shown in Table 4.J, all intersections  currently operate at an acceptable LOS.  Background plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4‐4 and the results of the intersection  LOS analysis under Background plus Project Conditions are shown in Table 4.J. As shown in Table 4.J,  all of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM  peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the  operations of any study area intersections under Background plus Project Conditions.  California DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimrose RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorthLnSouth LnSouthLnNorth LnSouth Ln14325625%15%15%15%10%10%10%LEGEND= Study Intersection= Site LocationXNOT TO SCALEFIGURE 4-1SOURCE: HEXAGON, JUNE 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_4.16-1.ai (7/17/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectProject Trip DistribuƟon California DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimros e RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln143256CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorthAveAveGroveOakCarolanAveBurlingameAnitaRdAveBurlingame432156NorthLnBurlingameAveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy70(34)69(82)23(41)12(19)101(101)171(179)11(22)146(133)7(20)298(208)144(126)123(46)689(833)164(86)174(111)554(676)33(45)144(94)64(98)127(96)11(8)2(3)118(129)125(68)207(51)28(6)86(121)16(33)9(5)16(13)0(1)1(2)12(5)115(87)12(17)23(28)105(121)19(23)3(2)65(59)107(145)92(107)19(20)125(126)40(23)19(11)31(22)102(85)3(1)92(106)25(32)9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)CaliforniaDrLEGEND= Site Location= Study Intersection= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)XNOT TO SCALEFIGURE 4-2SOURCE: HEXAGON, JUNE 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_4.16-2.ai (7/17/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectExisƟng Traffic Volumes California DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimrose RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorthLnSouth LnSouthLnNorth LnSouth Ln143256CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorthAveAveGroveOakCarolanAveBurlingameAnitaRdAveBurlingame432156NorthLnBurlingameAveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy70(34)70(84)24(43)12(19)103(103)171(179)13(24)146(133)7(20)298(208)144(126)123(46)689(833)165(87)176(113)554(676)34(46)145(96)66(101)129(100)11(8)2(3)122(133)125(68)207(51)28(6)89(124)16(33)10(6)17(14)0(1)0(1)1(2)12(5)115(88)12(17)29(34)105(121)19(23)3(2)65(59)114(152)92(107)19(20)129(133)40(23)20(12)32(23)102(86)3(1)93(107)25(32)9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)CaliforniaDrLEGEND= Site Location= Study Intersection= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)XNOT TO SCALEFIGURE 4-3SOURCE: HEXAGON, JUNE 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_4.16-3.ai (7/17/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectExisƟng Plus Project Traffic Volumes California DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimrose RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorthLnSouth LnSouthLnNorth LnSouth Ln143256CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorthAveAveGroveOakCaliforniaDrCarolanAveBurlingameAnitaRdAveBurlingame432156NorthLnBurlingameAveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy70(34)70(84)24(45)12(19)103(103)176(181)13(24)146(133)7(20)299(211)144(126)123(46)695(861)165(87)176(113)581(683)34(46)145(96)66(101)129(100)11(8)2(3)122(133)125(68)207(51)28(6)89(124)16(33)10(6)17(14)0(1)0(1)1(2)12(5)115(88)12(17)29(34)105(121)19(23)3(2)65(59)114(152)92(107)19(20)129(133)40(23)20(12)32(23)102(86)3(1)93(107)25(32)9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)LEGEND= Site Location= Study Intersection= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)XNOT TO SCALEFIGURE 4-4SOURCE: HEXAGON, JUNE 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_4.16-4.ai (7/17/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectBackground Plus Project Traffic Volumes PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐63 Table 4.J: Background Plus Project Level of Service Summary      No Project With Project  Study  Number Intersection Traffic  Control  Peak  Hour  Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS  1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 14.1 B 14.2 B  PM 12.1 B 12.2 B  2 California Drive and North Lane SSSC3 AM 21.8 C 22.3 C  PM 30.7 D 31.5 D  3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane1 AWSC2 AM 10.2 B 10.2 B  PM 8.9 A 8.9 A  4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and  Burlingame Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 8.3 A 8.4 A  PM 8.6 A 8.7 A  5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 10.4 B 10.5 B  PM 10.6 B 10.8 B  6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 7.8 A 7.8 A  PM 7.7 A 7.7 A  Source: Draft Transportation Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2018)  1 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane,  and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield‐controlled approaches and one free‐flowing approach.  Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all‐way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service  analysis.  2 Average delay for an all‐way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection.  3 Average delay for a side‐street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop‐controlled approach.  AWSC = All‐Way Stop Control  sec = seconds  LOS = level of service+  SSSC = Side‐Street Stop Control    Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The results of the intersection LOS analysis  under Cumulative Conditions are shown in Table 4.K. As shown in Table 4.K, all intersections  currently operate at an acceptable LOS, with the exception of California Drive and North Lane, which  would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour.  Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4‐5 and the results of the intersection  LOS analysis under Cumulative plus Project Conditions are shown in Table 4.K. As shown in Table  4.K, all of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and  PM peak hours, with the exception of California Drive and North Lane, which would continue to  operate at LOS E. However, the addition of project traffic would not create a significant impact at  this intersection because the increase to the stop‐controlled delay per vehicle would be less than  the standard threshold of 5 seconds. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a  significant impact on the operations of any study area intersections under Cumulative plus Project  Conditions.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐64 Table 4.K: Cumulative Level of Service Summary      No Project With Project  Study  Number Intersection Traffic  Control  Peak  Hour  Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS  1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 16.4 C 16.5 C  PM 13.2 B 13.3 B  2 California Drive and North Lane SSSC3 AM 28.3 D 29.6 D  PM 46.5 E 49.2 E  3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane1 AWSC2 AM 10.8 B 10.9 B  PM 9.1 A 9.2 A  4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and  Burlingame Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 8.5 A 8.6 A  PM 9.0 A 9.0 A  5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 10.6 B 10.7 B  PM 11.0 B 11.1 B  6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 7.9 A 8.0 A  PM 7.8 A 7.8 A  Source: Draft Transportation Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2018)  1 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and  Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield‐controlled approaches and one free‐flowing approach. Therefore,  the study intersections were evaluated as an all‐way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis.  2 Average delay for an all‐way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection.  3 Average delay for a side‐street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop‐controlled approach.  AWSC = All‐Way Stop Control  sec = seconds  LOS = level of service+  SSSC = Side‐Street Stop Control  BOLD indicates a substandard level of service.    b. Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but  not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards  established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?  (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The C/CAG administers the CMP of San Mateo County. Per CMP technical guidelines, all new  developments estimated to add at least 100 net peak hour trips to the CMP roadway network are  required to implement Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures in accordance with the C/CAG  CMP checklist. The proposed project is expected to add fewer than 100 net peak hour vehicle trips  to the CMP roadway network. Additionally, there are no CMP intersections located within the  vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable  CMP or other standards set forth by the C/CAG, and this impact would be less than significant.  c. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic  levels or a change in location which results in substantial safety risks? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The San Francisco International Airport is the closest airport to the project site, located approxi‐ mately 2.5 miles to the north. As noted in Section 4.8.1.e, the proposed project would not result in a  change in air traffic levels or a change in location which result in substantial risks, and there would  be a less‐than‐significant impact.  California DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimrose RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorthLnSouth LnSouthLnNorth LnSouth Ln143256CaliforniaDrLEGEND= Site Location= Study Intersection= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)XNOT TO SCALEFIGURE 4-5SOURCE: HEXAGON, JUNE 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_4.16-5.ai (7/17/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectCumulaƟve Plus Project Traffic Volumes   BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐66 This page intentionally left blank     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐67 d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or  dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less‐Than‐Significant  Impact)  Vehicle queuing, site access, and on‐site circulation issues that could contribute to hazardous  conditions are discussed below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.  Site Access and Vehicle Queuing. The proposed project would replace two of the existing partial‐ access driveways, east of the Anita Road/Burlingame Avenue intersection, with a single full‐access  driveway. The project as proposed would provide a width of 18 feet for the proposed driveway that  would provide access to the surface parking area and the subterranean parking garage adjacent to  the building. The City of Burlingame Zoning Code requires a minimum of either two 12‐foot  driveways or one 18‐foot driveway for parking areas of more than 30 vehicle spaces. Therefore, the  project site plan would conform to the City’s minimum width requirement for a two‐way driveway.  The location of the project driveway was also reviewed with respect to other driveways in the  vicinity of the project site. Nearby driveways are located across from and approximately 50 feet  west of the exit‐only driveway of the City‐owned parking Lot X on Burlingame Avenue. Similarly,  nearby residential driveways and an alleyway are located across from the proposed driveway  leading to the parking area adjacent to the community center building. While both project  driveways would be close in proximity to the neighboring driveways, vehicles are still expected to be  able to make turns in and out of the project driveway without affecting similar operations at the  adjacent driveways due to the low traffic volumes and speed along Burlingame Avenue. Therefore,  the driveway location as proposed was found to be adequate.  There are no existing trees or visual obstructions along the project frontage that could obscure sight  distance at the project driveway. The project access points should be free and clear of any  obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see  pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles and bicycles traveling on Burlingame Avenue. Any  landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers  exiting the site.  Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at the project driveway in  accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10  feet back from the traveled way. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a  collision at a driveway or intersection and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or  locate sufficient gaps in traffic. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the  Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway  speeds. For driveways on Burlingame Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, the  Caltrans stopping sight distance is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph). Thus, a driver must  be able to see 200 feet in both directions along Burlingame Avenue in order to stop and avoid a  collision. Based on the project site plan, it can be concluded that the project driveways would meet  the Caltrans stopping sight distance standards.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐68 The project‐generated gross trips that are estimated to occur at the project driveway are 41  inbound trips and 22 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 39 inbound trips and 43  outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Based on the relatively low traffic volumes near the  project site and observations of existing traffic operations along Burlingame Avenue, vehicle queues  should rarely exceed 1 or 2 vehicles in length during the peak hours.  The project driveway adjacent to the community center building would provide full‐access, allowing  right and left inbound and outbound turns to and from Burlingame Avenue. Outbound left turns  from the project driveway would require vehicles to wait for gaps in traffic in both the eastbound  and westbound directions, while inbound left turns would require vehicles to wait for a gap in the  westbound traffic flow only. Given that Burlingame Avenue consists of only one lane in each  direction with no left‐turn pockets, inbound left turns at the project driveway would be made from  the through lane. Thus, there would be interruptions to the through traffic flow while left‐turn  vehicles wait for a gap in the on‐coming traffic flow, albeit momentary. Driveways at the City‐owned  parking lot would operate similarly, except the partial‐access driveway, which only allows right and  left outbound turns.  A level of service analysis was conducted for left turns at the project driveways to ensure that  vehicles would operate without excessive delays or queues. Under all scenarios with project traffic,  the project driveways would operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. This  indicates that left‐turning vehicles at the project driveway would experience minor delays and are  expected to have a minimal effect on operations at the adjacent intersections.  Site Circulation. On‐site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of  Burlingame Zoning Code and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. In general, the  proposed site plan would provide vehicle traffic with adequate connectivity through the parking  areas. The project would provide 90‐degree parking stalls throughout surface level parking area as  well as the parking garage. The City’s standard minimum width for two‐way drive aisles is 18 feet  wide and 24 feet wide where 90‐degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for vehicles  to back out of the parking spaces. Currently, the project site plan does not show the width of the  drive aisles. The project as proposed would provide 24‐foot drive aisles, which would conform to the  City’s minimum width requirement for drive aisles adjacent to 90‐degree parking.  Typical engineering standards require garage ramps to have no greater than a 20 percent grade with  transition grades of 10 percent. The garage ramp slope and transition grade are not noted on the  project plans. The proposed project would conform to typical engineering standards.  A single‐level parking structure would occupy the eastern half of the project site. Access to the  parking garage would be provided via an entrance/exit ramp located at the center of the surface  parking lot. Circulation through the surface level of the surface parking lot would allow vehicles to  adequately access the pick‐up/drop‐off area adjacent to the building entrance.  Pedestrian access between the parking structure and on‐site uses are typically provided via  elevators and stairways on each parking level. Elevators and stairways would be located along the  western edge of the lower level of the garage, providing access to the building’s main lobby. A  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐69 stairway would also be located in the southeast corner of the garage and would provide access to an  exit corridor leading to Burlingame Avenue.  The site plan shows adequate pedestrian circulation throughout the site, as well as between the site  and the surrounding pedestrian facilities. The site plan shows continuous walkways along the  northern and southern edges of the site, including a pedestrian connection that would stretch from  the western side of the project building to the existing park promenade and bike path that bisects  Washington Park. The pedestrian connection would also provide access to the community center  terraces, the proposed picnic tables, the proposed playground, and the proposed new basketball  court, adjacent to the Lions Club Hall building. In addition, the project would provide a pedestrian  plaza adjacent to the building entrance. As previously mentioned, the parking garage also includes a  few areas with elevators and stairs so that pedestrians would have convenient access to them from  any part of the garage.  Bicycle parking would be located adjacent to the designated drop‐off/pick‐up area near the building  entrance, as well as near the western building entrance on the park‐side of the building. This would  allow bicyclists to enter and leave the project site using either the existing park promenade or the  pedestrian plaza and connect to Burlingame Avenue. Providing convenient bike parking would help  create a pedestrian‐ and bicycle‐friendly environment and encourage bicycling by patrons. In  addition, the inclusion of convenient bike parking would complement the bicycle facilities in the  vicinity of the project site.  Therefore, given the reasons above, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact  related to design hazards and incompatible uses.   e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The design, construction, and maintenance of project site access locations and on‐site roads would  be in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and would be required to meet all emergency  access standards. The CCFD would also review the proposed site plan and would provide input on  final design in relation to emergency access prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, as noted in  Section 4.16.1.am implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase  in the amount of traffic volume or delay experienced on the local roadway network. Therefore, the  proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on emergency access.  f. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit,  bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such  facilities? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The following includes a discussion of potential impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems  within the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would have a significant impact related  to adopted programs, plans, or policies regarding these facilities if it generated pedestrian, bicycle,  or transit travel related demand that could not be accommodated by existing facilities, or those  proposed by the project. Additionally, parking related impacts, such as insufficient parking supply to  meet demand, are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA. Therefore, the discussion of  parking demand and supply is provided for informational purposes only.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐70 Pedestrian Facilities. Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and  pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. The project is expected to increase the number of  pedestrians using the sidewalks and crosswalks. The project plans show existing sidewalks of  approximately 5 feet in width along the Burlingame Avenue frontage, with a 9‐foot landscaped  setback from the curb and landscaping in between the sidewalk and building facade. The overall  network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the vicinity of the project site has adequate connectivity and  provides pedestrians with safe routes to nearby destinations. The project would not remove any  pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new pedestrian  facilities.  As previously mentioned, the project proposes to develop a pedestrian plaza adjacent to the  building entrance, as well as picnic tables, a new playground, and a new basketball court on the  park‐side of the building and adjacent to the Lions Club Hall and Washington Park. Comprised of  landscaping and benches, both the pedestrian‐centric areas would connect to the existing  pedestrian facilities along Burlingame Avenue as well as within Washington Park.  Bicycle Facilities. There are some bike facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Bicycles  are also allowed on Caltrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The Burlingame Station is served by  Caltrain (approximately a quarter‐mile north of the project site), while the Millbrae Station is served  by Caltrain and BART (located about 3 miles from the project site). There are bicycle racks and  bicycle lockers available at both transit stations.  Bicyclists north of the Burlingame Station could take California Drive and Carolan Avenue to  Burlingame Avenue, while cyclists traveling to the site from the Burlingame Caltrain station could  use Burlingame Avenue as a direct route to the project site. Although Burlingame Avenue is not a  designated bike route, due to its low speed limit and traffic volumes, it is conducive to bicycle travel.  The proposed project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted  plans or policies for new bicycle facilities.  Public Transit. The project study area is well‐served by SamTrans, Caltrain, and the Burlingame  Trolley. The study area is served directly by one limited bus route, one express bus route, and two  shuttle routes. The proposed project would generate about 63 person‐trips during the AM peak  hour and 82 person‐trips during the PM peak hour. Given the project site’s proximity to transit  services, it could be expected that a portion (10 percent) of patrons’ trips would be made by transit.  Assuming up to 10 percent of the total trips are made by transit, which translates into a maximum of  about eight new transit riders during the peak hours. There are four buses and a trolley that serve  the transit stop and Burlingame Caltrain station near the site during peak hours. This calculates to an  average of about two new transit riders per bus or trolley. It is assumed that the buses have  sufficient capacity to accommodate this minor increase in ridership.  The project would not remove any transit facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or  policies associated with new transit facilities.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐71 The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) is expected to increase service by up to six  Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction by 2020. With the proposed electrification project, it is  expected that the transit ridership at the Burlingame Station will increase. Given the nearby Caltrain  station, development of this community center project would potentially result in new transit riders,  thus reducing vehicle trips. The Burlingame Station is within walking distance (approximately 0.25  miles west of the project site). Bicycling to the site would also be a suitable option, given that  Burlingame Avenue between the Burlingame Station and the project site consists of low speed limits  and traffic volumes, which makes it conducive to bicycle travel.  Parking Supply. The project site would be required to provide a total of 143 off‐street parking  spaces. Of the required 143 parking spaces, 59 spaces are currently provided in the City‐owned  public parking Lot X, adjacent to the Lions Club Hall. Therefore, the proposed project would be  required to provide 84 new parking spaces. Per CBC Table 11B‐6, five ADA accessible spaces are  required for projects with 101 to 150 parking spaces, one of which would need to be van accessible.  The proposed project would provide a total of 84 parking spaces, with 44 spaces located within the  surface parking lot and 40 spaces located within the subterranean parking garage. The existing Lot X  contains three accessible spaces, and the proposed project would include four accessible spaces, of  which two would be van accessible. Therefore, the proposed project would meet the City’s parking  supply and adhere to the CBC accessible parking provisions.  4.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a  tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code  Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural  landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size  and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with  cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that  is:  i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of  Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical  resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section  5020.1(k)? Or  ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its  discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be  significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision  (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying  the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public  Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall  consider the significance of the resource to a California  Native American tribe.      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐72 4.17.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural  resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural  landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred  place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:  i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local  register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Or  ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial  evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources  Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource  Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a  California Native American tribe. (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultation with  California Native American tribes during the CEQA environmental review process, and equates  significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts. Public  Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074 states that “tribal cultural resources” are:   Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a  California Native American tribe and are one of the following:   Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical  Resources.   Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section  5020.1.   A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial  evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.  In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall  consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.  A “historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1), a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section  21083.2(g)), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2 (h)) may also be a tribal  cultural resource if it is included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register.   The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native  American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects.  Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or a decision by a public  agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on  the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s notification list.  California Native American tribes must be recognized by the California Native American Heritage  Commission as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site, and must have previously  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐73 requested that the lead agency notify them of projects. Tribes have 30 days following notification of  a project to request consultation with the lead agency.  The purpose of consultation is to inform the lead agency in its identification and determination of  the significance of tribal cultural resources. If a project is determined to result in a significant impact  on an identified tribal cultural resource, the consultation process must occur and conclude prior to  adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or certification of an  Environmental Impact Report (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).  Tribal Outreach and Consultation. The City sent letters describing the project and maps depicting  the project site via certified mail on August 2, 2018, to Native American contacts that had previously  requested to be contacted by the City for potential consultation pursuant to AB 52. The City did not  receive any requests for consultation during the 30‐day notification period. Therefore, the City  considers the AB 52 consultation process to be concluded.  4.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the  applicable Regional Water Quality Control 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 significant  environmental effects?  c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water  drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the  construction of which could cause significant environmental  effects?  d. Have sufficient 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 capacity to serve the project’s projected demand  in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?  f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to  accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?  g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and  regulations related to solid waste?    4.18.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water  Quality Control Board? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Wastewater service for the project site is provided by the City. The City operates and maintains the  wastewater collection system that conveys wastewater from the users to the Burlingame    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐74 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The City’s wastewater collection system includes gravity  pipelines, lift stations, and force mains.48  Burlingame’s WWTP treatment process includes four treatment steps: 1) primary sedimentation; 2)  secondary biological treatment; 3) sodium hypochlorite disinfection, and 4) contact time in a plug  flow detention facility. Recycled wastewater undergoes an additional flocculation and clarification  treatment step. Following treatment at the Burlingame WWTP, the effluent is sent to South San  Francisco through the Burlingame‐Millbrae Central Bay Outfall system and discharged after  dechlorination into the South San Francisco Outfall.  The average dry weather flow (ADWF) of wastewater treated at the Burlingame WWTP is  approximately 3.5 million gallons per day (mgd), about 63 percent of its 5.5 mgd capacity, which  includes service to the project site.49 The proposed project would include the demolition and  redevelopment of the project site with a new community center. In total, the proposed project  would add approximately 10,700 square feet of new buildings to the project site. The proposed  project would generate additional domestic wastewater, which would be treated by the Burlingame  WWTP. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be minimal when compared to the  average daily flow for the Burlingame WWTP and would not exceed the capacity of the Burlingame  WWTP. The increase in daytime population during operation hours that would result from the  proposed project would incrementally increase the amount of wastewater generated on the project  site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to  wastewater treatment requirements.  b. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment  facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant  environmental effects? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Wastewater. Refer to Section 4.18.1.a for a discussion of wastewater treatment within the City. The  proposed project would not have a substantial effect on the Burlingame WWTP’s capacity.  Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater  treatment facilities or the expansion of existing ones.  Water Service. Burlingame’s Public Works Department operates the water distribution system,  providing water service to approximately 30,000 people through 9,000 connections. The majority of  the water supply is provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) via the Hetch  Hetchy reservoir. The City is represented in wholesale transactions by the Bay Area Water Supply  and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). Burlingame has a water supply assurance agreement to receive  an allotment of 5.23 mgd on annual average, or 1,909 million gallons per year. By 2035, the City is  projected to use approximately 5.22 mgd.50  48  Burlingame, City of, 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame. June.  49  Burlingame, City of, 2018. Wastewater Treatment. Website: www.burlingame.org/departments/ sustainability/wastewater_treatment.php (accessed July 30, 2018).  50  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐75 As discussed in Section 4.18.1.d, the proposed project would not substantially increase demand for  water and would therefore not exceed the capacity of the existing water treatment facilities. The  proposed project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities, or the  expansion of existing facilities, other than those already planned. The proposed project would  connect with the existing water service lines located within Burlingame Avenue, which are currently  being upgraded and would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project.  Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on water infrastructure would be less‐than‐ significant.   c. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or  expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental  effects? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The proposed project would include new connections and upgrades to existing stormwater  infrastructure on the project site. Development of the proposed project would increase impervious  surfaces on the project site. As such, the proposed project would result in an increase in stormwater  runoff. Refer to Section 4.9.1.a and 4.9.1.d for a complete discussion of stormwater drainage  facilities. Bio‐retention areas and permeable paving would be incorporated into the landscape  design to provide appropriate vegetation and water quality treatment in vegetated areas, terraces,  and parking lots. As previously noted, an SWPPP and SCP would both be required for the proposed  project, which would ensure that stormwater drainage facilities would not need to be expanded as a  result of the proposed project.  d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing  entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact)  As stated above, the majority of the water supply is provided by the SFPUC via the Hetch Hetchy  reservoir. The City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) describes the existing and  planned sources of water available in the water system service area over the next 20 years, in 5‐year  increments.  The City has determined that existing water supply entitlements are sufficient to serve the City at  least through 2040 and no additional water supply entitlements are necessary. Over this time  period, the City projects population to increase by 27 percent and jobs are expected to increase by  approximately 30 percent.51 The proposed project’s incremental increase in water demand would be  included in the anticipated growth within the City. Therefore, existing water entitlements are  sufficient to serve the proposed project, and impacts related to water supply would be less‐than‐ significant.  51  Burlingame, City of, 2016, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, op. cit.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐76 e. Would the project 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 projected demand in  addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Please refer to Section 4.18.1.a for a discussion of the project’s impacts to wastewater treatment.  The proposed project would result in a very minor contribution to the daily permitted capacity of  the wastewater treatment plant and would not exceed the plant’s capacity. Therefore, impacts  related to the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant would be less than significant.  f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the  project’s solid waste disposal needs? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Solid Waste and recycling pickup and disposal in the City of Burlingame is provided by Recology San  Mateo (Recology). Solid waste, recycling, and organics collected by Recology are transported to the  Shoreway Environmental Center, which includes a transfer station and materials recovery facility.52  The Shoreway Environmental Center has a maximum daily permitted throughput of 3,000 tons per  day.53 Solid waste is then transported to the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain). Ox  Mountain has a maximum daily permitted throughput of 3,598 tons per day and a remaining  capacity of 22.18 million cubic yards (CY). Ox Mountain’s estimated closure date is currently January  2034.54  On average, public/institutional uses generate 0.007 pounds per square foot of garbage per day.55  Therefore, because the proposed project would result in the addition of 10,700 square feet of  building space, the new Community Center would generate approximately 75 pounds of garbage per  day, or 0.04 tons. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce the maximum daily permitted  throughput of the Shoreway Environmental Center and Ox Mountain by 0.001 percent, each. As  noted above, Ox Mountain has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. As such the  proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s  waste disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than  significant.   g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid  waste? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and/or  regulations related to solid waste. Also refer to Section 4.18.1.f. Therefore, the proposed project  would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to solid waste regulations.  52  South Bay Recycling, n.d. Shoreway Environmental Center. Using the Facility. Website: www.sbrecycling.net/ about (accessed July 30, 2018).   53  CalRecyle, 2018. Facility/Site Summary Details: Shoreway Environmental Center (41‐AA‐0016). Website:  www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41‐AA‐0016/Detail (accessed July 30, 2018).  54  CalRecycle, 2018. Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill ( Ox Mtn) (41‐AA‐0002).  Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41‐AA‐0002/Detail (accessed July 30, 2018).  55  CalRecyle, 2018. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Waste Characterization/General/Rates (accessed July 30, 2018).  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐77 4.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of  the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or  wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop  below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or  animal community, substantially reduce the number or  restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or  eliminate important examples of the major periods of  California history or prehistory?  b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,  but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"  means that the incremental effects of a project are  considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of  past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the  effects of probable future projects.)  c. Does the project have environmental effects which will  cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either  directly or indirectly?    4.19.1 Impact Analysis  a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially  reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below  self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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? (Less‐Than‐Significant with  Mitigation)  Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT‐1 through CULT‐3 would ensure that potential  impacts to cultural resources that could be uncovered during construction activities would be  reduced to a less‐than‐significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 would ensure  that potential impacts to special‐status species are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.  Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, development of the proposed project  would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or  wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self‐sustaining levels; 4)  threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a  rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of  California history.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐78 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?  ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable  when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,  and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The proposed project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. The  potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level with implementa‐ tion of recommended mitigation measures include the topics of air quality, biological resources,  cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and noise. For the topic of air quality, potentially  significant impacts to air quality standards would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level with  implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1. For the topic of biological resources, implementation  of Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 would ensure that impacts to special status‐species are reduced to a  less‐than‐significant level. For the topic of cultural resources, potentially significant impacts to  archaeological resources and paleontological resources would be reduced to less‐than‐significant  levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT‐1, CULT‐2 and CULT‐3. For the topic of  hydrology and water quality, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2 would  ensure that potential water quality impacts are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level. For the topic  of noise, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 would ensure that potentially significant  impacts associated with construction noise are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.  For the topics of aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, geology and soils, hazards and  hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public  services, recreation, traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems, the project  would have no impacts or less‐than‐significant impacts, and therefore, the project would not  substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics. All environmental  impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less‐than‐ significant level through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this  document.  Implementation of these measures would ensure that the impacts of the project would be below  established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of  other cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a  result of project development. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.  c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on  human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact)  The proposed project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial  direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings.    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 5‐1 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS  LSA  Prime Consultants: Project Management and Report Production; Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources;  Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials;  Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing;  Public Services; Recreation; Transportation and Circulation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities and  Service Systems  157 Park Place  Pt. Richmond, CA 94801  Judith H. Malamut, AICP, Principal in Charge  Laura Lafler, Principal  Matthew Wiswell, Project Manager  Patty Linder, Graphics/Document Production  Charis Hanshaw, Document Management    Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Noise   7086 N. Maple, Suite 104  Fresno, CA 93720  Amy Fischer, Principal, Air Quality and Noise Specialist  Cara Carlucci, Planner      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 5‐2 This page intentionally left blank    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 6‐1 6.0 REFERENCES  Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2017. Plan Bay  Area 2040 Final Environmental Impact Report. July 16.  Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Clean Air Plan. April 19.  Burlingame Police Department, 2018. About Us. Website: www.burlingame.org/departments/ police_department/about_us.php (accessed June 26, 2018).  Burlingame, City of, 1975. City of Burlingame General Plan, Noise Element. September 15.   Burlingame, City of, 2000. City of Burlingame General Plan Land Use Map. April.  Burlingame, City of, 2009. City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan. June.   Burlingame, City of, 2014. Burlingame Community Center Master Plan. July 7.  Burlingame, City of, 2015. City of Burlingame General Plan. As amended.  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.  Burlingame, City of, 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame. June.  Burlingame, City of, 2016. Burlingame General Plan: Zoning – Southeast Areas. Available online:  www.burlingame.org/document_center/Zoning/ZoningMap‐Burlingame‐SE.pdf (accessed  June 8, 2018).  Burlingame, City of, 2016. Burlingame General Plan: Zoning – Southeast Areas. Available online:  www.burlingame.org/document_center/Zoning/ZoningMap‐Burlingame‐SE.pdf (accessed  June 8, 2018).  Burlingame, City of, 2018. Burlingame Municipal Code, as amended. May.  Burlingame, City of, 2018. Wastewater Treatment. Website: www.burlingame.org/departments/ sustainability/wastewater_treatment.php (accessed July 30, 2018).  Cal Fire, 2008. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24.  California Department of Conservation, 2012. San Mateo County Williamson Act FY 2006/2007  (map). Available online at: ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/SanMateo_06_07_WA.pdf  (accessed July 6, 2018).  California Department of Conservation, 2016. Division of Land Use Resource Protection. California  Important Farmland Finder. Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF (accessed July 6,  2018).    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 6‐2 California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:  www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed July 6,  2018). September 7.  California State Mining and Geology Board, 2014. Surface Mining Reclamation Act Regulations.  California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1.  California, State of, 1974. Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation  – San Mateo Quadrangle. July 1.  California, State of, 2009. California Emergency Management Agency. Tsunami Inundation Map for  Emergency Planning: San Mateo Quadrangle.   California, State of, 2018. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and  Substances Site List. Website: www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public (accessed July 24, 2018).  CalRecycle, 2018. Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill ( Ox Mtn) (41‐AA‐ 0002). Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41‐AA‐0002/Detail (accessed  July 30, 2018).  CalRecyle, 2018. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Waste Characterization/General/Rates (accessed July 30, 2018).  CalRecyle, 2018. Facility/Site Summary Details: Shoreway Environmental Center (41‐AA‐0016).  Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41‐AA‐0016/Detail (accessed July  30, 2018).  Cecil H. Wells, Jr & Associates. 2009. Partial Seismic Evaluation for City of Burlingame Recreation  Center. June.   Central County Fire Department, 2018. CCFD Overview. Website: www.ccfdonline.org/about‐ ccfd/ccfd‐overview (accessed June 26, 2018).  Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015. Flood Insurance Rate Map San Mateo County,  California. July 16.  Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc., 2018. Burlingame’s New Community Center  Conceptual Design Executive Report. March.  Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2018. Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation  Impact Analysis. June 27.   Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2018. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. March.  Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2017. Web Soil Survey. Website:  websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed September 4).  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 6‐3 Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2018. GeoTracker. Website: geotracker.waterboards.ca. gov/map (accessed July 24, 2018).  RestCon Environmental, 2017. Asbestos Investigation for 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA  94010. July 3.  South Bay Recycling, n.d. Shoreway Environmental Center. Using the Facility. Website: www. sbrecycling.net/about (accessed July 30, 2018).   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. National Wetlands Inventory (Map). Website: www.fws.gov/ wetlands/data/Mapper.html (accessed July 26, 2018). June 25.        BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 6‐4 This page intentionally left blank    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) A‐1 APPENDIX A    CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) A‐2 This page intentionally left blank  Project Characteristics - CO2 intensity based on 5-year average (2016-2020), PG&E 2015 Land Use - Project would develop a Community Center, however Library was chosen as the closest representative land use type Construction Phase - Approximately 24-month construction schedule Demolition - The existing 25,000-square-foot community center would be demolished as part of the proposed project Vehicle Trips - Trip generation based on Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 27, 2018 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Library 35.70 1000sqft 1.41 35,700.00 0 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 40.00 Space 0.50 16,000.00 0 Parking Lot 44.00 Space 0.50 17,600.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2024Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 328.8 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Burlingame Community Center Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 1 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 400.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/14/2021 9/28/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/16/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/30/2020 11/27/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/12/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/30/2021 8/31/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/4/2020 12/25/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/1/2021 9/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/13/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/5/2020 12/26/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/17/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/31/2020 11/28/2020 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 3.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 30.00 4.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.82 1.41 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.36 0.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.50 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 328.8 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.55 8.60 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.49 8.60 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 56.24 8.60 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 2 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 3 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0646 0.6783 0.4379 8.4000e- 004 0.0321 0.0329 0.0650 9.9300e- 003 0.0306 0.0405 0.0000 74.1447 74.1447 0.0193 0.0000 74.6260 2021 0.2817 2.2821 1.9864 3.8800e- 003 0.0875 0.1083 0.1958 0.0369 0.1035 0.1404 0.0000 329.3419 329.3419 0.0572 0.0000 330.7720 2022 0.3576 1.3203 1.3114 2.5300e- 003 0.0249 0.0601 0.0849 6.7400e- 003 0.0574 0.0642 0.0000 215.4487 215.4487 0.0373 0.0000 216.3811 Maximum 0.3576 2.2821 1.9864 3.8800e- 003 0.0875 0.1083 0.1958 0.0369 0.1035 0.1404 0.0000 329.3419 329.3419 0.0572 0.0000 330.7720 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0646 0.6783 0.4379 8.4000e- 004 0.0321 0.0329 0.0650 9.9300e- 003 0.0306 0.0405 0.0000 74.1447 74.1447 0.0193 0.0000 74.6259 2021 0.2817 2.2821 1.9864 3.8800e- 003 0.0875 0.1083 0.1958 0.0369 0.1035 0.1404 0.0000 329.3416 329.3416 0.0572 0.0000 330.7717 2022 0.3576 1.3203 1.3114 2.5300e- 003 0.0249 0.0601 0.0849 6.7400e- 003 0.0574 0.0642 0.0000 215.4485 215.4485 0.0373 0.0000 216.3809 Maximum 0.3576 2.2821 1.9864 3.8800e- 003 0.0875 0.1083 0.1958 0.0369 0.1035 0.1404 0.0000 329.3416 329.3416 0.0572 0.0000 330.7717 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 4 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 10-5-2020 1-4-2021 0.7609 0.7609 2 1-5-2021 4-4-2021 0.6484 0.6484 3 4-5-2021 7-4-2021 0.6302 0.6302 4 7-5-2021 10-4-2021 0.6372 0.6372 5 10-5-2021 1-4-2022 0.6357 0.6357 6 1-5-2022 4-4-2022 0.5699 0.5699 7 4-5-2022 7-4-2022 0.5754 0.5754 8 7-5-2022 9-30-2022 0.5097 0.5097 Highest 0.7609 0.7609 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 5 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Energy 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 92.9510 92.9510 4.9400e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.5812 Mobile 0.0594 0.2612 0.5966 2.1600e- 003 0.1936 1.7900e- 003 0.1954 0.0520 1.6700e- 003 0.0536 0.0000 198.2914 198.2914 7.2200e- 003 0.0000 198.4718 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.6743 0.0000 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3544 1.8134 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Total 0.2252 0.3045 0.6340 2.4200e- 003 0.1936 5.0800e- 003 0.1987 0.0520 4.9600e- 003 0.0569 7.0287 293.0579 300.0866 0.4432 2.5900e- 003 311.9385 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 6 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Energy 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 92.9510 92.9510 4.9400e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.5812 Mobile 0.0594 0.2612 0.5966 2.1600e- 003 0.1936 1.7900e- 003 0.1954 0.0520 1.6700e- 003 0.0536 0.0000 198.2914 198.2914 7.2200e- 003 0.0000 198.4718 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.6743 0.0000 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3544 1.8134 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Total 0.2252 0.3045 0.6340 2.4200e- 003 0.1936 5.0800e- 003 0.1987 0.0520 4.9600e- 003 0.0569 7.0287 293.0579 300.0866 0.4432 2.5900e- 003 311.9385 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 7 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 10/5/2020 11/27/2020 5 40 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/28/2020 12/25/2020 5 20 3 Grading Grading 12/26/2020 1/22/2021 5 20 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/22/2021 8/4/2022 5 400 5 Paving Paving 8/4/2022 8/31/2022 5 20 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/1/2022 9/28/2022 5 20 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 53,550; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,850; Striped Parking Area: 2,016 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3 Acres of Paving: 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 8 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 9 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0123 0.0000 0.0123 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0425 0.4189 0.2932 4.8000e- 004 0.0231 0.0231 0.0215 0.0215 0.0000 42.1353 42.1353 0.0108 0.0000 42.4061 Total 0.0425 0.4189 0.2932 4.8000e- 004 0.0123 0.0231 0.0354 1.8600e- 003 0.0215 0.0234 0.0000 42.1353 42.1353 0.0108 0.0000 42.4061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 114.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 29.00 11.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 6.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 10 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.8000e- 004 0.0167 3.3500e- 003 5.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 1.0200e- 003 2.6000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 4.3683 4.3683 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 4.3740 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.6000e- 004 6.2000e- 004 6.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.0700e- 003 5.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7999 1.7999 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.8010 Total 1.3400e- 003 0.0173 9.7400e- 003 7.0000e- 005 3.0100e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.0900e- 003 8.1000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 0.0000 6.1683 6.1683 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.1750 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0123 0.0000 0.0123 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0425 0.4189 0.2931 4.8000e- 004 0.0231 0.0231 0.0215 0.0215 0.0000 42.1353 42.1353 0.0108 0.0000 42.4061 Total 0.0425 0.4189 0.2931 4.8000e- 004 0.0123 0.0231 0.0354 1.8600e- 003 0.0215 0.0234 0.0000 42.1353 42.1353 0.0108 0.0000 42.4061 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 11 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.8000e- 004 0.0167 3.3500e- 003 5.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 1.0200e- 003 2.6000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 4.3683 4.3683 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 4.3740 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.6000e- 004 6.2000e- 004 6.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.0700e- 003 5.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7999 1.7999 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.8010 Total 1.3400e- 003 0.0173 9.7400e- 003 7.0000e- 005 3.0100e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.0900e- 003 8.1000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 0.0000 6.1683 6.1683 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.1750 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.3900e- 003 0.0000 2.3900e- 003 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0165 0.1992 0.1127 2.4000e- 004 7.7700e- 003 7.7700e- 003 7.1500e- 003 7.1500e- 003 0.0000 21.5266 21.5266 6.9600e- 003 0.0000 21.7007 Total 0.0165 0.1992 0.1127 2.4000e- 004 2.3900e- 003 7.7700e- 003 0.0102 2.6000e- 004 7.1500e- 003 7.4100e- 003 0.0000 21.5266 21.5266 6.9600e- 003 0.0000 21.7007 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 12 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.7000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5538 0.5538 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5542 Total 2.7000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5538 0.5538 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5542 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.3900e- 003 0.0000 2.3900e- 003 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0165 0.1992 0.1127 2.4000e- 004 7.7700e- 003 7.7700e- 003 7.1500e- 003 7.1500e- 003 0.0000 21.5266 21.5266 6.9600e- 003 0.0000 21.7007 Total 0.0165 0.1992 0.1127 2.4000e- 004 2.3900e- 003 7.7700e- 003 0.0102 2.6000e- 004 7.1500e- 003 7.4100e- 003 0.0000 21.5266 21.5266 6.9600e- 003 0.0000 21.7007 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 13 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.7000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5538 0.5538 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5542 Total 2.7000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5538 0.5538 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5542 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0136 0.0000 0.0136 6.7900e- 003 0.0000 6.7900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8400e- 003 0.0427 0.0199 4.0000e- 005 1.9800e- 003 1.9800e- 003 1.8200e- 003 1.8200e- 003 0.0000 3.6222 3.6222 1.1700e- 003 0.0000 3.6515 Total 3.8400e- 003 0.0427 0.0199 4.0000e- 005 0.0136 1.9800e- 003 0.0156 6.7900e- 003 1.8200e- 003 8.6100e- 003 0.0000 3.6222 3.6222 1.1700e- 003 0.0000 3.6515 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 14 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 Total 7.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0136 0.0000 0.0136 6.7900e- 003 0.0000 6.7900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8400e- 003 0.0427 0.0199 4.0000e- 005 1.9800e- 003 1.9800e- 003 1.8200e- 003 1.8200e- 003 0.0000 3.6222 3.6222 1.1700e- 003 0.0000 3.6515 Total 3.8400e- 003 0.0427 0.0199 4.0000e- 005 0.0136 1.9800e- 003 0.0156 6.7900e- 003 1.8200e- 003 8.6100e- 003 0.0000 3.6222 3.6222 1.1700e- 003 0.0000 3.6515 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 15 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 Total 7.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0498 0.0000 0.0498 0.0267 0.0000 0.0267 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0146 0.1617 0.0781 1.6000e- 004 7.3300e- 003 7.3300e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 14.4831 14.4831 4.6800e- 003 0.0000 14.6002 Total 0.0146 0.1617 0.0781 1.6000e- 004 0.0498 7.3300e- 003 0.0571 0.0267 6.7400e- 003 0.0334 0.0000 14.4831 14.4831 4.6800e- 003 0.0000 14.6002 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 16 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.7900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5344 0.5344 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5347 Total 2.5000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.7900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5344 0.5344 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5347 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0498 0.0000 0.0498 0.0267 0.0000 0.0267 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0146 0.1617 0.0781 1.6000e- 004 7.3300e- 003 7.3300e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 14.4831 14.4831 4.6800e- 003 0.0000 14.6002 Total 0.0146 0.1617 0.0781 1.6000e- 004 0.0498 7.3300e- 003 0.0571 0.0267 6.7400e- 003 0.0334 0.0000 14.4831 14.4831 4.6800e- 003 0.0000 14.6002 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 17 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.7900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5344 0.5344 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5347 Total 2.5000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.7900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5344 0.5344 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5347 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2515 1.9714 1.7912 3.0800e- 003 0.1005 0.1005 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 255.4080 255.4080 0.0503 0.0000 256.6642 Total 0.2515 1.9714 1.7912 3.0800e- 003 0.1005 0.1005 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 255.4080 255.4080 0.0503 0.0000 256.6642 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 18 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.3000e- 003 0.1413 0.0353 3.7000e- 004 8.8700e- 003 3.1000e- 004 9.1800e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.9000e- 004 2.8600e- 003 0.0000 35.0892 35.0892 1.7300e- 003 0.0000 35.1324 Worker 0.0110 7.5500e- 003 0.0800 2.6000e- 004 0.0282 1.8000e- 004 0.0284 7.5000e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.6700e- 003 0.0000 23.8272 23.8272 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 23.8406 Total 0.0153 0.1489 0.1153 6.3000e- 004 0.0371 4.9000e- 004 0.0376 0.0101 4.6000e- 004 0.0105 0.0000 58.9164 58.9164 2.2600e- 003 0.0000 58.9729 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2515 1.9714 1.7912 3.0800e- 003 0.1005 0.1005 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 255.4076 255.4076 0.0503 0.0000 256.6639 Total 0.2515 1.9714 1.7912 3.0800e- 003 0.1005 0.1005 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 255.4076 255.4076 0.0503 0.0000 256.6639 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 19 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.3000e- 003 0.1413 0.0353 3.7000e- 004 8.8700e- 003 3.1000e- 004 9.1800e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.9000e- 004 2.8600e- 003 0.0000 35.0892 35.0892 1.7300e- 003 0.0000 35.1324 Worker 0.0110 7.5500e- 003 0.0800 2.6000e- 004 0.0282 1.8000e- 004 0.0284 7.5000e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.6700e- 003 0.0000 23.8272 23.8272 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 23.8406 Total 0.0153 0.1489 0.1153 6.3000e- 004 0.0371 4.9000e- 004 0.0376 0.0101 4.6000e- 004 0.0105 0.0000 58.9164 58.9164 2.2600e- 003 0.0000 58.9729 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1429 1.1245 1.1052 1.9300e- 003 0.0541 0.0541 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 159.9137 159.9137 0.0309 0.0000 160.6850 Total 0.1429 1.1245 1.1052 1.9300e- 003 0.0541 0.0541 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 159.9137 159.9137 0.0309 0.0000 160.6850 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 20 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5100e- 003 0.0838 0.0208 2.3000e- 004 5.5500e- 003 1.7000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 1.6100e- 003 1.6000e- 004 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 21.7510 21.7510 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 21.7768 Worker 6.3900e- 003 4.2400e- 003 0.0460 1.6000e- 004 0.0176 1.1000e- 004 0.0178 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 004 4.8000e- 003 0.0000 14.3694 14.3694 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 14.3769 Total 8.9000e- 003 0.0880 0.0668 3.9000e- 004 0.0232 2.8000e- 004 0.0235 6.3000e- 003 2.6000e- 004 6.5700e- 003 0.0000 36.1204 36.1204 1.3300e- 003 0.0000 36.1537 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1429 1.1245 1.1052 1.9300e- 003 0.0541 0.0541 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 159.9135 159.9135 0.0309 0.0000 160.6848 Total 0.1429 1.1245 1.1052 1.9300e- 003 0.0541 0.0541 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 159.9135 159.9135 0.0309 0.0000 160.6848 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 21 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5100e- 003 0.0838 0.0208 2.3000e- 004 5.5500e- 003 1.7000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 1.6100e- 003 1.6000e- 004 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 21.7510 21.7510 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 21.7768 Worker 6.3900e- 003 4.2400e- 003 0.0460 1.6000e- 004 0.0176 1.1000e- 004 0.0178 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 004 4.8000e- 003 0.0000 14.3694 14.3694 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 14.3769 Total 8.9000e- 003 0.0880 0.0668 3.9000e- 004 0.0232 2.8000e- 004 0.0235 6.3000e- 003 2.6000e- 004 6.5700e- 003 0.0000 36.1204 36.1204 1.3300e- 003 0.0000 36.1537 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9.4100e- 003 0.0933 0.1170 1.8000e- 004 4.8800e- 003 4.8800e- 003 4.5000e- 003 4.5000e- 003 0.0000 15.5100 15.5100 4.9200e- 003 0.0000 15.6329 Paving 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0101 0.0933 0.1170 1.8000e- 004 4.8800e- 003 4.8800e- 003 4.5000e- 003 4.5000e- 003 0.0000 15.5100 15.5100 4.9200e- 003 0.0000 15.6329 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 22 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.3000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9653 0.9653 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9658 Total 4.3000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9653 0.9653 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9658 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9.4100e- 003 0.0933 0.1170 1.8000e- 004 4.8800e- 003 4.8800e- 003 4.5000e- 003 4.5000e- 003 0.0000 15.5100 15.5100 4.9200e- 003 0.0000 15.6329 Paving 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0101 0.0933 0.1170 1.8000e- 004 4.8800e- 003 4.8800e- 003 4.5000e- 003 4.5000e- 003 0.0000 15.5100 15.5100 4.9200e- 003 0.0000 15.6329 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 23 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.3000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9653 0.9653 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9658 Total 4.3000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9653 0.9653 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9658 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.1932 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0500e- 003 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Total 0.1952 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 24 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3861 0.3861 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3863 Total 1.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3861 0.3861 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3863 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.1932 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0500e- 003 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Total 0.1952 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 25 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3861 0.3861 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3863 Total 1.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3861 0.3861 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3863 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 26 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.0594 0.2612 0.5966 2.1600e- 003 0.1936 1.7900e- 003 0.1954 0.0520 1.6700e- 003 0.0536 0.0000 198.2914 198.2914 7.2200e- 003 0.0000 198.4718 Unmitigated 0.0594 0.2612 0.5966 2.1600e- 003 0.1936 1.7900e- 003 0.1954 0.0520 1.6700e- 003 0.0536 0.0000 198.2914 198.2914 7.2200e- 003 0.0000 198.4718 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Library 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Library 9.50 7.30 7.30 52.00 43.00 5.00 44 44 12 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 27 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 45.8001 45.8001 4.0400e- 003 8.4000e- 004 46.1501 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 45.8001 45.8001 4.0400e- 003 8.4000e- 004 46.1501 NaturalGas Mitigated 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 NaturalGas Unmitigated 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Library 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Parking Lot 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 28 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Library 883575 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Library 883575 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 29 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Library 269892 40.2520 3.5500e- 003 7.3000e- 004 40.5597 Parking Lot 6160 0.9187 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.9257 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 31040 4.6293 4.1000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 4.6647 Total 45.8001 4.0400e- 003 8.3000e- 004 46.1501 Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Library 269892 40.2520 3.5500e- 003 7.3000e- 004 40.5597 Parking Lot 6160 0.9187 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.9257 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 31040 4.6293 4.1000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 4.6647 Total 45.8001 4.0400e- 003 8.3000e- 004 46.1501 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 30 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Unmitigated 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 31 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0193 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1416 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Total 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0193 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1416 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Total 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 32 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Unmitigated 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Library 1.11701 / 1.74712 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Unmitigated 7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 33 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Library 1.11701 / 1.74712 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 34 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Unmitigated 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Library 32.88 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 35 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Library 32.88 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 36 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 37 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Project Characteristics - CO2 intensity based on 5-year average (2016-2020), PG&E 2015 Land Use - Project would develop a Community Center, however Library was chosen as the closest representative land use type Construction Phase - Approximately 24-month construction schedule Demolition - The existing 25,000-square-foot community center would be demolished as part of the proposed project Vehicle Trips - Trip generation based on Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 27, 2018 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Library 35.70 1000sqft 1.41 35,700.00 0 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 40.00 Space 0.50 16,000.00 0 Parking Lot 44.00 Space 0.50 17,600.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2024Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 328.8 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Burlingame Community Center Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 1 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 400.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/14/2021 9/28/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/16/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/30/2020 11/27/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/12/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/30/2021 8/31/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/4/2020 12/25/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/1/2021 9/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/13/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/5/2020 12/26/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/17/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/31/2020 11/28/2020 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 3.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 30.00 4.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.82 1.41 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.36 0.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.50 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 328.8 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.55 8.60 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.49 8.60 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 56.24 8.60 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 2 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 3 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 2.1949 21.7900 15.1683 0.0274 6.2633 1.1558 7.2540 3.3492 1.0793 4.2606 0.0000 2,671.486 9 2,671.486 9 0.7690 0.0000 2,686.778 1 2021 4.0316 37.4511 25.5493 0.0517 6.5760 1.7375 8.3135 3.4338 1.6298 5.0636 0.0000 4,911.265 6 4,911.265 6 1.1176 0.0000 4,939.204 7 2022 19.5386 25.0877 27.2982 0.0492 0.4359 1.1944 1.6303 0.1173 1.1272 1.2445 0.0000 4,649.403 4 4,649.403 4 1.0048 0.0000 4,674.523 0 Maximum 19.5386 37.4511 27.2982 0.0517 6.5760 1.7375 8.3135 3.4338 1.6298 5.0636 0.0000 4,911.265 6 4,911.265 6 1.1176 0.0000 4,939.204 7 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 2.1949 21.7900 15.1683 0.0274 6.2633 1.1558 7.2540 3.3492 1.0793 4.2606 0.0000 2,671.486 9 2,671.486 9 0.7690 0.0000 2,686.778 1 2021 4.0316 37.4511 25.5493 0.0517 6.5760 1.7375 8.3135 3.4338 1.6298 5.0636 0.0000 4,911.265 6 4,911.265 6 1.1176 0.0000 4,939.204 7 2022 19.5386 25.0877 27.2982 0.0492 0.4359 1.1944 1.6303 0.1173 1.1272 1.2445 0.0000 4,649.403 4 4,649.403 4 1.0048 0.0000 4,674.523 0 Maximum 19.5386 37.4511 27.2982 0.0517 6.5760 1.7375 8.3135 3.4338 1.6298 5.0636 0.0000 4,911.265 6 4,911.265 6 1.1176 0.0000 4,939.204 7 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 4 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 5 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Energy 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mobile 0.3803 1.4005 3.3492 0.0125 1.1053 9.8200e- 003 1.1151 0.2957 9.1600e- 003 0.3048 1,269.079 0 1,269.079 0 0.0436 1,270.168 2 Total 1.2893 1.6380 3.5608 0.0139 1.1053 0.0279 1.1332 0.2957 0.0272 0.3229 1,553.899 7 1,553.899 7 0.0491 5.2200e- 003 1,556.683 0 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Energy 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mobile 0.3803 1.4005 3.3492 0.0125 1.1053 9.8200e- 003 1.1151 0.2957 9.1600e- 003 0.3048 1,269.079 0 1,269.079 0 0.0436 1,270.168 2 Total 1.2893 1.6380 3.5608 0.0139 1.1053 0.0279 1.1332 0.2957 0.0272 0.3229 1,553.899 7 1,553.899 7 0.0491 5.2200e- 003 1,556.683 0 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 6 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 10/5/2020 11/27/2020 5 40 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/28/2020 12/25/2020 5 20 3 Grading Grading 12/26/2020 1/22/2021 5 20 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/22/2021 8/4/2022 5 400 5 Paving Paving 8/4/2022 8/31/2022 5 20 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/1/2022 9/28/2022 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 53,550; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,850; Striped Parking Area: 2,016 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3 Acres of Paving: 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 7 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 8 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.6152 0.0000 0.6152 0.0932 0.0000 0.0932 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 1.1525 1.1525 1.0761 1.0761 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Total 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 0.6152 1.1525 1.7677 0.0932 1.0761 1.1693 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 114.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 29.00 11.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 6.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 9 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0235 0.8164 0.1623 2.2700e- 003 0.0498 2.6700e- 003 0.0525 0.0136 2.5500e- 003 0.0162 242.4733 242.4733 0.0121 242.7766 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0452 0.0274 0.3488 1.0700e- 003 0.1068 6.9000e- 004 0.1075 0.0283 6.4000e- 004 0.0290 106.7010 106.7010 2.5700e- 003 106.7652 Total 0.0687 0.8437 0.5111 3.3400e- 003 0.1566 3.3600e- 003 0.1599 0.0420 3.1900e- 003 0.0452 349.1743 349.1743 0.0147 349.5418 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.6152 0.0000 0.6152 0.0932 0.0000 0.0932 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 1.1525 1.1525 1.0761 1.0761 0.0000 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Total 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 0.6152 1.1525 1.7677 0.0932 1.0761 1.1693 0.0000 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 10 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0235 0.8164 0.1623 2.2700e- 003 0.0498 2.6700e- 003 0.0525 0.0136 2.5500e- 003 0.0162 242.4733 242.4733 0.0121 242.7766 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0452 0.0274 0.3488 1.0700e- 003 0.1068 6.9000e- 004 0.1075 0.0283 6.4000e- 004 0.0290 106.7010 106.7010 2.5700e- 003 106.7652 Total 0.0687 0.8437 0.5111 3.3400e- 003 0.1566 3.3600e- 003 0.1599 0.0420 3.1900e- 003 0.0452 349.1743 349.1743 0.0147 349.5418 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.7771 0.7771 0.7149 0.7149 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Total 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.2386 0.7771 1.0157 0.0258 0.7149 0.7407 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 11 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0278 0.0168 0.2146 6.6000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 65.6621 65.6621 1.5800e- 003 65.7017 Total 0.0278 0.0168 0.2146 6.6000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 65.6621 65.6621 1.5800e- 003 65.7017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.7771 0.7771 0.7149 0.7149 0.0000 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Total 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.2386 0.7771 1.0157 0.0258 0.7149 0.7407 0.0000 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 12 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0278 0.0168 0.2146 6.6000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 65.6621 65.6621 1.5800e- 003 65.7017 Total 0.0278 0.0168 0.2146 6.6000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 65.6621 65.6621 1.5800e- 003 65.7017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 0.9902 0.9902 0.9110 0.9110 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Total 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 6.1812 0.9902 7.1713 3.3274 0.9110 4.2384 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 13 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e- 003 82.1271 Total 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e- 003 82.1271 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 0.9902 0.9902 0.9110 0.9110 0.0000 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Total 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 6.1812 0.9902 7.1713 3.3274 0.9110 4.2384 0.0000 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 14 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e- 003 82.1271 Total 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e- 003 82.1271 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.1812 0.9158 7.0969 3.3274 0.8425 4.1699 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 15 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0322 0.0188 0.2456 7.9000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 79.1960 79.1960 1.7700e- 003 79.2402 Total 0.0322 0.0188 0.2456 7.9000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 79.1960 79.1960 1.7700e- 003 79.2402 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.1812 0.9158 7.0969 3.3274 0.8425 4.1699 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 16 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0322 0.0188 0.2456 7.9000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 79.1960 79.1960 1.7700e- 003 79.2402 Total 0.0322 0.0188 0.2456 7.9000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 79.1960 79.1960 1.7700e- 003 79.2402 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 17 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0341 1.1368 0.2681 3.0000e- 003 0.0745 2.4600e- 003 0.0769 0.0214 2.3600e- 003 0.0238 317.8544 317.8544 0.0149 318.2274 Worker 0.0933 0.0545 0.7123 2.3000e- 003 0.2382 1.5000e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3800e- 003 0.0646 229.6683 229.6683 5.1300e- 003 229.7966 Total 0.1274 1.1913 0.9804 5.3000e- 003 0.3127 3.9600e- 003 0.3167 0.0846 3.7400e- 003 0.0884 547.5227 547.5227 0.0201 548.0240 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 18 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0341 1.1368 0.2681 3.0000e- 003 0.0745 2.4600e- 003 0.0769 0.0214 2.3600e- 003 0.0238 317.8544 317.8544 0.0149 318.2274 Worker 0.0933 0.0545 0.7123 2.3000e- 003 0.2382 1.5000e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3800e- 003 0.0646 229.6683 229.6683 5.1300e- 003 229.7966 Total 0.1274 1.1913 0.9804 5.3000e- 003 0.3127 3.9600e- 003 0.3167 0.0846 3.7400e- 003 0.0884 547.5227 547.5227 0.0201 548.0240 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 19 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0318 1.0773 0.2521 2.9700e- 003 0.0745 2.1300e- 003 0.0766 0.0214 2.0400e- 003 0.0235 314.7590 314.7590 0.0143 315.1156 Worker 0.0868 0.0489 0.6564 2.2200e- 003 0.2382 1.4600e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3500e- 003 0.0645 221.2397 221.2397 4.6100e- 003 221.3549 Total 0.1186 1.1262 0.9085 5.1900e- 003 0.3127 3.5900e- 003 0.3163 0.0846 3.3900e- 003 0.0880 535.9986 535.9986 0.0189 536.4705 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 20 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0318 1.0773 0.2521 2.9700e- 003 0.0745 2.1300e- 003 0.0766 0.0214 2.0400e- 003 0.0235 314.7590 314.7590 0.0143 315.1156 Worker 0.0868 0.0489 0.6564 2.2200e- 003 0.2382 1.4600e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3500e- 003 0.0645 221.2397 221.2397 4.6100e- 003 221.3549 Total 0.1186 1.1262 0.9085 5.1900e- 003 0.3127 3.5900e- 003 0.3163 0.0846 3.3900e- 003 0.0880 535.9986 535.9986 0.0189 536.4705 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.0655 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0067 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 21 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0449 0.0253 0.3395 1.1500e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 114.4343 114.4343 2.3800e- 003 114.4939 Total 0.0449 0.0253 0.3395 1.1500e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 114.4343 114.4343 2.3800e- 003 114.4939 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.0655 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0067 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 22 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0449 0.0253 0.3395 1.1500e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 114.4343 114.4343 2.3800e- 003 114.4939 Total 0.0449 0.0253 0.3395 1.1500e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 114.4343 114.4343 2.3800e- 003 114.4939 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 19.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 19.5207 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 23 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0180 0.0101 0.1358 4.6000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 45.7737 45.7737 9.5000e- 004 45.7976 Total 0.0180 0.0101 0.1358 4.6000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 45.7737 45.7737 9.5000e- 004 45.7976 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 19.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 19.5207 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 24 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0180 0.0101 0.1358 4.6000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 45.7737 45.7737 9.5000e- 004 45.7976 Total 0.0180 0.0101 0.1358 4.6000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 45.7737 45.7737 9.5000e- 004 45.7976 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 25 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.3803 1.4005 3.3492 0.0125 1.1053 9.8200e- 003 1.1151 0.2957 9.1600e- 003 0.3048 1,269.079 0 1,269.079 0 0.0436 1,270.168 2 Unmitigated 0.3803 1.4005 3.3492 0.0125 1.1053 9.8200e- 003 1.1151 0.2957 9.1600e- 003 0.3048 1,269.079 0 1,269.079 0 0.0436 1,270.168 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Library 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Library 9.50 7.30 7.30 52.00 43.00 5.00 44 44 12 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 26 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Library 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Parking Lot 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 27 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Library 2420.75 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Library 2.42075 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 28 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Unmitigated 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 29 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1058 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7759 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.1300e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Total 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1058 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7759 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.1300e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Total 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 30 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 11.0 Vegetation 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 31 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Project Characteristics - CO2 intensity based on 5-year average (2016-2020), PG&E 2015 Land Use - Project would develop a Community Center, however Library was chosen as the closest representative land use type Construction Phase - Approximately 24-month construction schedule Demolition - The existing 25,000-square-foot community center would be demolished as part of the proposed project Vehicle Trips - Trip generation based on Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 27, 2018 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Library 35.70 1000sqft 1.41 35,700.00 0 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 40.00 Space 0.50 16,000.00 0 Parking Lot 44.00 Space 0.50 17,600.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2024Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 328.8 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Burlingame Community Center Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 1 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 400.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/14/2021 9/28/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/16/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/30/2020 11/27/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/12/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/30/2021 8/31/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/4/2020 12/25/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/1/2021 9/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/13/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/5/2020 12/26/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/17/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/31/2020 11/28/2020 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 3.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 30.00 4.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.82 1.41 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.36 0.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.50 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 328.8 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.55 8.60 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.49 8.60 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 56.24 8.60 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 2 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 3 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 2.1981 21.8165 15.1595 0.0273 6.2633 1.1559 7.2540 3.3492 1.0794 4.2606 0.0000 2,659.001 8 2,659.001 8 0.7689 0.0000 2,674.304 1 2021 4.0411 37.4781 25.5277 0.0514 6.5760 1.7376 8.3136 3.4338 1.6299 5.0637 0.0000 4,878.856 1 4,878.856 1 1.1183 0.0000 4,906.814 1 2022 19.5398 25.1132 27.2678 0.0489 0.4359 1.1945 1.6304 0.1173 1.1272 1.2445 0.0000 4,614.921 8 4,614.921 8 1.0055 0.0000 4,640.057 9 Maximum 19.5398 37.4781 27.2678 0.0514 6.5760 1.7376 8.3136 3.4338 1.6299 5.0637 0.0000 4,878.856 1 4,878.856 1 1.1183 0.0000 4,906.814 1 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 2.1981 21.8165 15.1595 0.0273 6.2633 1.1559 7.2540 3.3492 1.0794 4.2606 0.0000 2,659.001 8 2,659.001 8 0.7689 0.0000 2,674.304 1 2021 4.0411 37.4781 25.5277 0.0514 6.5760 1.7376 8.3136 3.4338 1.6299 5.0637 0.0000 4,878.856 1 4,878.856 1 1.1183 0.0000 4,906.814 1 2022 19.5398 25.1132 27.2678 0.0489 0.4359 1.1945 1.6304 0.1173 1.1272 1.2445 0.0000 4,614.921 8 4,614.921 8 1.0055 0.0000 4,640.057 9 Maximum 19.5398 37.4781 27.2678 0.0514 6.5760 1.7376 8.3136 3.4338 1.6299 5.0637 0.0000 4,878.856 1 4,878.856 1 1.1183 0.0000 4,906.814 1 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 4 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 5 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Energy 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mobile 0.3222 1.4553 3.4596 0.0117 1.1053 9.8800e- 003 1.1152 0.2957 9.2100e- 003 0.3049 1,188.210 1 1,188.210 1 0.0451 1,189.336 6 Total 1.2311 1.6928 3.6711 0.0131 1.1053 0.0280 1.1333 0.2957 0.0273 0.3230 1,473.030 8 1,473.030 8 0.0506 5.2200e- 003 1,475.851 4 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Energy 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mobile 0.3222 1.4553 3.4596 0.0117 1.1053 9.8800e- 003 1.1152 0.2957 9.2100e- 003 0.3049 1,188.210 1 1,188.210 1 0.0451 1,189.336 6 Total 1.2311 1.6928 3.6711 0.0131 1.1053 0.0280 1.1333 0.2957 0.0273 0.3230 1,473.030 8 1,473.030 8 0.0506 5.2200e- 003 1,475.851 4 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 6 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 10/5/2020 11/27/2020 5 40 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/28/2020 12/25/2020 5 20 3 Grading Grading 12/26/2020 1/22/2021 5 20 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/22/2021 8/4/2022 5 400 5 Paving Paving 8/4/2022 8/31/2022 5 20 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/1/2022 9/28/2022 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 53,550; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,850; Striped Parking Area: 2,016 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3 Acres of Paving: 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 7 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 8 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.6152 0.0000 0.6152 0.0932 0.0000 0.0932 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 1.1525 1.1525 1.0761 1.0761 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Total 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 0.6152 1.1525 1.7677 0.0932 1.0761 1.1693 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 114.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 29.00 11.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 6.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 9 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0242 0.8364 0.1747 2.2300e- 003 0.0498 2.7200e- 003 0.0525 0.0136 2.6000e- 003 0.0162 238.4007 238.4007 0.0127 238.7192 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0478 0.0338 0.3276 9.9000e- 004 0.1068 6.9000e- 004 0.1075 0.0283 6.4000e- 004 0.0290 98.2885 98.2885 2.4000e- 003 98.3486 Total 0.0720 0.8702 0.5023 3.2200e- 003 0.1566 3.4100e- 003 0.1600 0.0420 3.2400e- 003 0.0452 336.6892 336.6892 0.0151 337.0678 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.6152 0.0000 0.6152 0.0932 0.0000 0.0932 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 1.1525 1.1525 1.0761 1.0761 0.0000 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Total 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 0.6152 1.1525 1.7677 0.0932 1.0761 1.1693 0.0000 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 10 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0242 0.8364 0.1747 2.2300e- 003 0.0498 2.7200e- 003 0.0525 0.0136 2.6000e- 003 0.0162 238.4007 238.4007 0.0127 238.7192 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0478 0.0338 0.3276 9.9000e- 004 0.1068 6.9000e- 004 0.1075 0.0283 6.4000e- 004 0.0290 98.2885 98.2885 2.4000e- 003 98.3486 Total 0.0720 0.8702 0.5023 3.2200e- 003 0.1566 3.4100e- 003 0.1600 0.0420 3.2400e- 003 0.0452 336.6892 336.6892 0.0151 337.0678 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.7771 0.7771 0.7149 0.7149 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Total 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.2386 0.7771 1.0157 0.0258 0.7149 0.7407 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 11 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 003 60.5222 Total 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 003 60.5222 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.7771 0.7771 0.7149 0.7149 0.0000 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Total 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.2386 0.7771 1.0157 0.0258 0.7149 0.7407 0.0000 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 12 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 003 60.5222 Total 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 003 60.5222 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 0.9902 0.9902 0.9110 0.9110 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Total 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 6.1812 0.9902 7.1713 3.3274 0.9110 4.2384 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 13 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e- 003 75.6528 Total 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e- 003 75.6528 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 0.9902 0.9902 0.9110 0.9110 0.0000 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Total 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 6.1812 0.9902 7.1713 3.3274 0.9110 4.2384 0.0000 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 14 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e- 003 75.6528 Total 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e- 003 75.6528 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.1812 0.9158 7.0969 3.3274 0.8425 4.1699 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 15 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0341 0.0232 0.2298 7.3000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 72.9537 72.9537 1.6500e- 003 72.9949 Total 0.0341 0.0232 0.2298 7.3000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 72.9537 72.9537 1.6500e- 003 72.9949 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.1812 0.9158 7.0969 3.3274 0.8425 4.1699 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 16 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0341 0.0232 0.2298 7.3000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 72.9537 72.9537 1.6500e- 003 72.9949 Total 0.0341 0.0232 0.2298 7.3000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 72.9537 72.9537 1.6500e- 003 72.9949 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 17 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0361 1.1465 0.3081 2.9200e- 003 0.0745 2.5500e- 003 0.0770 0.0214 2.4400e- 003 0.0239 309.7899 309.7899 0.0161 310.1934 Worker 0.0988 0.0673 0.6665 2.1200e- 003 0.2382 1.5000e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3800e- 003 0.0646 211.5656 211.5656 4.7900e- 003 211.6853 Total 0.1349 1.2138 0.9746 5.0400e- 003 0.3127 4.0500e- 003 0.3167 0.0846 3.8200e- 003 0.0884 521.3555 521.3555 0.0209 521.8787 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 18 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0361 1.1465 0.3081 2.9200e- 003 0.0745 2.5500e- 003 0.0770 0.0214 2.4400e- 003 0.0239 309.7899 309.7899 0.0161 310.1934 Worker 0.0988 0.0673 0.6665 2.1200e- 003 0.2382 1.5000e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3800e- 003 0.0646 211.5656 211.5656 4.7900e- 003 211.6853 Total 0.1349 1.2138 0.9746 5.0400e- 003 0.3127 4.0500e- 003 0.3167 0.0846 3.8200e- 003 0.0884 521.3555 521.3555 0.0209 521.8787 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 19 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0337 1.0855 0.2896 2.8900e- 003 0.0745 2.2100e- 003 0.0767 0.0214 2.1200e- 003 0.0236 306.7228 306.7228 0.0154 307.1082 Worker 0.0922 0.0604 0.6116 2.0400e- 003 0.2382 1.4600e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3500e- 003 0.0645 203.8097 203.8097 4.2900e- 003 203.9168 Total 0.1259 1.1458 0.9012 4.9300e- 003 0.3127 3.6700e- 003 0.3164 0.0846 3.4700e- 003 0.0881 510.5325 510.5325 0.0197 511.0251 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 20 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0337 1.0855 0.2896 2.8900e- 003 0.0745 2.2100e- 003 0.0767 0.0214 2.1200e- 003 0.0236 306.7228 306.7228 0.0154 307.1082 Worker 0.0922 0.0604 0.6116 2.0400e- 003 0.2382 1.4600e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3500e- 003 0.0645 203.8097 203.8097 4.2900e- 003 203.9168 Total 0.1259 1.1458 0.9012 4.9300e- 003 0.3127 3.6700e- 003 0.3164 0.0846 3.4700e- 003 0.0881 510.5325 510.5325 0.0197 511.0251 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.0655 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0067 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 21 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0477 0.0312 0.3163 1.0600e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 105.4188 105.4188 2.2200e- 003 105.4742 Total 0.0477 0.0312 0.3163 1.0600e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 105.4188 105.4188 2.2200e- 003 105.4742 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.0655 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0067 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 22 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0477 0.0312 0.3163 1.0600e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 105.4188 105.4188 2.2200e- 003 105.4742 Total 0.0477 0.0312 0.3163 1.0600e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 105.4188 105.4188 2.2200e- 003 105.4742 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 19.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 19.5207 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 23 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0191 0.0125 0.1265 4.2000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 42.1675 42.1675 8.9000e- 004 42.1897 Total 0.0191 0.0125 0.1265 4.2000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 42.1675 42.1675 8.9000e- 004 42.1897 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 19.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 19.5207 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 24 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0191 0.0125 0.1265 4.2000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 42.1675 42.1675 8.9000e- 004 42.1897 Total 0.0191 0.0125 0.1265 4.2000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 42.1675 42.1675 8.9000e- 004 42.1897 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 25 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.3222 1.4553 3.4596 0.0117 1.1053 9.8800e- 003 1.1152 0.2957 9.2100e- 003 0.3049 1,188.210 1 1,188.210 1 0.0451 1,189.336 6 Unmitigated 0.3222 1.4553 3.4596 0.0117 1.1053 9.8800e- 003 1.1152 0.2957 9.2100e- 003 0.3049 1,188.210 1 1,188.210 1 0.0451 1,189.336 6 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Library 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Library 9.50 7.30 7.30 52.00 43.00 5.00 44 44 12 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 26 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Library 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Parking Lot 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 27 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Library 2420.75 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Library 2.42075 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 28 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Unmitigated 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 29 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1058 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7759 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.1300e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Total 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1058 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7759 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.1300e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Total 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 30 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 11.0 Vegetation 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 31 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter This page intentionally left blank     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) B‐1 APPENDIX B    TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) B‐2 This page intentionally left blank  Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. June 27, 2018 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Hexagon Job Number: 17LK08 Phone: 408.971.6100 Client Name: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................i 1.Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 2.Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................8 3.Background Conditions ...............................................................................................................17 4.Project Conditions .......................................................................................................................20 5.Cumulative Conditions.................................................................................................................28 6.Other Transportation Issues ........................................................................................................32 Appendices Appendix A Traffic Counts Appendix B Levels of Service Calculations Appendix C List of Approved Projects Appendix D Signal Warrant Analysis List of Tables Table ES-1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ........................................................................iii Table 1 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay ...............................6 Table 2 Existing Transit Services ...................................................................................................12 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ..............................................................................15 Table 4 Background Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................18 Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates .....................................................................................21 Table 6 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary................................................................25 Table 7 Background Plus Project Level of Service Summary .........................................................27 Table 8 Cumulative Level of Service Summary ..............................................................................30 Table 9 Project Driveway Levels of Service Summary....................................................................34 Table 10 Queuing Analysis Summary ..............................................................................................37 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections..................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Site Plan ..................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities...................................................................................................10 Figure 4 Existing Transit Services ...................................................................................................11 Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations .............................................................................................13 Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................14 Figure 7 Background Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................19 Figure 8 Project Trip Distribution .....................................................................................................22 Figure 9 Project Trip Assignment ....................................................................................................23 Figure 10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes.............................................................................24 Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................................26 Figure 12 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes .......................................................................29 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | i Executive Summary This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed redevelopment of the City of Burlingame Recreation Center in Washington Park. The project site is located northeast of downtown Burlingame at 850 Burlingame Avenue, adjacent to Burlingame High School. The project would replace the existing single-story Burlingame Recreation Center that currently occupies the site with a new two-story 35,700 square-foot community center. The associated site work includes a playground, basketball court, pedestrian plaza, and surface and underground parking. While the project proposes to increase the overall building square footage on the site, the building footprint is anticipated to remain approximately the same size. The increase in building size will accommodate an increase in daily programs at the recreation center. The existing recreation center can program about 300 hours per week, while the proposed community center would increase the programming capacity to 510 hours per week.Parking would be provided via a subterranean parking garage and two surface parking lots. Access to the project site would be provided via a proposed full-access driveway adjacent to the building,and the existing driveways associated with the City-owned parking Lot X along Burlingame Avenue will remain. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Burlingame and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The study includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions during weekdays for six (6) unsignalized study intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Potential impacts to pedestrians, bikes, and transit services were also considered. Based on the project description and trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for Recreational Community Center (Land Use 495), it is estimated that the proposed project would generate 308 new daily vehicle trips, with 19 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 occurring during the PM peak hour. The City of Burlingame does not have a Council-adopted level of service threshold, thus significance standards (such as LOS D or better) that have typically been applied in traffic studies and EIRs were used. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under all scenarios with and without the project are summarized in Table ES-1. The results determined that under all scenarios with and without the project, all but one of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours.The California Drive/North Lane intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E)during the PM peak hour under cumulative traffic conditions. In addition, a signal warrant analysis conducted at the California Drive/North Lane intersection indicates that the warrant would be met under cumulative conditions with and without project traffic during the AM and PM peak hours. However, the addition of project-generated traffic would increase the average delay by less than 5 seconds, so the project impact would be considered less than significant. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | i i This report has also provided the following conclusions and recommendations for the project: Based on a signal warrant analysis, the California Drive/North Lane intersection would warrant a traffic signal under all scenarios with and without the project.While the addition of project- generated traffic is not expected to create a significant impact, the City of Burlingame should continue to monitor the California Drive/North Lane intersection and its potential conflict with the Caltrain railroad tracks, including evaluating the need for signalization of this intersection. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | i i i Table ES-1 Intersection Level of Service Summary Peak Count Traffic Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Intersection Hour Date Control (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS AM 05/23/17 14.0 B 14.1 B 14.1 B 14.2 B 16.4 C 16.5 C PM 05/23/17 12.1 B 12.1 B 12.1 B 12.2 B 13.2 B 13.3 B AM 05/01/18 21.2 C 21.8 C 21.8 C 22.3 C 28.3 D 29.6 D PM 05/01/18 29.1 D 29.7 D 30.7 D 31.5 D 46.5 E 49.2 E AM 05/01/18 10.2 B 10.2 B 10.2 B 10.2 B 10.8 B 10.9 B PM 05/01/18 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 9.1 A 9.2 A AM 05/01/18 8.3 A 8.4 A 8.3 A 8.4 A 8.5 A 8.6 A PM 05/01/18 8.6 A 8.7 A 8.6 A 8.7 A 9.0 A 9.0 A AM 05/01/18 10.4 B 10.5 B 10.4 B 10.5 B 10.6 B 10.7 B PM 05/01/18 10.6 B 10.8 B 10.6 B 10.8 B 11.0 B 11.1 B AM 05/01/18 7.8 A 7.8 A 7.8 A 7.8 A 7.9 A 8.0 A PM 05/01/18 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.8 A 7.8 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. 3 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach.Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Carolan Avenue and North Lane * 4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue * Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue Cumulative No Projectwith Project with Project with Project Existing Background No ProjectNo Project Study Number 6 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue * Note: 5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue 2 Calfiornia Drive and North Lane AWSC 1 SSSC 2 AWSC 1 AWSC 1 SSSC 2 AWSC 1 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 1.Introduction This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed redevelopment of the City of Burlingame Recreation Center in Washington Park. The project site is located northeast of downtown Burlingame at 850 Burlingame Avenue, adjacent to Burlingame High School (see Figure 1). The project would replace the existing single-story Burlingame Recreation Center that currently occupies the site with a new two-story 35,700 square-foot community center. The associated site work includes a playground, basketball court, pedestrian plaza, and surface and underground parking (see Figure 2).While the project proposes to increase the overall building square footage on the site, the building footprint is anticipated to remain approximately the same size.The increase in building size will accommodate an increase in daily programs at the recreation center. The existing recreation center can program about 300 hours per week, while the proposed community center would increase the programming capacity up to 510 hours per week.Parking would be provided via a subterranean parking garage and two surface parking lots. Access to the project site would be provided via a proposed full-access driveway adjacent to the building,and the existing driveways associated with the City-owned parking Lot X along Burlingame Avenue will remain. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Burlingame and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County. The C/CAG administers the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Given that the project is expected to add fewer than 100 peak hour trips to nearby CMP roadways (El Camino Real), a C/CAG trip reduction analysis was not prepared. The traffic study includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for six (6) unsignalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site. The study also includes an analysis of site access and on-site circulation, vehicle queuing, and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access. Study Intersections 1.Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue 2.California Drive and North Lane 3.Carolan Avenue and North Lane 4.Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue 5.Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue 6.Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue Burlingame Community Center Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections Cali f o r n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth LnX = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 Burlingame Community Center Figure 2 Project Site Plan Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 4 Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic. The AM peak hour typically occurs between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a regular weekday. These are the peak commute hours during which traffic volume is highest on the roadways in the study area Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1:Existing Conditions.Existing traffic volumes at the study intersections were obtained from traffic counts conducted in May of 2017 and 2018. The study intersections were evaluated with a level of service analysis using Synchro software in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. Scenario 2:Background Conditions.Background traffic volumes reflect traffic added by projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments in the project area. The approved project trips and/or approved project information were obtained from recent traffic studies in the City of Burlingame. Scenario 3:Existing plus Project Conditions.Existing traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on the existing roadway network. Scenario 4:Project Conditions.Background traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Project Conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions to determine potential project impacts. Scenario 5:Cumulative Conditions.Cumulative traffic volumes represent traffic growth through the year 2028. Cumulative traffic volumes were estimated by applying an annual growth factor of 1.0 percent to the existing volumes, then adding trips from approved developments, as well as project-generated traffic. Cumulative conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions to determine potential project impacts. Methodology This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the City of Burlingame, local traffic studies and EIRs, and field observations. The following data were collected from these sources: existing peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes lane configurations intersection signal timing and phasing approved project information Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 5 Level of Service Standards and Analysis Methodologies 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 jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. Unsignalized Intersections Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all-way stop or signalization). As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate. The City of Burlingame evaluates intersection level of service based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)2010 method using Synchro software1. This method is applicable for both side-street and all- way stop-controlled intersections. At side-street stop-controlled intersections (e.g., the Myrtle Road/Burlingame Avenue and Anita Road/Burlingame Avenue intersections), the levels of service reported are for the worst stop-controlled approach delay. For all-way stop-controlled intersections (e.g., the Carolan Avenue/Oak Grove Avenue, Carolan Avenue/North Lane, and the Carolan Avenue/Burlingame Avenue intersections), a weighted average delay of the entire intersection is presented. The City of Burlingame does not have a formally-adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections. While the City of Burlingame does not have a Council-adopted level of service threshold for unsignalized intersections, a standard of LOS D or better has typically been applied in local traffic studies and EIRs. The correlation between average control delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 1. Traffic Signal Warrant The level of service calculations at the unsignalized intersections was supplemented with an assessment of the need for installation of a traffic signal, known as a signal warrant analysis. The need for signalization of unsignalized intersections in an urban or suburban context is typically assessed based on the Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant 3)described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (CA MUTCD), Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals. This method makes no evaluation of intersection level of service,but simply provides an indication whether vehicular peak hour volumes are, or would be, sufficiently high to justify installation of a traffic signal. The decision to install a traffic signal should not be based purely on the warrants alone. Instead, the decision should be considered when one or more of the warrants are met, which triggers further feasibility analysis.Engineering judgment should be exercised to determine how a traffic signal could affect collision rates and traffic conditions at the subject intersection,as well as at adjacent intersections. Other options besides a traffic signal should also be considered, such as all-way stop control, new or enhanced signage, or roadway geometry changes; these measures may be more appropriate than a new traffic signal. 1 The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)does not support intersections with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach. Intersections with these features were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 6 Table 1 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay Significant Impact Criteria Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine significant impacts on intersections are based on City of Burlingame past practices. Intersection Impact Criteria As previously mentioned, the City of Burlingame does not have any Council-adopted definitions of significant traffic impacts. Standards that have been typically used in traffic studies and EIRs are described below. The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at an unsignalized intersection if for any peak-hour: 1.The level of service at the intersection (or movement/approach at side-street stop controls) degrades from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E or F and causes the intersection to meet the peak hour signal warrant; or 2.The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E, or F and the addition of project trips causes the intersection to meet the peak hour signal warrant and the intersection (or movement/approach at side-street stop controls) to increase by five (5) or more seconds. A significant impact typically is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection level of service to insignificant conditions or better. CMP Roadway Impact and Compliance As the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Mateo County, the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is responsible for maintaining the performance and standards of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway network. Per CMP technical guidelines, all new developments estimated to add at least 100 net peak hour trips to the CMP roadway network are required to implement Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures in accordance with the C/CAG CMP Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.) A Little or no traffic delay Up to 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 Extreme traffic delays Greater than 50.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2010) E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 7 checklist. The proposed project is expected to add fewer than 100 net peak hour vehicle trips to the CMP roadway network. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit services, and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 presents the intersection operations under background conditions and describes the approved projects in the City of Burlingame that would likely add traffic to the study area. Chapter 4 describes the methods used to estimate project-generated traffic and its impact on the transportation system.Chapter 5 describes cumulative traffic conditions, both with and without the project. Chapter 6 presents the analysis of other transportation related issues including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 8 2.Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided via US 101 and El Camino Real (SR 82).Local access to the site is provided by Carolan Avenue, Burlingame Avenue, and California Drive.These roadways are described below. US 101 is a north/south,eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the site. US 101 extends northward through San Francisco and southward through San Jose. Access to and from the project study area is provided via a full-interchange at Broadway and a partial interchange at Peninsula Avenue. El Camino Real (SR 82)is a four-lane roadway west of the project site that serves as a north-south route of travel along the Peninsula in the vicinity of the site. El Camino Real extends northward to San Francisco,and southward to San Jose.Access to the project site from El Camino Real is provided via Burlingame Avenue. California Drive is a north/south roadway that extends from Millbrae Avenue in the City of Millbrae to Peninsula Avenue in San Mateo to the south, at which point it becomes North San Mateo Drive. California Drive consists of two lanes between Millbrae Avenue and Broadway, and four lanes south of Broadway. Located west of the project site, access from California Drive is provided via North Lane and Carolan Avenue. Carolan Avenue is a north/south, two-lane street that extends from Edwards Road to Burlingame Avenue, where it transitions into East Lane. On-street parking is permitted along both sides of Carolan Avenue. Access to the project site from Carolan Avenue is provided via Burlingame Avenue. Burlingame Avenue is an east/west, two-lane street that extends from Occidental Avenue through downtown Burlingame to California Drive, and continues east of the Caltrain tracks from Carolan Avenue/East Lane to Rollins Road. Burlingame Avenue forms the southern boundary of the project site and permits on-street parking along both sides of the roadway. Burlingame Avenue provides direct access to the project site. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 9 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks exist along either side or both sides of Burlingame Avenue, Anita Road, Myrtle Road, Carolan Avenue, and California Drive, providing pedestrian access to and from the project site. Marked crosswalks are provided on all stopped-controlled approaches of the unsignalized study intersections The overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to school, transit services,and other points of interest in the vicinity of the project site. Existing Bicycle Facilities There are some bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. The existing bicycle facilities within the study area are described below and are shown on Figure 3. North-south bicycle connections in the study area include Class III bike routes along California Drive between Millbrae Avenue and Burlingame Avenue to the west, and along Carolan Avenue between Howard Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue,also to the west. Bike routes are signed and designated roadways that provide connections to the project site,as well as parks, schools, other community amenities such as downtown Burlingame and the Millbrae Transit Center. There are also Class II bike lanes north of the project site along Carolan Avenue between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue.Bike Lanes are preferential-use areas within a roadway, designated for bicycles. East-west bicycle connections in the study area consist of bike routes along Oak Grove Avenue between Acacia Drive and Winchester Drive,north of the project site, and along Howard Avenue south of the project site between Occidental Avenue and East Lane, where it transitions into Class II bike lanes and extends east to Humboldt Street. Although few of the local streets within the project study area are designated as bike routes, due to their low speed limits and traffic volumes many streets in the vicinity of the project site are conducive to bicycle travel. Existing Transit Service Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), the City of Burlingame, and Caltrain (See Figure 4). The study area is served directly by a limited bus route, an express bus route, and a shuttle route.The transit service routes that run through the study area are listed in Table 2, including their route description and commute hour headways. The nearest bus stop is located at the Myrtle Road/Burlingame Avenue intersection, which is about 500 feet walking distance west of the project site. Burlingame Community Center Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND = Existing Class II Bike Lanes = Existing Class III Bike Routes North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth LnBurlingame1 4 3 2 5 6 Burlingame Caltrain Station Burlingame Community Center Figure 4 Existing Transit Services = Site Location LEGEND = Samtrans Route 46 = Samtrans Route 292 = Burlingame Trolley = Proposed High Speed Rail Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way H a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth LnBurlingame Caltrain Station Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 2 Table 2 Existing Transit Services Caltrain Service Caltrain provides frequent passenger train service between San Jose and San Francisco seven days a week. During commute hours, Caltrain provides extended service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. The closest Caltrain station is the Burlingame Station (approximately a quarter-mile west of the project site), providing weekday and weekend service. The Burlingame Station provides local and limited Caltrain service. Trains that stop at the Burlingame Station operate at approximately 25-minute headways in both directions during the commute hours, with somewhat less frequent service midday. Service operates between about 5:30 AM and 11:35 PM in the northbound direction and between 5:20 AM and 12:35 AM (next day) in the southbound direction. As part of the Caltrain Modernization Program, the rail service will be electrified. The electrified Caltrain system will provide increased service through improved system operations. Existing Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field and are shown on Figure 5.Typical engineering practice allows for the use of traffic counts conducted within the past two years. At locations where the available count data is outdated, new peak-hour turning movement counts are conducted.When this study was started, there were counts already available at the Carolan/Oak Grove intersection from the 619 California Drive Live/Work Development traffic study. The other five study intersections needed new counts, which were conducted on May 1st, 2018.The existing peak-hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 6. Intersection turning- movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix A. Transit Route Route Description Headway 1 Operated by SamTrans Limited Route 46 Burlingame Intermediate School to Arundel Road/Howard Avenue Intersection N/A 2 Express Route 292 Hillsdale Shopping Center to Transbay Transit Center 30 mins Operated by the City of Burlingame Burlingame Trolley Service Burlingame Caltrain Station to San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel 45 mins Notes: 1 Approximate headways during peak commute periods. 2 N/A - Route has only two trips during the AM. This route only operates on school days during the PM. Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth LnX = Study Intersection = Stop Control = Yield Control = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPCaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorth Ave Ave Grove Oak CarolanAveBurlingame AnitaRdAve Burlingame 1234 5 6 North Ln Burlingame AveCarolanAveTennisCour tDwy70(34)69(82)23(41)12(19)101(101)171(179)11(22) 146(133) 7(20) 298(208) 144(126) 123(46)689(833)164(86)174(111)554(676)33(45) 144(94)64(98)127(96)11(8)2(3)118(129)125(68)207(51) 28(6) 86(121)16(33)9(5)16(13)0(1)1(2)12(5) 115(87) 12(17) 23(28) 105(121) 19(23)3(2)65(59)107(145)92(107)19(20) 125(126)40(23)19(11)31(22) 102(85) 3(1) 92(106) 25(32) 9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)CaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 5 Existing Intersection Levels of Service The results of the analysis show that all except one of the unsignalized study intersections currently operate at LOS A or LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours (see Table 3).This indicates that vehicles at the majority of the stop-controlled approaches experience only minor delays. The California Drive/North Lane intersection operates at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour for the stop-controlled movements on North Lane. The lower levels of service at the California Drive/North Lane intersection is partly attributed to the Caltrain railroad gate down-times on North Lane, between California Drive and Carolan Avenue. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Overall, most study intersections operated adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. However, field observations showed that some operational problems currently occur during the AM and PM peak commute hours. These issues are described below. The study intersections nearest to the project site operate adequately during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, and the level of service analysis accurately reflects actual existing traffic conditions. Count Traffic Peak Avg. Delay Intersection Date Control Hour (sec.)LOS 05/23/17 AM 14.0 B 05/23/17 PM 12.1 B 05/01/18 AM 21.2 C 05/01/18 PM 29.1 D 05/01/18 AM 10.2 B 05/01/18 PM 8.9 A 05/01/18 AM 8.3 A 05/01/18 PM 8.6 A 05/01/18 AM 10.4 B 05/01/18 PM 10.6 B 05/01/18 AM 7.8 A 05/01/18 PM 7.7 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. Calfiornia Drive and North Lane 3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane * 4 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach. Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Study Number 6 2 5 SSSC 2 Notes: 1 Existing Conditions Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue * Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue *AWSC 1 SSSC 2 AWSC 1 AWSC 1 SSSC 2 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 6 North Lane, as well as Carolan Avenue south of Oak Grove Avenue, carries relatively moderate traffic volumes to and from Burlingame High School during student drop-off/pick-up times. Given the short period in which students are dropped-off/picked-up, the moderate traffic volumes along Oak Grove Avenue and within the study area only occur for 15-20 minutes and do not last the entire peak period. The close spacing of the intersections along North Lane result in occasional vehicle queue backups during the AM peak hour, particularly due to the frequent Caltrain railroad gate down-times. The eastbound vehicle queue typically backs up to California Drive during the gate down-times,resulting in extended wait times for vehicles turning on to North Lane from southbound California Drive as well as southbound and northbound Carolan Avenue. However, North Lane as well as the adjacent turn movements are able to clear their respective intersections quickly once the Caltrain gate is lifted. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 7 3.Background Conditions This chapter describes background traffic conditions. Background conditions are defined as conditions within the next 3-5 years (a horizon year of 2021-2023) just prior to completion/occupation of the proposed development. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes and the resulting traffic conditions. Roadway Network and Traffic Volumes Under background conditions, it is assumed that the proposed Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), which is a key component of the Caltrain Modernization program, would be completed (projected to be operational between 2020 and 2021). According to Fehr & Peers’Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Transportation Analysis (2014), the PCEP is expected to increase service by up to six Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction by 2020.The remainder of the transportation network is assumed to be the same under background conditions as that of the existing transportation network. Background traffic volumes for the study intersections were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the trips generated by nearby approved but not yet completed or occupied projects in the area. A list of approved developments was obtained from the City of Burlingame and is included in the Appendix. Trip generation estimates for the approved projects were based on their respective traffic study, if available. For small projects that did not require a traffic study, trips were estimated based on ITE trip rates. The estimated trips from the approved projects were distributed and assigned throughout the study area based on the trip distribution assumptions present in the traffic studies or based on knowledge of travel patterns in the study area. Background peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7. Background Intersection Levels of Service Table 4 shows that the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours under background conditions. This indicates that vehicles at the stop-controlled approaches would continue to experience moderate delays.The intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. It should be noted that the proposed PCEP will result in additional gate down-times at the railroad crossings in Burlingame. These could result in an increase in the wait-time (delay) of some turning movements of the adjacent study intersections trying to cross the railroad tracks. However, given that all of the study intersections are stop-controlled, vehicles on the other approaches would still be able to travel through the intersection; thus, the increased train service is not expected to affect intersection Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 8 operations. In addition, based on the levels of service, all of the turning movements crossing the Caltrain railroad tracks would operate at LOS B or better. Thus, the added delay is not expected to significantly impact the adjacent study intersections. Table 4 Background Intersection Levels of Service Traffic Peak Avg. Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec.)LOS AM 14.1 B PM 12.1 B AM 21.8 C PM 30.7 D AM 10.2 B PM 8.9 A AM 8.3 A PM 8.6 A AM 10.4 B PM 10.6 B AM 7.8 A PM 7.7 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free- flowing approach.Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. AWSC 1 AWSC 1 SSSC 2 SSSC 2 Notes: 6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue 3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane * 4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue * 5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue Background Study Number 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue * 2 Calfiornia Drive and North Lane AWSC 1 SSSC 2 Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorth Ave Ave Grove Oak CarolanAveBurlingame AnitaRdAve Burlingame 1234 5 6 North Ln Burlingame AveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy 70(34)69(82)23(43)12(19)101(101)176(181)11(22) 146(133) 7(20) 299(211) 144(126) 123(46)695(861)164(86)174(111)581(683)33(45) 144(94)64(98)127(96)11(8)2(3)118(129)125(68)207(51) 28(6) 86(121)16(33)9(5)16(13)0(1)1(2)12(5) 115(87) 12(17) 23(28) 105(121) 19(23)3(2)65(59)107(145)92(107)19(20) 125(126)40(23)19(11)31(22) 102(85) 3(1) 92(106) 25(32) 9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)CaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 7 Background Traffic Volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 2 0 4.Project Conditions This chapter describes traffic conditions with the project and includes: (1) the method by which project traffic is estimated and (2) a level of service summary. Existing plus project conditions are represented by existing traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. Existing plus project traffic conditions could potentially occur if the project were to be occupied prior to the other approved projects in the area. Project conditions are represented by background traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. Roadway Network It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under project conditions would be the same as the background transportation network. Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the proposed community center was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated. In the project trip assignment, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below. Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic expected to be produced by common land uses. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The standard trip generation rates typically come from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication titled Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Project trip generation was estimated by applying to the size and uses of the development the appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The average trip generation rates for Recreational Community Center (Land Use 495)was applied to the project.The ITE trip rates reflect between 10 and 13 surveyed recreational community center locations during peak hours and comprise building sizes ranging from 30,000 square feet to 350,000 square feet. The project as proposed would replace the existing 25,000 square-foot recreation center with a new 35,700 square-foot community center. Based on ITE’s trip generation rates for Recreational Community Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 2 1 Center (Land Use 495), the project would generate 308 new daily vehicle trips, with 19 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 new trips occurring during the PM peak hour (see Table 5). Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment The trip distribution pattern for the project was developed based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The peak hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution pattern.Figure 8 shows the trip distribution pattern for the project, while Figure 9 shows the trip assignment of project traffic on the local transportation network. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 10. Land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Uses Burlingame Community Center 1 35.7 ksf 28.82 1,029 1.76 41 22 63 2.31 39 43 82 Existing Uses Recreation Center 1 25.0 ksf 28.82 (721)1.76 (29)(15)(44)2.31 (27)(31)(58) Net Project Trips 308 12 7 19 12 13 25 Notes: KSF = 1,000 square feet 1 Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Recreational Community Center (Land Use 495) average rates published in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. Burlingame Community CenterFigure 8Project Trip DistributionCalifornia DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimrose RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth LnX= Study Intersection= Site LocationLEGEND14325625%15%15%15%10%10%10% Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorth Ave Ave Grove Oak CarolanAveBurlingame AnitaRdAve Burlingame 1234 5 6 North Ln Burlingame AveCarolanAveTennisCour tDwy1(2)1(2)2(2)2(2)1(1)2(2)1(1) 1(2)2(3)2(4)4(4)3(3)1(1)1(1)0(1)0(1) 6(6)7(7)4(7)1(1)1(1) 0(1) 1(1)CaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 9 Project Trip Assignment Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorth Ave Ave Grove Oak CarolanAveBurlingame AnitaRdAve Burlingame 1234 5 6 North Ln Burlingame AveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy 70(34)70(84)24(43)12(19)103(103)171(179)13(24) 146(133) 7(20) 298(208) 144(126) 123(46)689(833)165(87)176(113)554(676)34(46) 145(96)66(101)129(100)11(8)2(3)122(133)125(68)207(51) 28(6) 89(124)16(33)10(6)17(14)0(1)0(1)1(2)12(5) 115(88) 12(17) 29(34) 105(121) 19(23)3(2)65(59)114(152)92(107)19(20) 129(133)40(23)20(12)32(23) 102(86) 3(1) 93(107) 25(32) 9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)CaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 2 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis The results of the analysis show that all but one of the stop-controlled approaches of the unsignalized study intersections would continue to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours (see Table 6). The Carolan Avenue/North Lane intersection would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. This indicates that, with the addition of project traffic under existing conditions, vehicles at the stop-controlled approaches are expected to continue to experience minor-to-moderate delays.The intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. Table 6 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary Project Condition Traffic Volumes Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to background traffic volumes to obtain project condition traffic volumes. The project condition traffic volumes at the study intersections are shown on Figure 11. Project Condition Intersection Analysis Analysis results from Table 7 show that all unsignalized study intersections and their stop-controlled approaches would operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. Thus, vehicles at the stop- controlled approaches are expected experience up to moderate delays under background plus project conditions.Intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. Traffic Peak Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS AM 14.0 B 14.1 B PM 12.1 B 12.1 B AM 21.2 C 21.8 C PM 29.1 D 29.7 D AM 10.2 B 10.2 B PM 8.9 A 8.9 A AM 8.3 A 8.4 A PM 8.6 A 8.7 A AM 10.4 B 10.5 B PM 10.6 B 10.8 B AM 7.8 A 7.8 A PM 7.7 A 7.7 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach.Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Note: AWSC 1 SSSC 2 AWSC 1 AWSC 1 SSSC 2 SSSC 2 4 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue * 2 Calfiornia Drive and North Lane 3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane * Existing Conditions Study Number 6 With Project Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue No Project Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue * 5 Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorth Ave Ave Grove Oak CaliforniaDrCarolanAveBurlingame AnitaRdAve Burlingame 1234 5 6 North Ln Burlingame AveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy 70(34)70(84)24(45)12(19)103(103)176(181)13(24) 146(133) 7(20) 299(211) 144(126) 123(46)695(861)165(87)176(113)581(683)34(46) 145(96)66(101)129(100)11(8)2(3)122(133)125(68)207(51) 28(6) 89(124)16(33)10(6)17(14)0(1)0(1)1(2)12(5) 115(88) 12(17) 29(34) 105(121) 19(23)3(2)65(59)114(152)92(107)19(20) 129(133)40(23)20(12)32(23) 102(86) 3(1) 93(107) 25(32) 9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)Burlingame Community Center Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 2 7 Table 7 Background Plus Project Level of Service Summary Traffic Peak Avg Avg Intersection Control Hour Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS AM 14.1 B 14.2 B PM 12.1 B 12.2 B AM 21.8 C 22.3 C PM 30.7 D 31.5 D AM 10.2 B 10.2 B PM 8.9 A 8.9 A AM 8.3 A 8.4 A PM 8.6 A 8.7 A AM 10.4 B 10.5 B PM 10.6 B 10.8 B AM 7.8 A 7.8 A PM 7.7 A 7.7 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach.Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. SSSC 2 AWSC 1 AWSC 1 SSSC 2 SSSC 2 Note: Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue 6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue 2 Calfiornia Drive and North Lane 3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane * 4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue * 5 Background Conditions No Project With Project Study Number 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue *AWSC 1 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 2 8 5.Cumulative Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions with the proposed project. Cumulative conditions represent future traffic conditions with expected growth in the area. The expected future traffic growth was estimated by applying an annual growth factor to the existing counts over 10 years. Thus, cumulative conditions reflect a horizon year of 2028. Roadway Network and Traffic Volumes The intersection lane configurations under cumulative conditions were assumed to be the same as described under background conditions. Based on the C/CAG travel demand model, as well as previously completed traffic studies within the City of Burlingame, the traffic volumes under cumulative no project conditions for the study intersections were estimated by applying a 1.0 percent annual growth rate to the existing traffic counts and adding traffic from approved developments. The growth rate was applied to the study intersections through the year 2028 (ten-year horizon). Project trips were then added to the growth estimates to create the cumulative conditions volumes (see Figure 12). Intersection Levels of Service Analysis Analysis results from Table 8 show that most of the unsignalized study intersections and their stop- controlled approaches would operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. The California Drive/North Lane intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS E with and without the addition of the project traffic during the PM peak hour. In addition, a signal warrant analysis conducted at the California Drive/North Lane intersection shows that the warrant would be met under all scenarios with and without project traffic during the AM and PM peak hours (see description below). However, the addition of project traffic would not create a significant impact at this intersection because the increase to the stop-controlled delay per vehicle would be less than the standard threshold of five (5) seconds. Intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6CaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 12 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 0 Table 8 Cumulative Level of Service Summary Signal Warrant Analysis Signal warrant checks (California MUTCD, Section 4, Warrant 3) were performed for the unsignalized study intersections. The results of the signal warrant analysis are described and summarized below. Signal warrant worksheets and threshold tables are included in Appendix C. A peak hour signal warrant analysis was performed for the unsignalized study intersections. Based on their peak-hour traffic volumes, only one of the study intersections would warrant signalization. The intersection of California Drive and North Lane would warrant a traffic signal under all scenarios with and without the project. California Drive has two through lanes in each direction as well as a southbound left-turn lane at the unsignalized California Drive/North Lane intersection. Vehicles turning left from southbound California Drive onto eastbound North Lane must wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic flow, during which time through traffic is able to proceed in the through lanes. Similarly, left turning traffic from North Lane onto southbound California Drive must wait for a gap in both the northbound and southbound traffic flow. As described in the previous section, the California Drive/North Lane intersection would operate at LOS E under cumulative conditions, which reflects very long traffic delays and extended vehicle queues. Given the presence of the Caltrain railroad tracks east of the California Drive/North Lane intersection, operational and safety-related issues could potentially arise from westbound turning vehicles waiting for a gap in the northbound and/or southbound traffic flow and vehicle queues extending onto the railroad tracks.While the addition of project-generated traffic is not expected to create a significant impact, the Traffic Peak Avg Avg Intersection Control Hour Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS AM 16.4 C 16.5 C PM 13.2 B 13.3 B AM 28.3 D 29.6 D PM 46.5 E 49.2 E AM 10.8 B 10.9 B PM 9.1 A 9.2 A AM 8.5 A 8.6 A PM 9.0 A 9.0 A AM 10.6 B 10.7 B PM 11.0 B 11.1 B AM 7.9 A 8.0 A PM 7.8 A 7.8 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. Bold indicates a substandard level of service. 6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC 2 Note: Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach.Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. 4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue *AWSC 1 5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC 2 2 Calfiornia Drive and North Lane SSSC 2 3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane *AWSC 1 Cumulative Conditions No Project With Project Study Number 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue *AWSC 1 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 1 City of Burlingame should monitor the California Drive/North Lane intersection and its potential conflict with the Caltrain railroad tracks, including evaluating the need for signalization.Given the close proximity of the California Drive/Burlingame Avenue intersection, the traffic signal at the North Lane would need to be coordinated with the nearby Burlingame Avenue intersection to ensure efficient traffic operations along California Drive and North Lane. Coordinating these two traffic signals will ensure that westbound traffic on No rth Lane would not extend across the Caltrain railroad tracks. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 2 6.Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project. These include an analysis of: Project site access and circulation Truck access and circulation Parking analysis Potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities Unlike the level of service impact methodology, most of the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgement in accordance with the standards and methods employed by traffic engineering professionals. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to describing the project environment. Site Access and On-Site Circulation The site access and on-site circulation evaluation is based on the May 2018 site plan prepared by Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc.(see Figure 2). Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site’s new driveway with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planning principles. Project Driveway Design The proposed project would replace two of the existing partial-access driveways,east of the Anita Road/Burlingame Avenue intersection, with a single full-access driveway.The project as proposed would provide a width of 18 feet for the proposed driveway that would provide access to the surface parking area and the subterranean parking garage adjacent to the building. The City of Burlingame Zoning Code requires a minimum of either two 12-foot driveways or one 18-foot driveway for parking areas of more than 30 vehicle spaces. Therefore,the project site plan would conform to the City’s minimum width requirement for a two-way driveway. Nearby Driveways The location of the project driveway was also reviewed with respect to other driveways in the vicinity of the project site. Nearby driveways are located across from and approximately 50 feet west of the exit- only driveway of the City-owned parking Lot X on Burlingame Avenue. Similarly, nearby residential driveways and an alleyway are located across from the proposed driveway leading to the parking area adjacent to the community center building. While both project driveways would be close in proximity to the neighboring driveways, vehicles are still expected to be able to make turns in and out of the project driveway without affecting similar operations at the adjacent driveways due to the low traffic volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 3 and speed along Burlingame Avenue. Therefore, the driveway location as proposed were found to be adequate. Sight Distance There are no existing trees or visual obstructions along the project frontage that could obscure sight distance at the project driveway. The project access points should be free and clear of any obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles and bicycles traveling on Burlingame Avenue. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at the project driveway in accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in traffic. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. For driveways on Burlingame Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph). Thus, a driver must be able to see 200 feet in both directions along Burlingame Avenue in order to stop and avoid a collision. Based on the project site plan, it can be concluded that the project driveways would meet the Caltrans stopping sight distance standards. Project Driveway Operations The project-generated gross trips that are estimated to occur at the project driveway are 41 inbound trips and 22 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 39 inbound trips and 43 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Based on the relatively low traffic volumes near the project site and observations of existing traffic operations along Burlingame Avenue, vehicle queues should rarely exceed 1 or 2 vehicles in length during the peak hours. The project driveway adjacent to the community center building would provide full-access, allowing right and left inbound and outbound turns to and from Burlingame Avenue. Outbound left turns from the project driveway would require vehicles to wait for gaps in traffic in both the eastbound and westbound directions, while inbound left turns would require vehicles to wait for a gap in the westbound traffic flow only. Given that Burlingame Avenue consists of only one lane in each direction with no left-turn pockets, inbound left turns at the project driveway would be made from the through lane. Thus, there would be interruptions to the through traffic flow while left-turn vehicles wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic flow, albeit momentary. Driveways at the City-owned parking lot would operate similarly, except the partial-access driveway,which only allows right and left outbound turns. A level of service analysis was conducted for left turns at the project driveways to ensure that vehicles would operate without excessive delays or queues (see Table 9). Under all scenarios with project traffic, the project driveways would operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. This indicates that left-turning vehicles at the project driveway would experience minor delays and are expected to have a minimal effect on operations at the adjacent intersections. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 4 Table 9 Project Driveway Levels of Service Summary On-Site Circulation On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of Burlingame Zoning Code and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. In general, the proposed site plan would provide vehicle traffic with adequate connectivity through the parking areas. The project would provide 90- degree parking stalls throughout surface level parking area as well as the parking garage. The City’s standard minimum width for two-way drive aisles is 18 feet wide and 24 feet wide where 90-degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for vehicles to back out of the parking spaces. Currently, the project site plan does not show the width of the drive aisles. The project as proposed would provide 24-foot drive aisles, which would conform to the City’s minimum width requirement for drive aisles adjacent to 90-degree parking. Typical engineering standards require garage ramps to have no greater than a 20 percent grade with transition grades of 10 percent.The garage ramp slope and transition grade are not noted on the project plans; thus,the project should ensure that the garage ramp conforms to typical engineering standards. Parking Garage Circulation A single-level parking structure would occupy the eastern half of the project site. Access to the parking garage would be provided via an entrance/exit ramp located at the center of the surface parking lot (see Figure 2). Circulation through the surface level of the surface parking lot would allow vehicles to adequately access the pick-up/drop-off area adjacent to the building entrance. Pedestrian access between the parking structure and on-site uses are typically provided via elevators and stairways on each parking level.Elevators and stairways would be located along the western edge of the lower level of the garage, providing access to the building’s main lobby.A stairway would also be located in the southeast corner of the garage and would provide access to an exit corridor leading to Burlingame Avenue. Study Peak Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Number Intersection Movement Hour (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS AM 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A PM 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A AM 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 A PM 9.9 A 9.9 A 10.1 B AM 9.0 A 9.0 A 9.0 A PM 9.0 A 9.0 A 9.0 A AM 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A PM 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A AM 9.7 A 9.7 A 9.8 A PM 9.7 A 9.7 A 9.8 A Cumulative with Project Existing with Project Parking Lot X - Driveway B and Burlingame Avenue Inbound Left Outbound Left/Right Outbound Left/Right Outbound Left/Right Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue Background with Project 5 8 Driveway A and Burlingame Avenue Inbound Left 7 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 5 Bike and Pedestrian On-site Circulation The site plan shows adequate pedestrian circulation throughout the site, as well as between the site and the surrounding pedestrian facilities. The site plan shows continuous walkways along the northern and southern edges of the site, including a pedestrian connection that would stretch from the western side of the project building to the existing park promenade and bike path that bisects Washington Park. The pedestrian connection would also provide access to the community center terraces,the proposed picnic tables,the proposed playground, and the proposed new basketball court, adjacent to the Lions Club Hall building. In addition, the project would provide a pedestrian plaza adjacent to the building entrance. As previously mentioned, the parking garage also includes a few areas with elevators and stairs so that pedestrians would have convenient access to them from any part of the garage. Bicycle parking would be located adjacent to the designated drop-off/pick-up area near the building entrance, as well as near the western building entrance on the park-side of the building.This would allow bicyclists to enter and leave the project site using either the existing park promenade or the pedestrian plaza and connect to Burlingame Avenue. Providing convenient bike parking would help create a pedestrian-and bicycle-friendly environment and encourage bicycling by patrons. In addition, the inclusion of convenient bike parking would complement the bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Unloading/Loading Zones According to the project site plan, a pick-up/drop-off zone is planned for the project adjacent to the building entrance and pedestrian plaza.As previously mentioned, the pick-up/drop-off area would be accessible via the surface level of the parking garage. The loading zone would primarily serve patrons of the community center, particularly those being dropped-off for activities and programs conducted at the community center or for patrons of the community center waiting for rides. The project description also includes a larger designated loading/unloading space curbside along Burlingame Avenue to accommodate the frequent tour bus trips associated with recreational programs. Parking Supply Based on the City of Burlingame Master Plan, the Master Plan Area is required to provide a total of 143 off-street parking spaces.The required parking reflects the typical daily peak hour demand as well as the maximum parking demand during an event. Of the required 143 parking spaces,59 spaces currently exist in the City-owned public parking Lot X, adjacent to the Lions Club Hall. Therefore, based on the City’s parking requirement and the project description, the proposed community center project area is required to provide 84 new parking spaces. The project plans dated May 2018 show that the project area would provide a total of 84 parking spaces, with 44 spaces located within the surface parking lot and 40 spaces located within the subterranean parking garage. Thus, the proposed parking supply would meet the City’s parking requirement. Per the California Building Code (CBC) Table 11B-6, five (5) ADA accessible spaces are required for projects with 101 to 150 parking spaces. Of the required accessible parking spaces, one van accessible space is required. The existing Lot X contains three (3) accessible spaces. The project as proposed would include four (4) accessible spaces, two on the surface level and two in the subterranean level of the parking garage. Of the provided ADA accessible spaces,two would be van accessible.Therefore, the project would adhere to the CBC accessible parking provisions. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 6 Bicycle Parking According to the City of Burlingame Master Plan, the Master Plan Area is required to provide a total of 8 bicycle parking spaces.Of the required bicycle parking, seven spaces are to be secured long-term bicycle spaces and the one remaining space is to be a short-term bicycle parking space.The City of Burlingame Master Plan defines long-term bicycle parking facilities as central,secure bicycle storage facilities that fully enclose and protect bicycles, which may include an access-controlled room or covered area with short-term bicycle parking facilities, or individual bicycle lockers that securely enclose one bicycle per locker.Short-term bicycle parking facilities are accessible and usable by visitors, guests or business patrons and may include permanently anchored bicycle racks. As previously mentioned, the project as proposed would provide bicycle parking located adjacent to the designated drop-off/pick-up area near the building entrance, as well as near the western building entrance on the park-side of the building.Based on the project description, it is anticipated that the provided bicycle parking would amount to at least 8 bicycle parking spaces comprised of 7 long-term spaces and one short-term space. Thus, the project would conform to the City’s minimum bicycle parking requirement. Intersection Queuing Analysis The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high-demand movements at the study intersections (see Table 10). The following two left-turn movements were examined as part of the queuing analysis for this project: Westbound left turn movement at the California Drive and North Lane intersection Southbound left turn movement at the Carolan Avenue and Burlingame Avenue intersection Eastbound left turn movement at the Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue intersection Given that the left-turn movements at the Carolan Avenue/Burlingame Avenue and Myrtle Road/Burlingame Avenue intersections share the lane with other turn movements, the queueing analysis reflects the vehicle queueing for the entire southbound and eastbound movement, respectively. The estimated queue lengths based on the Poisson numerical calculations show no queuing deficiencies for any of the studied left turns (see Table 10). Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 7 Table 10 Queuing Analysis Summary Measurement AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)21.2 29.1 8.3 8.6 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )33 45 199 252 147 172 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Existing Plus Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)21.8 29.7 8.4 8.7 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )33 45 206 259 153 178 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Background Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)21.8 30.7 8.3 8.6 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )34 46 199 252 147 172 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Background Plus Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)22.3 31.5 8.4 8.7 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )34 46 206 259 153 178 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Cumulative Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)28.3 46.5 8.5 9.0 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )36 50 220 278 162 190 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Cumulative Plus Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)29.6 49.2 8.6 9.0 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )37 51 227 285 168 196 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: 1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections. 2 Assumes 25 Feet Per Vehicle Queued. EBL = eastbound left movement; EBT = eastbound through movement; EBR = eastbound right movement; SBL = southbound left movement; SBT = southbound through movement; WBL = westbound left movement Carolan Avenue & Burlingame Avenue EBL/EBT/EBR Myrtle Road & Burlingame Avenue SBL/SBT California Drive & North Lane WBL Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 8 Pedestrian, Bicycle,and Transit Analysis All new development projects in the City of Burlingame should encourage multi-modal travel, consistent with the goals of the City’s General Plan. It is the goal of the General Plan that all development projects accommodate and encourage the use of non-automobile transportation modes to achieve Burlingame’s mobility goals. In addition, the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan establishes goals and policies to make bicycling a daily part of life in Burlingame. The Transportation Plan includes designated bike lanes where possible, as well as designated routes for both local and regional trips, to provide a complete connection through Burlingame. In order to further the goals of the City, pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be encouraged with new development projects. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections (see Chapter 2 for details). The project is expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the sidewalks and crosswalks. The project plans show existing sidewalks of approximately 5 feet in width along the Burlingame Avenue frontage, with a 9-foot landscaped setback from the curb and landscaping in between the sidewalk and building facade. The overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the vicinity of the project site has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to nearby destinations.The project would not remove any pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new pedestrian facilities. As previously mentioned, the project proposes to develop a pedestrian plaza adjacent to the building entrance, as well as picnic tables, a new playground, and a new basketball court on the park-side of the building and adjacent to the Lions Club Hall and Washington Park. Comprised of landscaping and benches, both the pedestrian-centric areas would connect to the existing pedestrian facilities along Burlingame Avenue as well as within Washington Park. Bicycle Facilities There are some bike facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site (see Chapter 2 for details). Bicycles are also allowed on Caltrain and BART. The Burlingame Station is served by Caltrain (approximately a quarter-mile north of the project site), while the Millbrae Station is served by Caltrain and BART (located about three miles from the project site). There are bicycle racks and bicycle lockers available at both transit stations. Bicyclists north of the Burlingame Station could take California Drive and Carolan Avenue to Burlingame Avenue, while cyclists traveling to the site from the Burlingame Caltrain station could use Burlingame Avenue as a direct route to the project site.Although Burlingame Avenue is not a designated bike route, due to its low speed limit and traffic volumes,it is conducive to bicycle travel. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new bicycle facilities. Transit Services The project study area is well-served by SamTrans, Caltrain, and the Burlingame Trolley. The study area is served directly by one limited bus route, one express bus route, and two shuttle routes. The project would generate about 63 person-trips during the AM peak hour and 82 person-trips during the PM peak hour. Given the project site’s proximity to transit services, it could be expected that a portion (10%) of patrons’trips would be made by transit. Assuming up to 10% of the total trips are made by transit, that translates into a maximum of about 8 new transit riders during the peak hours. There are 4 buses and a trolley that serve the transit stop and Burlingame Caltrain station near the site during peak Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 9 hours. This calculates to an average of about two new transit riders per bus or trolley. It is assumed that the buses have sufficient capacity to accommodate this minor increase in ridership. The project would not remove any transit facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies associated with new transit facilities. Future Transit Services As previously stated, the PCEP is expected to increase service by up to six Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction by 2020.With the proposed electrification project, it is expected that the transit ridership at the Burlingame Station will increase. Given the nearby Caltrain station, development of this community center project would potentially result in new transit riders, thus reducing vehicle trips. The Burlingame Station is within walking distance (approximately a quarter-mile west of the project site). Bicycling to the site would also be a suitable option, given that Burlingame Avenue between the Burlingame Station and the project site consist of low speed limits and traffic volumes which makes it conducive to bicycle travel. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-1 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is formulated based upon the findings of the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project (proposed project) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) published in September 2018. The MMRP, which is found in Table 1, lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND prepared for the proposed project and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements. This MMRP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law requires the Lead Agency to adopt an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND during implementation of the project. The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first two columns identify the potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures. The third column, entitled Mitigation Responsibility, refers to the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. The fourth column, entitled Oversight of Implementation, refers to the agency and/or department responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fifth column, entitled Monitoring Schedule, refers to when monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigating action is completed. BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-2 This page intentional left blank. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-3 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule 4.3: Air Quality The proposed project could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. AIR-1: Consistent with the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and Additional Mitigation Measures required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the following actions shall be incorporated into construction contracts and specifications for projects:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.  Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Burlingame regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Construction contractor City of Burlingame Community Development Department During all phases of construction BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-4 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule 4.4 Biological Resources The proposed project could interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species through the removal of trees. BIO-1: If feasible, all vegetation removal shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (i.e., September 1 to January 31) to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work is scheduled during the breeding season, a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey to determine if any birds are nesting within the project sites. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March through May (since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June through July. If active nests are found during the survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the biologist or ornithologist in consultation with the California department of Fish and Wildlife, and would be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and the expected types of disturbance. City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department City of Burlingame Community Development Department Prior to the initiation of any construction activities MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-5 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule 4.5: Cultural Resources The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a previously unidentified archaeological resource as a result of construction activities. CULT-1: Should an archaeological resource be encountered during project construction activities, the construction contractor shall halt construction within 25 feet of the find and immediately notify the City. Construction activities shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City, shall: : 1) evaluate the archaeological deposit to determine if it meets the CEQA definition of a historical or unique archaeological resource and 2) make recommendations about the treatment of the deposit, as warranted. If the deposit does meet the CEQA definition of a historical or unique archaeological resource then it shall be avoided to the extent feasible by project construction activities. If avoidance is not feasible, then adverse effects to the deposit shall be mitigated as specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) (for historic resources) or CEQA Section 21083.2 (for unique archaeological resources). This mitigation may include, but is not limited to, a thorough recording of the resource on Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 records, or archaeological data recovery excavation. If data recovery excavation is warranted, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), which requires a data recovery plan prior to data recovery excavation, shall be followed. If the significant identified resources are unique archaeological resources, mitigation of these resources shall be subject to the limitations on mitigation measures for archaeological resources identified in CEQA Sections 21083.2(c) through 21083.2(f). Construction contractor City of Burlingame Community Development Department During all phases of construction BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-6 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule The proposed could directly or indirectly destroy a previously unidentified unique paleontological resource as a result of construction activities. CULT-2: If paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation or grading activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist has assessed the discoveries and made recommendations. Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and evidence of past life such as trace fossils and tracks. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, adverse effects to such resources shall be avoided by project activities to the extent feasible. If project activities cannot avoid the resources, the adverse effects shall be mitigated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). Mitigation may include data recovery and analysis, preparation of a final report, and the formal transmission or delivery of any fossil material recovered to a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). Upon completion of project activities, the final report shall document methods and findings of the mitigation and be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department and a suitable paleontological repository. Construction contractor City of Burlingame Community Development Department During all phases of construction The proposed project could uncover previously unidentified Native American human remains as a result of construction activities CULT-3: If human remains are encountered during construction activities, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately. At the same time, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with the appropriate agencies. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grace goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The City shall follow the recommendations outlined in the report and the report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department and the Northwest Information Center. Construction contractor City of Burlingame’s qualified archaeologist City of Burlingame Community Development Department During all phases of construction MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-7 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed project could violate water quality standards as a result of construction activities. HYD-1: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), meeting Construction General Permit requirements (State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-000–DWQ, as amended) designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality through the project construction period. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits for ground disturbing activities. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer in accordance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. These include: Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/waste management, management of non-stormwater discharges, run-on and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/repair activities. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook-Construction. The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all required monitoring and inspection/maintenance/repair activities. City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department City of Burlingame Community Development Department City of Burlingame Public Works Department Prior to ground disturbing activities BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-8 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule The proposed project could violate water quality standards as a result of project operation. HYD-2: The project applicant shall fully comply with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater permit requirements, including Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) for the project. The SCP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits for ground disturbing activities. The SCP would act as the overall program document designed to provide measures to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with the operation of the proposed project. At a minimum, the SCP for the project shall include:  An inventory and accounting of existing and proposed impervious areas.  Low Impact Development (LID) design details incorporated into the project. Specific LID design may include, but is not limited to: using pervious pavements and green roofs, dispersing runoff to landscaped areas, and/or routing runoff to rain gardens, cisterns, swales, and other small-scale facilities distributed throughout the site.  Measures to address potential stormwater contaminants. These may include measures to cover or control potential sources of stormwater pollutants at the project site.  A Draft Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan for the project site, which will include periodic inspection and maintenance of the storm drainage system. Persons responsible for performing and funding the requirements of this plan shall be identified. This plan must be finalized prior to issuance of building permits for the project. City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department City of Burlingame Community Development Department City of Burlingame Public Works Department Prior to ground disturbing activities MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-9 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule 4.12: Noise Construction noise would result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. NOI-1: The project contractor shall implement the following best management practice measures during construction of the project:  Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.  Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.  Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all project construction.  Install temporary noise barriers around stationary noise sources (such as compressors) and locate stationary noise sources as far from adjacent or nearby sensitive receptors as possible.  Prohibit extended idling time of internal combustion engines.  All construction equipment shall not exceed the noise levels established in the General Plan (Table 4).  All noise producing construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.  Designate a "disturbance coordinator" at the City of Burlingame who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Construction contractor City of Burlingame Community Development Department During all phases of construction Source: LSA, 2018. BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-10 This page intentional left blank. CARLSBAD FRESNO IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net MEMORANDUM DATE: October 25, 2018 TO: Teresa Rom, Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. FROM: Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Matthew Wiswell, Project Manager SUBJECT: Minor Changes to the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Ms. Rom: The purpose of this Memorandum is to evaluate the potential effects related to minor modifications to the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project (proposed project). An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)1 for the proposed project was made available for public review on September 13, 2018. The public review period closed on October 3, 2018. The proposed project and IS/MND are scheduled to be heard and considered for approval and adoption by the Burlingame City Council on November 19, 2018. LSA understands that in the time after the public review period closed and prior to the adoption of the IS/MND, the City of Burlingame (City) has requested that Group 4 Architecture, Planning + Research, Inc. (Group 4) consider swapping the locations of the proposed basketball court and playground (refer to Figure 2-6 in the IS/MND). Aside from these different locations, all other aspects of the proposed project would remain the same. It is LSA’s professional opinion that swapping the locations of the basketball court and playground would not result in any new or more significant impacts compared to those already analyzed in the IS/MND. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires a pre-construction nesting bird survey to be completed prior to vegetation removal if it occurs between February 1 and October 31, would still be required. Additionally, while the total number of protected trees removed from the project site may be different than what was identified and analyzed in the IS/MND, the City would still be required to provide replacement plantings as part of the proposed project. 1 LSA Associates, Inc., 2018. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project. September. 10/25/18 (\\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\Memo\10-25-18 Burlingame CC Memo.docx) 2 All other mitigation measures included in the IS/MND would still be required. Therefore, the IS/MND adequately addresses the impacts of the minor revisions to the proposed project, and no further environmental review would be required. Sincerely, LSA Associates, Inc. Theresa Wallace, AICP Principal-in-Charge Matthew Wiswell Project Manager RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT APPROVAL OF A COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS DEFINED IN THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), PURSUANT TO THE FINDINGS STATED AND MITIGATION MEASURES OUTLINED IN MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-601-P THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME finds as follows: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by the City Council, pursuant to Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-601-P the Council finds that the project set forth above will have a less than significant impact upon the environment following application of all mitigation measures outlined in said environmental review document, and therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-601-P, is approved. Section 2.It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19 th day of November, 2018 by the following vote: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO:10b MEETING DATE:November 19, 2017 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date:November 19, 2018 From:Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director –(650) 558-7253 Subject:Provide Direction to the Planning Commission to Proceed with a Review and Potential Modification of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) Zoning Regulations to Allow Commercial Recreation Uses RECOMMENDATION The City Council is asked to provide direction to the Planning Commission to proceed with an evaluation and potential modification of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zoning regulations to allow Commercial Recreation uses BACKGROUND At its August and October meetings, the City Council’s Economic Development Subcommittee (consisting of Vice Mayor Colson and Councilmember Beach) discussed the retail environment in the City’s two commercial business districts, Downtown and Broadway. The meeting in August included discussion with a commercial broker representing a large vacant storefront on Burlingame Avenue in which she shared her perspective about which uses may be attracted to Burlingame Avenue in general. For the October meeting, property owners were invited to attend and share their perspectives. (The Approved August 17, 2018 and Draft October 11, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting minutes are attached). As part of the discussion, Commercial Recreation was discussed as a potential use to add to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) district. Currently, Commercial Recreation is allowed as a Conditional Use in the Howard Mixed Use (HMU) zone and in the Broadway commercial district. Commercial Recreation is not permitted in the BAC district. Burlingame Avenue has traditionally been focused on retail, restaurant, and service uses. However, given the evolving nature of all of those uses (particularly retail), many business and shopping districts are finding a need to introduce additional new uses in order to remain vibrant and competitive. Some communities are finding that active commercial recreation uses can be an appropriate addition to their business and shopping districts. In particular, commercial recreation can generate regular “foot traffic”, which can benefit neighboring retailers, restaurants, and services. BAC Zoning Amendments November 19, 2018 2 DISCUSSION Commercial Recreation is allowed as a Conditional Use in the area adjacent to Burlingame Avenue (specifically the Howard Mixed Use (HMU) District), but is not permitted in the BAC District. As a conditional use, conditions can be imposed on a business to ensure it is compatible with the surrounding area. Suggestions in the subcommittee meetings included consideration of requiring a retail or food service component at the front of a commercial recreation business, and requiring that storefront windows be maintained clear rather than obscured. As part of “Envision Burlingame,” the Zoning Ordinance including the BAC District will be reviewed and updated. The timeframe for the full update is anticipated to take approximately one year. However, the consideration and potential addition of Commercial Recreation as a Conditional Use would be a focused effort that would could provide a more immediate benefit with a relatively modest commitment of staff time. At this time, staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the Planning Commission to work with staff to review and consider allowing Commercial Recreation as a Conditional Use in the BAC District in the near future. Staff anticipates that the work would be completed and any revisions would be adopted in the first quarter of 2019. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: Approved August 17, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting minutes Draft October 11, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting minutes Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District – current zoning regulations 1 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee MINUTES Conference Room A City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California Friday, August 17, 2018 – 2:30 p.m. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson Members Absent: None Staff Present: City Manager (CM) Lisa Goldman, Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Finance Director (FD) Carol Augustine, and Community Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner Also in Attendance: Julie Taylor (Colliers International) and Giselle Marie Hale (Redwood City Planning Commissioner) DISCUSSION ITEMS Fencing Policies for Vacant Lots: EDS Relihan provided an example of vacant lot regulations from the City of San Mateo. He noted that the regulations do not specify the type of fencing, but there are requirements that vacant lots be maintained, and that fencing and landscaping look attractive. A maintenance plan is required to be submitted to the City. CDD Gardiner noted that he spoke to San Mateo staff, and confirmed that staff works with the property owners on the specifications of the fencing as part of the overall maintenance plan that is required. Sometimes this is in conjunction with an early demolition permit. Although desired types of desired fencing are not specified, the regulations do not allow chain link and barbed wire fencing. The Subcommittee suggested that when early demolition permits are issued, part of the approval could be to require a fence of better quality than a chain link fence, and that the fencing segments be tied together to be secured and keep intruders out. The intention would be to have the fencing be secure, but also be aesthetically attractive. The request and coordination could be administered on the staff level, rather than requiring review by the Planning Commission. EDS Relihan asked if there was interest in drafting an ordinance and implementing regulations. CM Goldman cautioned that staff is already currently working on a number of ordinances, so the Subcommittee suggested that the various matters under discussion could be bundled together to be most efficient, and that timing could be flexible given the matter is not of an urgent nature. The items could be combined into a package to discuss with the City Attorney at a future date. There was discussion on the distinction between vacant properties versus “dormant” or “unoccupied” properties, and also a distinction between fencing during construction and fencing of vacant or unoccupied properties where construction is not ongoing. Cyclone/chain link fencing could be appropriate with active construction projects, and can be combined with screen graphics depicting the project under construction. Subcommittee members suggested EDS Relihan speak to developers of recent projects to get a sense of what may be practical for unoccupied/vacant properties compared to projects that are under construction. 2 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 Alternatively, the matter could be discussed in the October Subcommittee meeting involving landlords. CM Goldman suggested there may be a timing consideration and distinction between properties unoccupied and vacant for an extended period, versus projects where construction is imminent. She noted the paragraph in the San Mateo regulations describing maintenance requirements, and suggested those may be more important than fencing. Fencing may be less important if a vacant lot is otherwise clear of weeds and debris, but if the property owner chooses fencing to secure the property, the fencing should be good quality. CDD Gardiner noted that construction fencing could be specified as a condition of approval, and would not need to wait for an ordinance. The Subcommittee agreed with this approach. Decals for Available Commercial Spaces: Julie Taylor, Executive Vice President of Colliers International, joined the meeting. EDS Relihan introduced the item and noted that while the State provides guidance on the posting of real estate signs, it does not address marketing graphics such as window decals or appliques. He checked San Mateo and San Francisco regulations, and it does not appear either requires that the windows of vacant commercial spaces be covered in graphics. Stores with such graphics would most likely be the result of the brokers or property owners initiating the placement themselves. Taylor cautioned against obscuring storefronts, since the view out of the space towards the sidewalk can be important for marketing to prospective tenants. She emphasized the importance of being able to see the foot traffic, natural light, and co-tenancies from inside the space. A medium-ground would be vinyl banners across just the bottom of the storefront, but it is important to maintain views out of the space and allow natural light into the space. She mentioned an approach at the Salesforce Transit Center which engaged local artists to paint portions of the storefronts. The Subcommittee mentioned they want to dissuade storefronts from being obscured with butcher paper since they can become dilapidated, and noted the Charmelle 28 space on Burlingame Avenue is an example where graphics have been applied nicely. The Subcommittee suggested there may be a range of acceptable alternatives, including clean and maintained unobscured windows, decal graphics, or artwork. If the windows are unobstructed, the interior of the space should be clear and presentable. CM Goldman suggested this matter may be combined with the vacant property maintenance provisions discussed earlier, and that different options could be provided. Taylor suggested that obscured windows may be desired during active construction, but if the space is vacant and not under construction, the maintenance provisions would otherwise apply. Typically when construction is underway, trade dress-up will be applied. CDD Gardiner suggested initially these options could be presented as guidelines for property owners, as an interim measure rather than waiting to be codified in an ordinance. EDS Relihan agreed that it would present a positive message, and offered to have suggested guidelines to share with landlords in the October Subcommittee meeting. CM Goldman agreed with this approach, as it would be a collaborative effort with the property owners. Taylor suggested there be a handout or slides to show examples, and offered to share some examples. Burlingame Avenue Use Opportunities: Giselle Marie Hale of the Redwood City Planning Commission joined the meeting. 3 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 Taylor mentioned that retail spaces are taking longer to lease. Retailers are typically taking smaller spaces than they used to lease. Onsite retail has become particularly hard for heavy goods, as customers will come to stores to browse but then order online so they can ship to home. Too many companies are contracting, not expanding. However, a presence of some stores is necessary to support online commerce, as seeing stores keep brands “top of mind” with customers. Taylor continued that the area of growth is “fitness and food.” There is a great deal of interest among tenants in being located near fitness and food, which is a change from past practices. Tenants get excited if they see an assortment of hot restaurants and a tenant like Soul Cycle or Rumble boxing, because they see energy and repeat visits. These uses generate more traffic on the street than retail alone. She encouraged broadening options, but cautioned against uses such as banks that offer limited foot traffic. Taylor also suggested uses such as WeWork for their potential to generate foot traffic, provided there is retail at the front such as a café. This could be useful for spaces on side streets, such as the former Anthropologie space. Day spas could also be good for side streets, but do not have the same volume of traffic as a recreational use. The Subcommittee suggested uses such as WeWork could be classified as a service rather than an office if it were available to be used by the public. Taylor noted that it can be expensive for owners to subdivide space, as they need to build demising walls, install HVAC systems, etc. This would require capital or credit, which can be challenging for some owners. Conversion to food uses can also be very expensive, and ideally food spaces would be square rather than narrow and deep. “L-around” configurations can work for dividing a space, but they require a strong tenant for the “L” portion because if that tenants leaves, it can be difficult to re-lease the space. The Subcommittee inquired how uses are regulated on Burlingame Avenue and downtown, and CDD Gardiner mentioned that uses are either “Permitted,” “Conditional” (requiring Planning Commission approval), or “Prohibited.” Allowing fitness uses on Burlingame Avenue would require amending the allowed uses, as currently Commercial Recreation is allowed on side streets with a Conditional Use Permit, but not on Burlingame Avenue itself. Taylor cautioned that if rules are changed, there should be thought on encouraging the type of uses that will generate foot traffic and be complementary to retail uses. A private Pilates studio, for example, will not create a lot of foot traffic. The Conditional Use Permit mechanism may be the best option for ensuring compatibility. There can be a requirement that there be merchandised space in the first 12 or 15 feet of the storefront. EDS Relihan mentioned that there are hybrid approaches that combine electronic displays with online ordering. Taylor mentioned that such pioneering concepts first go into San Francisco or somewhere like Santana Row, where there is significant foot traffic and co-tenancy. Some are test concepts. The Subcommittee inquired how a code amendment to allowed uses would be approached. As part of the General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update, the zoning update should prioritize Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. CDD Gardiner noted that the timeframe for the zoning update is approximately one year beyond the General Plan adoption, but a more focused code amendment could be initiated by the City Council, or could be initiated by an applicant in conjunction with a permit application. The Subcommittee emphasized that Burlingame Avenue offers a “lifestyle.” Taylor suggested that people should be able to feel like they can get everything that they need. The Subcommittee mentioned that rising rents have created vacancies. Taylor said it c an be hard to readjust people’s expectations when the market is changing. Rents have rolled back, because they are 4 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 directly tied to tenants’ sales volumes. A healthy ratio is 10% occupancy cost for retail (including pass through), 8% for restaurants. New tenants will want to factor their projections more conservatively, whereas a renewal may be able to be more aggressive than 10 percent. EDS Relihan noted that the Downtown Business Improvement District (DBID) has had challenges finding space for events. There have been logistical challenges with obtaining permission from Public Works. Taylor noted that farmers’ markets and food truck events can be effective at attracting people, but there may not be enough surrounding density to sustain some events. The Subcommittee members remarked on the conflict between people being opposed to increasing density and development downtown, but also lamenting the loss of retail. Taylor suggested that density can help fill the gap from online sales, and that the city-owned parking lots offer opportunities to add density. She suggested that in the development of parking lots, ground leases would be preferable for the City to retain the asset. Taylor emphasized that the process for applicants needs to be clear, and that prospective businesses are sensitive to barriers to entry. The formula retail conditional use permit process in San Francisco has resulted in vacancies, since retailers fear the risk and unpredictability. Retailers will pursue easier, more predictable alternatives. EDS Relihan noted that he has created materials to clarify the conditional use permit process for prospective applicants. He noted he has received inquiries to allow offices in basement spaces and suggested it should be considered. Subcommittee members inquired about the loss of sales taxes from retail changing to services. Taylor said the taxes captured locally by online sales that would have otherwise been collected in other jurisdictions needs to be factored. Giselle Marie Hale noted that Redwood City is getting increased density, but doesn’t have a retail base. Taylor suggested that new buildings need to be designed to accommodate a range of uses, including ventilation shafts and cooking infrastructure, and ceiling heights of 11 feet clear or higher. Spaces in new buildings are sometimes too deep or the ceilings are too low, and the developers do not finish the shells. It is better to have less retail space, but space that is leasable, rather than a large amount of retail space that is not configured correctly. The Subcommittee concluded that these issues will be further discussed in a retail summit next spring. Taylor suggested that the City invite district managers of the corporate stores, since they have a relationship with the community. She added that even in a healthy retail economy, filling vacancies can take some time because companies take time to make decisions; it can take a year or more for a retailer to make all the decisions to enter a market. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Potential city tools and incentives for businesses attraction  Succession planning for businesses looking to sell ADJOURNMENT 5 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 Meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director City Council Economic Development Subcommittee MINUTES (DRAFT) Conference Room A City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California Thursday, October 11, 2018 – 2:30 p.m. 1 ATTENDANCE Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson Members Absent: None Staff Present: City Manager (CM) Lisa Goldman, Parks and Recreation Director (PRD) Margaret Glomstad, Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Finance Director (FD) Carol Augustine, and Community Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner Members of the Public Present: Chris Blom, John Britton, Nick Delis, Stephanie Delis, Clark Funkhouser, Ryan Guibara, Ron Karp, Riyad Salma, Julie Taylor, Silvia Wong, and Vierra Wong DISCUSSION ITEMS Burlingame Avenue Downtown Zoning: EDS Relihan introduced the item. He said the interest originates from inquiries he and Planning staff have received for various businesses that would not be allowed under current zoning regulations. Given the changing nature of retail and commercial uses in downtown districts, it seemed appropriate to consider the range of uses desired for Burlingame Avenue and Broadway, and determine if amendments to the zoning regulations would be appropriate to accommodate uses that might not be allowed currently. Commercial property owners were invited to this meeting to provide input, including identifying potential tenants that may have inquired about leasing space that may or may not be able to be accommodated under current zoning. Vice Mayor Colson provided further introduction, noting that the vacancy of the large J. Crew space on Burlingame Avenue had been part of the impetus for the discussion. Retail consultant Julie Taylor had been invited to the August 17, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting to share her thoughts on the issue. Ms. Colson noted that there will be further conversations in the community on this topic in the coming year. She added that commercial recreation and co-working businesses have been suggested as new uses not currently allowed on Burlingame Avenue. Property owners in attendance had a number of observations and suggestions including:  Suggestion to review the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zoning chapter to look at which uses are permitted and not permitted, and how those fit with the 21st century. The current zoning lists a number of outmoded uses such as variety stores, drug stores, and travel agencies.  The nature of banks has changed from decades ago; they should be allowed.  There has been interest in commercial recreation, but it is not allowed in the BAC zone.  There is a provision in the zoning that states that anything that is not listed is therefore prohibited. The property owners suggest changing this provision to allow more flexibility in the future.  Does not need to have three different types of food service uses. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes (DRAFT) October 11, 2018 2  Should consider the goal of Burlingame Avenue downtown retail and Broadway retail. The current regulations are very restrictive. Set a broad goal, a vision statement.  The “retail” use is really restrictive downtown, and what is allowed varies from block to block. Different retail criteria for different locations, zoning is disparate.  The CUP process does not work for leasing, creates risk for landlords. Needs a faster process for getting a decision. For example, staff-level review with a 48-hour turnaround, which could be appealed if there was disagreement with the decision.  Soul Cycle or other commercial recreation would be a good tenant for Burlingame Avenue. It brings a lot of energy, particularly with the right instructor. It is a better location than Howard Avenue.  There is still high demand for retail.  Could consider allowing office on the ground floor provided the first 15 or 20 feet is retail. Could have office space behind, accessed through a hallway.  Education uses bring foot traffic, and eating and shopping. Parents have to drop off kids and pick them up, and will shop and eat in the meantime.  There appears to be increased foot traffic on Burlingame Avenue at the lunch hour. There needs to be more eating establishments. Young people with disposable income are coming to Burlingame, and they want to eat, but want to get in and out quickly. Needs more flexibility for a wider spectrum in restaurants. Subcommittee members showed concern with the process to obtain permits and wanted to ensure they do not impose undue constraints on prospective businesses. Julie Taylor, Colliers International, provided comments on retail environments in general. She said that every category of retail property is trying to figure out how to replace the lost soft-good tenants. Shopping centers are replacing retail space with food; for example a Macy’s converted into an Eataly in Los Angeles. She suggested making the zoning as broad as possible to allow multiple types of uses. She said there should still be retail on the ground floor, but the City could expand the zoning to include fitness provided it has a retail component at the front. It is reasonable to tell a recreation use that it cannot obscure its windows, and must instead have an entry vestibule, perhaps with apparel, that is welcome and open during regular business hours. She also suggested co-working could be considered if it has a café presence at the front, particularly since co-working brings more businesspeople, which then brings better lunchtime traffic and cocktail hour traffic. On larger frontages, an option could be to have a significant portion of the frontage be occupied by retail, but have co-working occupy just 20 feet in front with a “throat entrance” leading to a larger space behind. However, she also suggested being cognizant that a single use such as co-working not dominate an entire block. She noted that the laws of supply and demand need to be recognized; some cities try to regulate the mix of uses through zoning, but it results in vacancies. The important consideration is how uses (whether they be commercial recreation or co-working) activate the window line, and how much window line do they have. Property owners provided further remarks:  It is a challenge to find a tenant for an old-style “bowling alley” storefront that is 35 feet in the front but extends 100 or 150 feet back.  Ability to pay higher rents varies by type of tenant, as well as position of a tenant in their category. For example, Salt & Straw can afford a $16,000 per month lease because it is a leader in the category, and can cover the lease cost with volume.  There is less demand for table service restaurants. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes (DRAFT) October 11, 2018 3 Ms. Taylor added that restaurants can have a hard time expanding in the Bay Area because they cannot hire enough employees. The employees cannot afford the cost of living, and the wages are higher. Counter service lowers labor costs. Subcommittee members inquired about providing housing downtown as a contributor to the commercial environment. There are plans for both market-rate and below-market units in Downtown Burlingame. However it can be hard to have conversations about housing in the community, given concerns over amount of building, parking, etc. The hope is that transit-oriented development can help the commercial environment. Property owner comments:  Development is helpful to the commercial environment. Restaurants need people during the day, as well as at night for dinner and happy hours.  There is a parking issue because there is so much demand from people to be Downtown. In that sense it is a “high class problem,” or otherwise an indicator of success. Parking should not be required for retail uses.  There needs to be speedier review of applications. It costs a lot of money to carry a project over time. Subcommittee members asked those in attendance about their perspectives on the future of brick-and- mortar retail. It is important to Downtown, and in particular with the post office project having a sizab le retail component. CDD Gardiner mentioned that the post office project proposes about 18,000 square feet of retail. Property owner comments:  18,000 square feet of new retail is a lot of space to support. There is a risk of too much retail; they believe it will be a detriment to the project. Ms. Taylor remarked that retail will survive, but only on the best blocks with the best architecture and streetscapes, and on the closest feeder streets. She cautioned against creating tertiary retail, where retail is required at the ground floor regardless of demand. The situation is compounded when floorplates are too large, ceilings are too low, spaces are too deep, and there are no provisions for venting. Attractive brownstones and stoops would be preferable to vacant storefronts. Property owner comments:  Office on the ground floor would also be preferable to vacant retail.  Bay Meadows has had a hard time leasing the retail space, despite all the new housing.  There is 300,000 square feet of office space in downtown Burlingame, which is a relatively small amount to support retail. Ms. Taylor mentioned that there are different types of offices. Some offices are very private and have a fortress quality, but others have more of a presence such as graphics firms, architects, medical, or co- working which allow engagement. If it has to be a private office, it can be situated behind a throat entrance with retail in the front. Property owner comments:  Office on the ground floor has been taboo in Burlingame since the “dotcom,” but office on the ground floor with the kinds of qualities being described would be desirable.  Could consider overnight hotels for animals, or doggie daycare. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes (DRAFT) October 11, 2018 4  There have been a lot of inquiries for commercial childcare.  Should not try to cherry-pick where the market is going. Will always be playing catchup. The City needs to think of the overarching goal, together with flexibility and predictability.  Needs reliable decision-making, focus on the administration of the goal.  The split between service and retail is not productive.  The smaller retail uses benefit from the big retailers bringing in foot traffic. However the small retailers are struggling; they are surviving by putting in their own labor. They cannot provide the same level of service as the big retailers, such as ease of exchanges. Subcommittee members asked for examples of communities that have done a good job of revising regulations. Property owner comments:  San Mateo tried to regulate ground floor office during the “dotcom.” This has been revisited; a property owner believes the requirement is now retail in the first 60 feet, and a percentage of the windowline frontage.  Office on the ground floor still involves people walking.  Ancillary streets such as California Drive are not going to be able to attract retailers. Ms. Taylor mentioned that childcare is a good use since it brings a parent twice a day. It creates repeat traffic that merchants can build upon. She also mentioned that Walnut Creek has created a real downtown with verticality, and residential is in very high demand. People downsize from their large homes and move to Downtown Walnut Creek to be near services. She suggests that Burlingame redevelop some of its parking lots with residential or office, noting that density sustains retail. She also remarked that parking garages are likely to be converted to something else as demand for parking decreases. Property owner comments:  The City needs to reduce parking requirements for residential development.  The hotel parking reduction is an example of allowing something other than unused parking.  Parking will be repurposed over time.  Retailers will always ask for more parking, but that should not drive decisions.  Parking is expensive to build. Does not make sense when it is right next to the train station.  Would not suggest limiting the number of commercial recreation uses. The prior experience with limiting the number of restaurants to 36 allowed a few property owners to control what the restaurant rates were.  There needs to be predictability in the planning approval process.  Water and sewer add to costs, particularly if the tenant is paying for them. CM Goldman asked CDD Gardiner to describe how the zoning ordinance update follows the update of the General Plan. Gardiner commented that the General Plan sets the policy direction and goals, and that the zoning provides the regulations that establish what is allowed and what is not. It will be a complete rewrite of the zoning code, not just tinkering. The new code can have more flexibility as is being discussed. There may also be options for a permit that is less involved than a Conditional Use Permit. It is also an opportunity to revise procedures as well as regulations. CDD Gardiner also said there are nearer-term options to make more limited changes to the existing code, such as adding commercial recreation as an allowed use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial district. CM Goldman City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes (DRAFT) October 11, 2018 5 suggested the nearer-term items could be presented to the full City Council to provide direction as a work item. Property owner comments:  Changing the definition of retail may be a faster fix than some of the other concepts being discussed. If things like co-working can be made to fit within current definitions, the City may not be so far behind the curve with these changing types of businesses. CM Goldman suggested to the group that if they have thoughts on what types of changes to make to the definitions, they can be submitted to staff. Staff will then convey the suggestions to the City Council. Subcommittee members mentioned that next spring, there will be a “retail summit” to discuss these issues with the larger community. The subcommittee wanted to talk with property owners in this meeting beforehand to hear their perspectives. The thinking is to follow the “Burlingame Talks Together” format that was utilized for the housing discussions earlier this year. The public, retailers, and property owners will all be invited. Draft Checklist on “How to Maintain Vacant Commercial Spaces” EDS Relihan discussed examples he has collected showing different ways to present and market vacant commercial spaces. The emphasis is on presenting the spaces in a manner that appeals to potential tenants, and is attractive to the surrounding commercial district. EDS Relihan has compiled a list of suggestions to property owners that are intended to help improve the appearance of vacant spaces. They are general strategies to improve the positive “curb appeal” of a property for prospective tenants. CM Goldman said some of the vacant properties on Burlingame Avenue and Broadway are presented well, but others are presented very poorly. Properties are difficult to market when presented poorly, and in turn reflect badly on adjacent properties. The City wants to provide some “helpful hints” for maintaining a property while they are looking for their next tenant. Property owner comments:  Delays in permitting hinder investment in better construction materials. The longer the permitting takes, the fewer resources are available for making improvements. This is particularly difficult for smaller “mom and pop” businesses wanting to come in.  There needs to be collective garbage facilities in the parking lots. It is difficult for the individual older buildings to have room for the bins on their own properties. San Carlos has done a great job with creating shared trash areas that the tenants and landlords pay for.  Appreciates that staff and the City Council are listening to property owners nowadays and engaging in constructive conversations. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda topics suggested. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes (DRAFT) October 11, 2018 6 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director Burlingame Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames Title 25 ZONING Chapter 25.32 BAC (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT REGULATIONS 25.32.010 Scope of regulations. The Burlingame Avenue Commercial District is the commercial and retail heart of Downtown Burlingame. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage and maintain the current mixture of retail, personal service and restaurant uses which keep the heart of the downtown area lively. The following regulations shall apply to all properties within the BAC District. (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011)) 25.32.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the BAC District: (a) Retail uses which achieve contiguous, pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage such as drug, liquor, variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory, stationery, florists, household furnishings, and furniture; (b) Personal services, such as barber and beauty shops, photographic studios, shoe repair and laundry and dry cleaning services which do not include on-site processing; (c) Business services, such as printing services, mailing services and post office box services; (d) Hotels; (e) Travel agencies; (f) Government agencies; (g) Above the first floor only: (1) Offices, except health services and real estate; (h) Above and below the first floor only: (1) Personal trainer and assessment businesses. (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011)) 25.32.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit in the BAC District: (a) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use; (b) Grocery stores and markets; (c) Schools, above or below the first floor only, which operate outside of peak retail hours only; (d) Above the first floor only: (1) Real estate offices, (2) Health services, (3) Financial institutions; (e) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities; (f) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses; (g) Food establishments on certain sites, subject to the criteria established in Section 25.32.070; Page 1 of 4Chapter 25.32 BAC (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT REGULA... 11/9/2018http://qcode.us/codes/burlingame/view.php?topic=25-25_32&showAll=1&frames=on (h) Any building or structure which is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, up to a maximum building height of fifty-five (55) feet. (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011)) 25.32.035 Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited and in particular, but not limited to, the following: (a) Uses of any industrial nature, including, but not limited to, junkyards and automobile wrecking establishments; (b) Massage, bathing or similar establishments, unless licensed by the California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC) pursuant to Chapter 10.5 of the California Business and Professions Code (Section 4600 et seq.), which requires that CAMTC licensed massage establishments shall be considered a personal service; (c) Laundry and dry cleaning agencies with on-site processing plants; (d) Adult-oriented businesses as defined in Chapter 25.76; (e) Warehouses for storage of furniture, household, personal, or other similar articles or outdoor commercial storage. (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011)) 25.32.040 Additional requirements for health services, beauty shops, barbershop, health studio, tanning facilities. A health service, beauty shop, barbershop, health studio, or tanning facility in any location in any BAC District shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. unless a conditional use permit is approved by the planning commission pursuant to Chapter 25.52 to allow use outside those hours. The hours limitation imposed by this section does not apply to an occasional medical emergency at a health service use. (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011)) 25.32.045 Building replacement and design review in the BAC, Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. The following provisions shall apply to the removal, remodel or construction of any building constructed within BAC, Burlingame Avenue Commercial District: (a) Construction and alterations as designated in Chapter 25.57 shall be subject to design review under that chapter. When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the commercial structure shall be included in the design review; and (b) In addition to the Design Review requirements contained in Chapter 25.57, all façade changes within the BAC District shall also be subject to the design review process unless the changes qualify for the administrative minor design review process outlined in Section 25.57.013; and (c) No part of any building shall be removed or significantly altered on the exterior without compliance with all the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act, including an analysis of the contribution, both independently and cumulative, of the structure to be replaced or modified to the pedestrian-oriented retail fabric of and the city’s General and Specific Plan policies; and (d) A demolition permit shall not be issued until the planning commission has approved the design review application for the project. (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011)) 25.32.050 Minimum lot size and street frontage. Page 2 of 4Chapter 25.32 BAC (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT REGULA... 11/9/2018http://qcode.us/codes/burlingame/view.php?topic=25-25_32&showAll=1&frames=on Each lot in this district shall have an area of at least five thousand (5,000) square feet and a street frontage of at least fifty (50) feet. (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011)) 25.32.055 Building height. (a) No building or structure shall be constructed in the BAC District which exceeds fifty-five (55) feet in height. A conditional use permit is required for any building or structure which exceeds thirty-five (35) feet in height (refer to Section 25.32.030(h)). (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011)) 25.32.060 Setbacks and build-to lines. (a) El Camino Real. There shall be a ten (10) foot build-to line along El Camino Real. A minimum of sixty (60) percent of the structure shall be located at the build-to line. (b) Except for properties fronting on El Camino Real, the front wall of the first story of any structure shall have no minimum front setback, and a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the structure shall be located at the front property line. (c) There shall be no minimum side or rear setback, except properties with side or rear setbacks along El Camino Real. (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011)) 25.32.065 Exceptions allowed with a special permit. The following exceptions shall be allowed in the district with a special permit: (a) Architectural features in excess of the maximum building height which do not extend more than ten (10) feet above the maximum height and do not occupy more than ten (10) percent of the roof area. The architectural features shall enhance the design of the building and shall be reviewed as a part of the Design Review process as outlined in Chapter 25.57 of this code. (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011)) 25.32.070 Food establishments in the BAC, Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall only apply to food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. (b) In the BAC, Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, the number of food establishments shall be limited as follows: (1) To those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and/or at the locations as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the city council on November 21, 2011 (and as periodically updated by the Community Development Department — Planning Division staff). A food establishment is a business as defined in Section 25.08.268 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the public on November 1, 1998 and is included on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Food Establishments by Type Tables. (2) Effective December 5, 2012, full service food establishments shall be allowed within the BAC zone without limitation upon the number of such establishments subject to approval of a conditional use permit as required in Section 25.32.030(g). Full service food establishments legally open for business and/or for which a valid conditional use permit has been approved prior to December 5, 2012 shall retain the ability to change use classification and/or be replaced in the manner outlined in subsection (d) of this section. (c) Seating Area. The seating area of the food establishments described in subsection (b) of this section as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by Page 3 of 4Chapter 25.32 BAC (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT REGULA... 11/9/2018http://qcode.us/codes/burlingame/view.php?topic=25-25_32&showAll=1&frames=on the city council on November 21, 2011, may be enlarged only by amendment to the applicable conditional use permit for the establishment. (d) Changes in Classification and Replacement. (l) A food establishment use classified as a full service restaurant by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Food Establishments by Type Tables may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit to the establishment. (2) A food establishment use classified as a limited food service by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Food Establishments by Type Tables may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment. (3) A food establishment use classified as a bar by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Food Establishments by Type Tables may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or a limited food service with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment. (4) A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Food Establishments by Type Table shall be allowed to change to a different type of food establishment. A specialty shop may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same location within the same or less square footage. If a specialty shop is changed to any other classification the site shall not return to specialty shop use. (5) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same classification so long as the replacement business is of the same classification as that shown for the site on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Food Establishments by Type Tables subject to the conditions of the existing conditional use permit, and it complies with the same conditions as in the existing conditional use permit. (e) Change in Location. (1) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Food Establishments by Type Tables as approved by the city council on November 21, 2011. (2) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Food Establishment by Type Tables list as approved by the city council on November 21, 2011. (f) Expansion. An existing food establishment, including specialty shops, may be expanded at its existing location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating area. (g) Loss of Use. A food establishment shall be deemed out of business when the premises is occupied by another business which is not a food establishment. (h) Performance Standards. All food establishments shall comply with the following: (1) Provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s) and of a design selected by the city; (2) Provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; (3) Apply for a conditional use permit for delivery of prepared food from the premises; and (4) Food sales from a window or any opening within ten (10) feet of property line shall be prohibited. (Ord. 1863 § 10, (2011); Ord. 1878 § 3, (2012); Ord. 1881 § 5, (2012)) View the mobile version. Page 4 of 4Chapter 25.32 BAC (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT REGULA... 11/9/2018http://qcode.us/codes/burlingame/view.php?topic=25-25_32&showAll=1&frames=on 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11a MEETING DATE: November 19, 2018 To:City Council Date:November 19, 2018 From:Vice Mayor Donna Colson Subject:Committee Report November 2, 2018 Joined Congresswoman Speier along with Mayor Brownrigg, City Manager Goldman and Director Gardiner to listen to the author of Evicted - a case study of Milwaukee and race relations/housing. Discussed need for more stable and inclusive housing projects in San Mateo County. Also the benefit of services such as drug and mental health counseling. Excellent presentation that supported much of the work we are initiating in Burlingame. Attended the Haas Business School Gala which only relates to City Council in that the Governor is making a push to increase funding to higher education and BERKELEY is also in the midst of a great housing shortage with only 1 of 5 students able to live on campus. Peninsula Clean Energy November 5, 2018 CEO Update - San Diego is moving to CCA and Sempra/SDGE putting forth legislation to move all procurement to CCAs. Moving to form a group of CCA board members to raise our awareness. Jan also wrote a piece on how CCA can work with their legislative groups. Conference - Carla Peterman not seeking reappointment to the PUC. Science saying we have 13 years to turn this around. Also several speakers supporting carbon neutral tax. Discussion about best ways to use the Advisory Committee. November 6, 2018 Meeting Peninsula Family Services and Mother’s Against Poverty Provided introduction to these two amazing organizations. MAP will be sponsoring with Central County Fire, a toy drive and holiday wrapping event at the Community Center from noon to 3 PM. The Helping Hands Toy Drive will partner with PFS to make sure that our local underserved youth and families receive holiday gifts. Volunteers are welcome and there will be more information in the Burlingame E-News. Colson Committee Report November 19, 2018 2 November 7, 2018 Attended the Saltyard restaurant opening. Nice renovation of the former Ecco space and appears to be popular already. November 8, 2018 Meeting with Mayor Brownrigg and City Manager Goldman to discuss the options for the Burlingame High School pool renovations and the shared use agreement with San Mateo Union High School District November 9, 2018 Conducted meeting with Sherry Lund regarding City Manager annual review. November 12, 2018 Meeting with Public Storage representative on upgraded use of their facility on Adrian in new Rollins Road subdivision area. Kicked off the National Trust for Historic Preservation Annual conference at Filoli November 13, 2018 A big thank you to former Mayor Baylock and Mayor Brownrigg and the Burlingame Historical Society who helped coordinate an amazing day for about 40 conference attendees who joined us for Burlingame - The Jewel of the Peninsula - Field study adventure in Burlingame focused on public private partnerships and how the Council is working to stimulate economic development and preserve our cultural heritage buildings and landscapes. The session was very well received. Reception for staff and site directors in SF - NTHP November 14, 2018 Attended Peninsula Family Services annual Thanks For Giving lunch to raise much needed funding for the youth and senior programs they sponsor in San Mateo County. Provided over $500,000 in support in 2017. Attended Burlingame City Council Housing Discussion - Excellent meeting 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11b MEETING DATE: November 19, 2018 To:City Council Date:November 19, 2018 From:Councilmember Emily Beach Subject:Committee Report Thursday, 11/1 San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) Received an update on San Mateo’s 25th Ave Grade Separation Project o Lessons for Burlingame: station/platform safety improvements at Broadway need to consider speed of regional express trains passing through but not stopping o In light of recent natural disasters and floods, our decision to moderately lower roadway (without pump stations/electricity required to maintain access during storms) vs. tunneling, was very prudent from public safety perspective. o FYI – Burlingame leaders need to understand where $180M (lower cost than our projected $250m) funding for San Mateo’s 25th Ave Grade Sep came from: 41% SMCTA Measure A county sales tax 47% High Speed Rail (design provides space for future passing tracks) 7% City of San Mateo (mostly TOD developer fees surrounding area) 5% Public Utilities Commission Quarterly investment report: TA investments remain strong Monday, 11/5: City Council Meeting Tuesday, 11/6 Future of Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force Exploring new visionary work plan to keep GBI TF relevant; surveying members. Wednesday, 11/7: Commute.org Interview Panel Served on second interview panel for corporate program manager; two excellent candidates. Thursday, 11/8: San Mateo County Veterans Day Luncheon –inspiring event honoring the service of: Veteran of the year: former Marine LT Nurse Phyllis Jacquay Patriot of the Year: Brenda Ternullo Enterprise of the year: LifeMoves Friday, 11/9 Meeting with Transform regarding US 101 Managed Lane Project Discussed potential equity programs / low income benefits to improve the lives of our most vulnerable residents, plus environmental impact of proposed project. Beach Committee Report November 19, 2018 2 Monday, 11/12 League of California Cities Executive Board Retreat and Goals Setting Session Discussed ways to increase relevancy and participation of member cities and increase legislative influence of our Division at the State level I was elected Peninsula Division Representative to the State-Wide League of California Cities Board of Directors (travel expenses to Board meetings covered by The League, not the City of Burlingame) Tuesday, 11/13 Sustainable San Mateo County Meeting Attended this community brainstorming session to help craft the future vision and agenda for Sustainable San Mateo County. Wednesday, 11/14: Residential Impact Fee Study Session **** Highlights from Prior Council Meeting Week – Committee report 11/1/18 – apologies for delay Thursday, 10/11: Economic Development Subcommittee Friday, 10/12 LA Metro Visit: I represented the SMCTA Board on a day trip to Los Angeles with a delegation of staff transportation leaders from San Mateo County and the San Francisco Transportation Authority, plus elected leaders which included five San Francisco Supervisors, Chair and Vice Chair from C/CAG, and me. Our goal was to learn about LA Metro's Managed Lane program, operations, and lessons learned – with particular emphasis on equity programs to help low income commuters. Saturday, 10/13: Burlingame Neighborhood Network Drill Congratulations and thanks to all volunteers for our city’s most successful drill to date Monday, 10/15: City Council Meeting Wednesday, 10/17: Early Learning Summit at Mercy Center in Burlingame, hosted by Peninsula Family Services. Informative event, data-driven analysis by experts in the field regarding positive impact of early childhood education on student success and life trajectory; the need for public funding and livable wages for early learning providers/educators; and current deficit of spaces for children in our county. Friday, 10/19: Housing Leadership Day, College of San Mateo Great learning and breakout sessions; powerful first-hand testimonials from vulnerable residents who live in affordable housing, previously homeless. Saturday, 10/19: League of California Cities Quarterly Division Meeting Presentation and discussion regarding workforce development in our region Congresswoman Speier celebrated the success of Renaissance Entrepreneur Center. This organization (based in East Palo Alto) assists socially and economically diverse women and men create new businesses, jobs, and financial self-sufficiency. Beach Committee Report November 19, 2018 3 Monday, 10/22: Commissioner interviews with Council colleagues Tuesday, 10/23: Airplane Noise Town Hall hosted by Congresswoman Speier Insightful discussion; big-take away: there are structural problems with how Federal Law measures airplane noise; federal legislative process and legal precedent working to move the needle on this. Watch the full video of the discussion on the Congresswoman’s Facebook Page here: https://www.facebook.com/JackieSpeier/videos/airplane-noise-town- hall/489552978219642/ Wednesday, 10/24: Constituent meetings & San Mateo State of the County presentation Thursday, 10/25: C/CAG BPAC Meeting Received briefing on Caltrans District 4 Bike/Ped Master Plan; demonstrated Caltrans firm commitment to active transportation improvements – very inspiring! Provided input on scope of County Bike/Ped Master Plan Friday, 10/26: San Mateo Council of Cities in Belmont Saturday, 10/27: CAIR SF Bay Area (Council on American-Islamic Relations) Annual Banquet Inspiring community, speakers, and event. Speakers included social justice leader Shaun Kin, and poet/activist Amir Sulaiman. Monday, 10/29: C/CAG Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee Transportation Projects mapping tool live on C/CAG website so everyone can see infrastructure projects and programs funded Reviewed and discussed San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan 2040 (SMCTP 2040) follow-up action plan to help monitor progress Tuesday, 10/30: Connect 18 Annual Conference Annual conference dedicate to understanding and leveraging disruptive technologies to better serve the people of San Mateo County. Highlighted the intersection of technology, privacy, democracy, mobility, and ethics with some of the brightest minds in the field. Speakers included reps from LimeBike, Institution for the Future, SF Chronicle, UC Hastings Law, Facebook, and Augmented Reality leaders Niantic/Pokemon Go.