Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2014.11.03
City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, November 3, 2014 STUDY SESSION - 6:30 p.m. - Conference Room A Property Maintenance Ordinance 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. CEREMONIAL Swearing In of John S. Root as a Newly Appointed City Councilmembera. Swearing In of Eric Wollman as the New Police Chiefb. 6. PRESENTATIONS Student Fire Poster Contest Winnersa. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/30/2014 November 3, 2014City 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. Approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2014 and October 20, 2014a. 10-15-14Council Interviews Minutes 10-20-14Unapproved Minutes Attachments: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.36.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Establish a 2-Hour Parking Limit on the 1500 Block of Cypress Avenue Between the Addresses of 1500 and 1541 b. Staff Report Ordinance Map Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Accepting the 2014 Annual Report of, and Declaring Its Intention to Levy the Assessments for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District for 2015 c. Staff Report SMC Tourism BID Annual Report Resolution Resolution Exhibit A Resolution Exhibit B Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group) for Current Planning Services through June 30, 2015 d. Staff Report Resolution Scope of Services Draft Agreement Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/30/2014 November 3, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), Section 25.40.060 Building Heights, Related to Building Heights within the Trousdale West (TW) Zoning District e. Staff Report Ordinance - TW District Amendments Attachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) Consideration of Applications for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Conditional Use Permits Related to Construction of a Five and Six -Story, 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility at 1600 Trousdale Drive a. Staff Report CEQA Resolution Project Entitlements Resolution Mitigated Negative Declaration September 22, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report Architect's Letter dated October 24, 2014 City Arborist's Memorandum dated October 28, 2014 Attachments: 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) Consideration of Appointments to the Storm Drain Measure Oversight Committeea. Staff ReportAttachments: Consideration of Appointments to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissionb. Staff ReportAttachments: Review of El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue Intersection Safety Improvement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) c. Staff Report Draft Mayor’s letter to Caltrans with City comments on the DEIR Copy of the Executive Summary of the DEIR City Arborist Memo Attachments: Revisions to Land-Use Restrictions for the Broadway Commercial District and General Follow-up Regarding Broadway Community Meeting d. Staff ReportAttachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/30/2014 November 3, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Downtown Burlingame Avenue Sidewalk Paver Cleanliness Updatee. Staff Report Tennant Scrubber equipment information Pictures of street signage on Burlingame Ave. Copy of the letter to businesses and property owners to keep the sidewalk clean Attachments: 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Commission Minutes: Planning, October 14, 2014a. 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, November 17, 2014 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO "CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS" 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 10/30/2014 Burlingame City Council October 15, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes City Councilmember Vacancy Interviews Special Meeting Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL A duly noticed special meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Brownrigg called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG CM Goldman led the pledge of allegiance. 3 ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Keighran, Nagel, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 5. APPLICANTS INTERVIEWS The order of the applicant interviews were done by a random draw made by the City Manager Lisa Goldman. The eight applicants were asked to leave the Council Chambers and wait to be called in Conference Room A. The Mayor and City Councilmembers interviewed Eric Storey, Pat Giorni, Ross Bruce, John Eaton, John Martos, Laurie Simonson, Russ Cohen, and John Root. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Burlingame residents George Johnson, Kris Cannon, and Jeff Londer spoke. 7. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk Burlingame City Council October 20, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of October 20, 2014 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. Mayor Brownrigg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Police Chief Ed Wood who was attending his last City Council meeting prior to retiring from the City on October 31, 2014. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Keighran, Nagel, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATION There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Burlingame residents Pat Giorni and Jeff Londer spoke about the need for a crossing guard on Ray Drive and El Camino Real. Burlingame residents Cynthia Wukotich, Philip Eskins, Cynthia Cornell, Ellie and Sonia Jhao, spoke about the high cost of rents in Burlingame. At the request of Mayor Brownrigg, CM Goldman reviewed the City’s policy with regard to crossing guards and the financial responsibility of both the City and the Burlingame School District. Burlingame City Council October 20, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 2 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked if any members of the public wished to remove any items from the consent calendar, and there were no requests. Councilmember Keighran removed item 8b and Mayor Brownrigg removed items 8d and 8f for further review. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to adopt items 8a, c, and e of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. a. APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2014 CC Kearney requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes of October 6, 2014. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDUCTION OF THE PARKING RATES FOR CITY PARKING LOT H DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution No.87 -2014. Councilmember Keighran asked DPW Murtuza to advise Safeway and the Downtown Business Improvement District about the drop in the parking rates so they can inform their employees. Vice Mayor Nagel suggested that the parking lot reduction be noted in the e–news. Mayor Brownrigg would like do a survey monkey concerning where downtown employees park. Councilmember Keighran asked for an update in six months. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt item 8b, seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO PURCHASE AN AUTOMATED MATERIALS HANDLING SYSTEM (AMHS) THROUGH THE PENINSULA LIBRARY AUTOMATED NETWORK (PLAN) CL Harding requested Council adopt Resolution No. 88-2014. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION MODIFYING VOTING PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION OF A COUNCIL APPOINTEE TO SERVE THE REMAINDER OF AN UNEXPIRED TERM FOR A COUNCIL VACANCY CA Kane requested Council adopt Resolution No. 89-2014. Mayor Brownrigg requested clarification on a majority vote for Councilmember and CA Kane advised that a majority would require three affirmative votes. Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt item 8d, seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. . e. UPDATE ON TRUST ACCOUNT WITH CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS’ RETIREE BENEFIT TRUST (CERBT) AS OF JUNE 30, 2014 FinDir Augustine provided a report updating the Council on CERBT. Burlingame City Council October 20, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 3 f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS FOR (1) A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY WITH WOHLFORD CONSULTING AND (2) A DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY WITH COLGAN CONSULTING FinDir Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution No. 90-2014. Mayor Brownrigg questioned development impact fees and CDD Meeker provided clarification. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to adopt item 8f; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.36.040 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH 2-HOUR PARKING LIMIT ON THE 1500 BLOCK OF CYPRESS AVENUE BETWEEN THE ADDRESSES OF 1500 AND 1541 DPW Murtuza reviewed the staff report and advised that the residents of that portion of Cypress Avenue are requesting 2-hour parking restrictions because of parking problems from daytime on-street parking by the Burlingame Avenue downtown area employees. The residents of this portion of Cypress Avenue are asking for the implementation of 2-hour parking limits and a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). Council expressed concern about the parking impact on the surrounding streets and DPW Murtuza said the hope is that the reduction in rates in parking lot H will help alleviate the neighborhood parking. Council also suggested promoting incentives for downtown employees to park in the long term lots. Traffic Engineer Augustine Chou spoke and said the City is working on many of the recommendations made by Council and reviewed those strategies. He advised that in the areas where they have implemented parking limits, the results have been very positive. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. b. REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (PCN) PURSUANT TO SECTION 23958.4 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE RELATED TO REQUESTS FOR TRANSFER OF A TYPE-21 (OFF SALE WINE, BEER AND SPIRITS) AND A TYPE-42 (ON SALE, WINE-TASTING) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES PERMITS ISSUED THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD (ABC) AS REQUESTED BY TOTTENHAM WINES & SPIRITS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DBA PRESTIGE WINES & LIQUORS/THEWINE STOP, 337 PRIMROSE ROAD CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and advised that this was a request by Prestige Wines & Liquors/Wine Stop for transfer of its Type-21 alcoholic beverage license from its current premises at 1300 Burlingame Avenue to its new location at 337 Primrose Road. CDD Meeker noted the conditions Burlingame City Council October 20, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 4 recommended by the Police Department and advised that based on further discussions with the Police Department, it was agreed to remove condition number nine. There was brief Council discussion and Councilmember Ortiz made a correction to the name Tottenheim and said it should be Tottenham. Councilmember Keighran questioned the minimal calls made at the location and Police Captain Eric Wollman said there were no significant calls that were cause for concern to the Police Department for the business. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing and no one spoke. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public hearing. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution 91-2014; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel indicating that, as agreed, condition number nine be removed from the Resolution. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. c. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS RELATED TO A PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRCUTION OF A FIVE AND SIX-STORY 132-UNIT ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY AT 1600 TROUSDALE DRIVE, AS FOLLOWS (i) INTRODUCTION AND PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TROUSDALE WEST (TW) ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS (ii) CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVEDECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and advised that the Peninsula Healthcare District has submitted an application for construction of a new 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility at 1600 Trousdale Drive. Larry Cappel, Ph.D., Chair of the Peninsula Healthcare District spoke and reviewed the need for such a project and the studies that have taken place in the past six years to establish this project. Dr. Cappel said the facility will primarily meet the needs of the residents of Burlingame, Hillsborough and possibly parts of San Mateo. Joyce Polhemus of Smith Group Architects gave a design presentation of the project and said the CEQA review showed no significant impact on the neighborhood. Mayor Brownrigg requested that the City Clerk read the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Keighran waived further reading and introduced the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. Mayor Brownrigg directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed Ordinance within five days of the public hearing. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing and Burlingame residents Pat Giorni and Cynthia Cornell spoke on the item. Council discussion and questions of the applicant and staff followed. The Council expressed their concerns with the project design, among them that the applicant provide sunscreens on the east and south elevations; provide an enhanced cornice design; provide a more attractive design for the fence along the north property line; and street tree planting. They also questioned the details of the balcony railing as it appeared to differ between the Planning Commission approved plans and the project renderings presented at the Planning Commission public hearing. Burlingame City Council October 20, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 5 CDD Meeker advised that the adoption of the Ordinance and the requested changes would be included in the November 3, 2014 City Council meeting staff report. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. VOTE ON THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW CITY COUNCILMEMBER CM Goldman reviewed the staff report and requested that Council vote to fill the City Council seat left vacant by the resignation of Councilmember Jerry Deal. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment and there were no comments. Mayor Brownrigg asked if colleagues wished to comment and Councilmember Keighran said she appreciated the process that was utilized for this appointment and congratulated all the applicants who applied and all their hard work. The other Councilmembers all agreed. CC Kearney gave each Councilmember a ballot to vote for one of the eight candidates. The ballot submissions resulted in John Root receiving the votes of Mayor Brownrigg, Vice Mayor Nagel, and Councilman Ortiz. Laurie Simonson received the vote of Councilmember Keighran. John Root was appointed to the City Council to serve the remainder of a term, ending in December 2015. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SETTING THE MAYORAL ROTATION FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN DECEMBER CM Goldman reviewed the staff report and reminded Council that under the current policy the Mayoral rotation occurs at the second meeting in November in even numbered years and the first meeting in December is odd numbered years. CM Goldman advised that in order to ensure that all Mayors serve for the same amount of time, and to guarantee that the rotation meeting occurs after the deadline for receipt of the certified election results, staff proposes that the City Council amends its policy to hold the swearing in and rotation during the second meeting in December. CM Goldman further advised that staff would endeavor to make that meeting purely ceremonial each year. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment and Burlingame resident Pat Giorni spoke. There were no further comments from the floor, and the item was closed. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 92-2014; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. c. AUTHORIZATION TO FORM A TASK FORCE TO REVIEW CREATIVE FINANCING OPTIONS FOR BAYVIEW PARK AND THE CARRIAGE HOUSE Burlingame City Council October 20, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 6 CM Goldman reviewed the staff report and requested Council consider appointing an ad-hoc Task Force, comprised of two members of the City Council and two members of the Parks & Recreation Commission, to seek creative ways to fund the Bayview Park and repairs to the Carriage House. Mayor Brownrigg appointed Councilmember Ortiz and himself to represent the City Council on the Ad-Hoc Task Force. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve the Ad-Hoc Task Force; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE TO REVISE THE LIST OF DESIGNATED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES CA Kane reviewed the staff report and advised that California Code section 87306.5 requires that each local agency review, and if necessary, revise its Conflict of Interest Code every even-numbered year. Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve Resolution No. 93-2014 amending City’s Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of designated employees; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously 4-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking, August 14, 2014 b. Department Reports: Finance, August 2014 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. in memory of Burlingame resident Sharon Armanino. Respectfully submitted, Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 3, 2014 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.36.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Establish a 2-Hour Parking Limit on the 1500 Block of Cypress Avenue Between the Addresses of 1500 and 1541 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 13.36.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to establish a 2-hour parking limit on the 1500 block of Cypress Avenue between the addresses of 1500 and 1541, by motion as follows: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance. 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND The 1500 block of Cypress Avenue is located between El Camino Real and Barroilhet Avenue, with no on-street parking restrictions for the entire block. The 1500 block of Cypress Avenue is also divided in half by Central Avenue, with the addresses of 1500 through 1541 bounded by El Camino Real and Central Avenue, while the remaining block, with addresses of 1543 through 1576, are between Central Avenue and Barroilhet Avenue. No parking restrictions exist on adjacent streets, such as Central Avenue and Carol Avenue. However, there are 2-hour parking time limits on the other surrounding streets in the area, the closest of which is the 1500 block of Newlands Avenue and the 200 block of Crescent Avenue. In April 2014, the City received a neighborhood petition to consider implementing a 2-hour parking limit on Cypress Avenue, between 1500 and 1541. This limit encompasses 16 homes on Cypress Avenue, from El Camino Real to Central Avenue. Of the 16 homes on this block, 12 signatures from property owners were on the petition, reflecting a 75% support rate. The residents of this portion of Cypress Avenue are requesting 2-hour parking restrictions, because of parking problems from daytime on-street parking by the Burlingame Avenue downtown area employees. The residents in this portion of Cypress Avenue have witnessed their neighbors in the surrounding streets resolve similar concerns and problems through the implementation of 2-hour parking limits and the Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). The residents of Cypress Avenue are seeking the same parking relief. Ordinance to Establish 2-Hour Parking Limit on November 3, 2014 the 1500 block of Cypress Avenue between the addresses of 1500 to 1541 2 DISCUSSION The Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) discussed this matter at their July 10, 2014 and August 14, 2014 meetings. Residents from Cypress Avenue and Central Avenue were present to voice their concerns, support, and objections. As part of the public discussions, residents of the 100 block of Central Avenue and the remainder of Cypress Avenue (with addresses of 1543 through 1576) were also invited for the discussions. Additionally, staff sent the notifications to the residents in the surrounding area to seek their input regarding potential concerns for parking overflow onto their streets if the 2-hour parking limits were implemented on this portion of Cypress Avenue. The residents from outside the petition area (1543-1585 Cypress Avenue and the 100 block of Central Avenue) voiced their concerns and opposition to the spreading of the 2-hour limit restrictions beyond the petition area and onto their streets. A counter petition was subsequently submitted by these residents, stating their desire for the City to not consider expansion of the parking restrictions beyond 1541 Cypress Avenue or onto Central Avenue if the original petition is accepted. On August 14, 2014, after analyzing residents’ input and discussing the matter, the TSPC voted 3 to 1 to support the implementation of 2-hour parking restrictions on the 1500 block of Cypress Avenue, specifically between the addresses of 1500 and 1541. The Council held a Public Hearing on the matter and introduced the ordinance at its regular meeting on October 20, 2014. Upon adoption of the ordinance and installation of parking restriction signage, residents on Cypress Avenue between 1500 and 1541 will be eligible for the RPPP. Implementation of the RPPP will occur within a week after the parking restriction signage is posted along the street. FISCAL IMPACT There will be minor costs and staff time associated with the installation of 2-hour parking signage and administering the residential parking permit program, which will be absorbed within the department’s operation budget. Exhibits: Ordinance Area Map ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 13.36.040 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A TWO-HOUR PARKING LIMIT ON THE 1500 BLOCK OF CYPRESS AVENUE, SPECIFICALLY BETWEEN THE ADDRESSES OF 1500 and 1541 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Factual Background and Findings. WHEREAS, the City has received a petition and complaints from residents of the 1500 block of Cypress Avenue, between the addresses of 1500 and 1541, regarding long-term daytime parking on their street by employees from the business district for the duration of their work shift, making daytime parking for the residents nearly impossible ; and WHEREAS, the 1500 block of Cypress Avenue, between 1500 and 1541, currently has no parking restrictions; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2014 and August 14, 2014, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) discussed this matter with residents of the 1500 block of Cypress Avenue; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the final meeting, the TSPC determined that the parking situation in the 1500 block of Cypress Avenue, between 1500 and 1541, met the policy requirements to qualify for the Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) and, with near-unanimous support from the residents of that block, recommended that the City implement a 2-hour parking restriction on Cypress Avenue, between the addresses of 1500 and 1541; and WHEREAS, the 2-hour parking time-limit restriction is a pre-requisite for the inclusion of Cypress Avenue (between the addresses of 1500 and 1541) in the RPPP; and WHEREAS, the addition of the 1500 block of Cypress Avenue (between the addresses of 1500 and 1541) to the RPPP will occur after the Public Works Department has installed the 2-hour parking limit signage on this portion of the block; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. Chapter 13.36.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended to add a new Sub-section (a) (33), which shall read as follows: “(33) Cypress Avenue, both sides, from El Camino Real to 20 feet southerly of the centerline of Central Avenue (between the addresses of 1500 and 5141).” Section 3. The City Engineer is directed to install the required parking signs and to take all other necessary actions to implement this parking restriction change on Cypress Avenue, between the address of 1500 and 1541. Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in the manner required by law. _________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing occurred at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of October, 2014, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: __________________________________ Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 3, 2014 From: Carol Augustine – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Accepting the 2014 Annual Report of, and Declaring Its Intention to Levy the Assessments for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District for 2015 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intent approving the 2014 Tourism Business Improvement District Annual Report and establish a public hearing date for the levying of the 2015 annual assessments for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. BACKGROUND The San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District was formed in 2001 and now has 11 participating cities throughout San Mateo County and the City of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. Pursuant to the authority provided by the California Streets and Highways Code (section 36500 et seq.), the District collects assessments from the member hotel properties in the District and uses those annual assessments to fund its successful and wide-ranging hotel-business promotional activities. At the end of each year, the Advisory Board of the District files with the City an annual report stating the past year’s activities and accomplishments. In addition, the Advisory Board also recommends the assessment for the coming year. The San Mateo County Tourism District Advisory Board’s annual report for 2014 is attached, as is the list of proposed assessments for the 2015 calendar year. There will be no changes to the methodology in computing the amounts of the assessments for 2015. DISCUSSION The City Council should adopt the Resolution of Intention 1) receiving and approving the 2014 Annual Report, and 2) scheduling a public hearing for Monday, December 1, 2014 at which time the Council will determine if a majority protest has been made and, if not, will levy the 2014 assessments. Notices to the cities and members of the District will be provided by the City Clerk and the District staff. The assessments requested by the District are consistent with the original authority for assessments enacted in 2001 at the time of District formation as amended. Intent to Levy 2015 Assessments – SMC Tourism Business Improvement District November 3, 2014 2 FISCAL IMPACT Assessment revenues provide funding for operations and activities of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. There is no impact to the City’s budget. Exhibits: Annual Report Resolution Approving 2014 Annual Report and Noticing Intent to Levy Assessments for 2015 Convention and Visitors Bureau 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 410, Burlingame, CA 94010 650-348-7600 ▪ 1-800-288-4748 Fax 650-348-7687 info@smccvb.com ▪ www.visitsanmateocounty.com San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau Annual Report for the Burlingame City Council Lead Agency for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District October 21, 2014 Activities/Accomplishments from October 2013 through September 2014 Overall: In the last 12 months, the Bureau has generated 504 meeting leads for San Mateo County and Palo Alto properties, with a potential economic impact of $72,695,197. We booked a total of 61,469 definite room nights, as well as numerous banquets. This total does NOT include individual corporate or leisure traveler nights generated through advertising and promotion, groups rebooking directly with our hotels, or additional non‐room local revenue generated by filming. Accomplishments in Convention Sales & Sports • Conducted three‐day familiarization (“FAM”) tour for meeting planners from the East Coast, Midwest and West Coast, showcasing our destination; • Escorted numerous individual meeting planners on site visits to close group business; • Participated in over 40 industry trade shows and events; • Held receptions for meeting planners in Dallas, Denver, Washington, Chicago, Minneapolis and New York; • Conducted sales missions with San Francisco Travel in Washington, Chicago, New York and Las Vegas; • Conducted sales “blitzes” in Sacramento, multiple Midwestern cities, Southern California and the Bay Area; • Conducted joint sales calls/visits with hotel reps to clients in Sacramento/Central CA; • Co‐sponsored events with stakeholders at CalSAE, MPINCC and NorCal PCMA; • Continued our hot dates/hot rates notification program, sending last minute deals out to key meeting planners to assist area properties with filling “need” dates; • Conducted numerous targeted meeting planner outreach campaigns to all market segments; • Co‐sponsored client events with area CVB reps in Chicago and Washington, DC; • Continued outreach to third party meeting planners and meeting management companies, including Smith Bucklin, Experient, Helms Briscoe, Conference Direct, Hospitality Performance Network, AMC and a number of independent third party planners; • Participated as member of California Society of Association Executives committees, allowing access to planners; • Continued outreach throughout continental U.S., building relationships with association, corporate, third‐party and SMERF meeting planners and sports event organizers; • Remained actively involved in local (San Francisco, Sacramento, Chicago/Greater Midwest, and Washington) industry group chapters of Meetings Professional International, Professional Convention Management Association, Greater Washington Society of Association Executives, (GWSAE), Society of Government Meeting Planners, CA Society of Association Executives, American Society Association Executives, NorCal Network SAE, Religious Conference Management Association, Green Meetings Industry Council, International Hispanic Meeting Planners Association, Women in Sports and Events SF Chapter, and Bay Area Sports and Entertainment; 2 • Worked with the 49ers, the NFL and SF Super Bowl 50 Host Committee, gathering a block of over 7,500 rooms for the Super Bowl; • Worked with the 49ers and regional counterparts to compile over 2,300 peak room nights toward bids for 2018 – 2020 College Football Championship Game at Levi’s Stadium; • Conducted individual site tours for sports planners and executives to showcase colleges, universities and sporting venues throughout San Mateo County and Palo Alto/Stanford area; • Worked with local sports organizations, colleges, universities, and clubs to generate thousands of definite room nights from sporting events; • Participated as member of NASC’s (National Association of Sports Commission) Awards Committee, ensuring access to sporting event planners; • Featured in editorial in Meetings West (and MeetingsFocus.com), Smart Meetings, Schneider Publishing (Collaborate, Connect & Rejuvenate), MPI Plus, Sports Events, and Sports Destinations Management; • Advertised in publications directed at meeting planners and sports management, including: Meetings West (two editions and online), Rejuvenate magazine (two editions), Smart Meetings (two editions), Sports Destinations Management, Connect Sports, NASC, Creative Industry Handbook and the Reel Directory; • San Mateo County/Silicon Valley CVB designated 2014 Readers’ Choice Award Winner for Sports Events by Sports Event Media Group, the leading industry publishing group; • Created promotional flyers and DVDs for booked clients to enhance attendance; • Created “Extend Your Stay” pdfs for conference groups to include on their websites; • Sponsored the Peninsula Sports Hall of Fame Awards/dinner in an effort to promote our area as the perfect spot to hold sporting events. Accomplishments in Leisure and International Promotion • Participated in IPW show in Las Vegas, meeting one‐on‐one with international travel buyers and journalists; • Attended and conducted one‐on‐one business appointments at the National Travel Association Exchange (domestic travel buyers) and Go West Summit (international travel buyers); • Participated in California Travel and Tourism sales missions to the UK, France and Brazil, disseminating info on our area, meeting one‐on‐one with travel trade and media internationally; • Participated in co‐op partnership with SF Travel in NY and LA, meeting with tour operators, meeting incentive travel buyers, and travel journalists; • Conducted fam tours for top producing travel agents, tour operators and travel media from France, Germany, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, China and Ireland; • Had our area included in a major San Francisco travel guide in France with a dedicated section for just our area, listing cities, restaurants, hotels, major attractions and site seeing highlights; • Secured major TV coverage of our area on popular travel channels in the UK and France; • Conducted fam tour for international media from France, the UK, Asia, India and South America; • Continued to familiarize international tour companies with our area, successfully having our area and attractions added to their vacation brochures; • Worked with Visit California’s overseas offices in UK, Australia/NZ, Germany, Japan, France, Mexico and China, India, Brazil and Scandinavia on an ongoing basis, providing information for distribution and participating in promotional opportunities; • Co‐sponsored the California Cup for CEOs of top producing agencies, airlines, travel companies and online travel agencies; • Sent monthly ebulletins to thousands of prospective visitors in our database, listings special events and special rates to encourage visits; • Provided links for member properties on CVB website. In past year (October–September), website was visited 25,457 times by 20,981 unique visitors; 3 • Participated in Visit California’s Super Fam for UK agents; • Produced and distributed 85,000 visitor guides and 40,000 maps; • Filled thousands of visitor info requests generated by our ads and articles on our area; • Continued to operate a visitor center in downtown Palo Alto; • Continued operation of a California Welcome Center at Hillsdale Shopping Center; • Expanded ticket and merchandise items for sale at California Welcome Center; • Placed ads aimed at individual/leisure travelers in: CA Visitor Guide; Sunset; Coastal Living; National Geographic Traveler (three editions) and Facebook; • Placed brochures in 18 California Welcome Centers throughout the state, as well as at SFO and San Jose Airport; • Continued marketing San Mateo County as a top culinary destination; • Built upon partnership with San Mateo County Farm Bureau and San Mateo County Harbor District to encourage SMC restaurants, hotels and caterers to buy and serve the freshest local produce, seafood, wine, beer and goat dairy products; • Conducted farm tour for area chefs; • Revamped web calendar to make it more user friendly; • Rolled out “101 Things to See and Do” lists for geographic areas of the county. Film Commission Efforts • Successfully recruited the feature films “Edsa Woolworth”, “The Boat Builder” & “Terminator: Genisys” (starring Emilia Clarke, Jai Courtney & Arnold Schwarzenegger); • Recruited small films, documentaries, commercials, advertising, music and video productions (with smaller crews). Indie & Short Films included: “After Ever After”, “August Falls”, “Mandorla” and “The Shallows”. Documentaries included: “Nature’s Weirdest Events”, “Twisting the Dragon’s Tail”, “Australian Science Doc”, “Yellow Boots”, “Natures Little Wonders”, “NASA Ames”, “Mass Distinction”, “Deep Water”, “Iron Men” and an Australian surfing movie. • Recruited TV shows, including: “I Almost Got Away With It”, “Sex Sent Me to the Slammer”, “Speak No Evil”, “Mythbusters”, “Brazilian Globo", “Telenovela” and “Food & Travel”, as well as Reality TV shows: “Shark Tank”, “What’s My Car Worth?”, “World’s Most Astonishing News” “Hotel Impossible” & “Wheeler Dealer”. TV Commercials included: BMW, AAA, Eliquis, Dockers, EMC, Google, GMC, Miracle Grow, NDA, Old Navy, Hyundai, Samsung, Subaru‐Solar City, Sutter Health, Verizon, Volvo Truck & Wells Fargo. Music Videos: “Sweet Feet Music” & “Gmuck”, and PSA for California Coastal Commission. Web & Video Projects included: Calm.com, Cisco Billboard, HP, and Sunset magazine. We also recruited many fashion, still and catalog shoots. • Targeted professional location scouts and managers, sending out monthly email updates of new/interesting filming locations; • Provided ongoing script breakdowns/shot lists for proposed film projects, matching them with available San Mateo County/Silicon Valley locations and sending appropriate images; • Handled average of 15 requests per week for filming/permitting assistance to make production easier for film crews; • Participated in film industry trade shows, including the “Locations” Trade Show, put on by the AFCI (Association of Film Commissioners International), “CA Only” Locations Trade Show & Conference & The Producers Breakfast‐‐ events put on by the CFC (California Film Commission), as well as a Northern California Film Industry networking event. • Showcased San Mateo County in the Reel Directory, Productionville, California Film Commission’s CA Locations magazine & Production Hot Spot (industry publications distributed to film industry professionals). 4 Media Outreach • Attended three national travel writer shows: Society of American Travel Writers, Visit California Media Reception and IPW Media Day, pitching stories to over 250 travel writers; • Conducted multiple individual fam tours for travel writers from throughout the country; • Customized stories to fit needs of extensive media calendars we have purchased, sending numerous “made to fit” pieces out on a monthly basis; • Followed up on hundreds of requests from travel writers for information for specific stories; • Worked closely with the Visit California team, responding to all publicity leads that came in to the state; • Continued to build our media database, sending editorial ideas to several hundred travel editors and publications on a monthly basis; • Continued promotion of the area on daily basis via interactive social media through Hootsuite; • Maintained social media sites for the CVB: Facebook, Google+, Twitter and Pinterest and created an Instagram page; • Maintained the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley blog on our website, highlighting our hotels and other members. San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Media Report Due to our efforts, the following articles appeared: Cover story in Golf, Vacation and Lifestyle magazine, October 2014 “California Classics: Collectable Cars and Wine at AutoVino” by Michelle Winner, Luxe Beat Magazine, November 2013, http://luxebeatmag.com/california‐classics‐collectable‐cars‐wine‐autovino/ “California Classic: Store Collectable Cars and Vino Here” by Michelle Winner, AFAR: The Experiential Travel Guide, http://www.afar.com/highlights/california‐classic‐store‐collectable‐cars‐and‐vino‐ here?context=user&context_id=michelle‐m‐winner “Moss Beach ‐ Psychedelic Nudibranchs” by Jenna Scatena, San Francisco Magazine, October 4, 2013, www.modernluxury.com/san‐francisco/story/autumn‐quitters‐the‐indian‐summer‐travel‐guide?page=3 “San Carlos Santa Sighting Among Country's 10 Best” by Larry Bleiberg, USA Today, November 29, 2013, www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/10greatplaces/2013/11/27/meet‐santa‐claus/3767801/ “This Holiday Season, Go Coastside with Your Pup,” Dogtrekker.com, December 4, 2013, http://view.s4.exacttarget.com/?j=fe8b13747361077e7d&m=fea015707765067e73&ls=fe011770746603747715 7474&l=fec6167970640d7d&s=fe1a1079776d05747c1076&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe30157274620679741278&r= “California (golf) Dreaming” by Paolo Ferrari, Il Mondo Del Golf, December 3, 2013, http://www.ilmondodelgolf.com/turismo/le‐destinazioni‐del‐golf/california‐golf‐dreaming.php “Lavender Crusted Lamb Chops (Sofitel recipe)” by Michelle M. Winner, HonestCooking.com, www.honestcooking.com/lavender‐crusted‐lamb‐chops‐recipe “Half Moon Bay” by Karen Misuraca, Forbes Travel Guide, December 2013, www.forbestravelguide.com/san‐ francisco‐california/activities/half‐moon‐bay‐golf‐links “For Valentine's Day, Head to San Mateo Coast” by BATW President Ginny Prior, Happy Wanderer, January 30, 2014, www.middletownpress.com/general‐news/20140130/happy‐wanderer‐for‐valentines‐day‐ head‐to‐san‐mateo‐coast 5 “Peaceful Refuges Amid the Buzz” by Dan Johnson, Small Market Meetings, November 2013, www.smartmeetings.com/event‐planning‐magazine/2013/11/peaceful‐refuges‐amid‐the‐buzz/destination “Fact or Fiction? CVBs Address Stereotypes in the Religious Meetings Market” by Rachel Carter, Small Market Meetings, April 2014, www.smallmarketmeetings.com/articles/fact‐or‐fiction‐religious‐meetings‐market “The Epiphany Opens in Palo Alto for Really Smart People,” Prevue, March 13, 2014, www.prevueonline.net/blog/themes/boutique/the‐epiphany‐opens‐in‐palo‐alto‐for‐really‐smart‐people “Joie de Vivre Hotel Opens in Palo Alto,” Meetings West/Meetings Focus, March 2014, www.meetingsfocus.com/Magazines/ArticleDetails/tabid/136/RegionID/206/ArticleID/23220/Default.aspx “Welcome to Cyberia, California: On the Computer Trail in Silicon Valley,” by Christian Koch, The Independent, UK, February 2014, www.independent.co.uk/travel/americas/welcome‐to‐cyberia‐california‐ on‐the‐computer‐trail‐in‐silicon‐valley‐9130911.html “Vista Cruising on the Coast,” Sunset, June 2014 “Guide to Coastal Breweries,” Coastal Living, May 2014 “Horses and History in Woodside” by Diane LeBow, Silicon Valley Community Newspapers “Devil’s Slide Coastal Trail” and “Let’s Go Coasting: Pacifica to Carmel,” Dogtrekker.com: www.dogtrekker.com/YP.aspx?id=7239 “Her Job is to Bring a Little Hollywood to San Mateo County” by Bonnie Eslinger, Daily News Staff Writer, San Jose Mercury News, June 13, 2014, www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_25961775/her‐job‐is‐bring‐little‐ hollywood‐san‐mateo “Alcatraz Trip Delivers the Great Escape” by Fergus McDonnell, Irish Sunday Independent, March 16, 2014, (Visit CA individual media FAM) Better Homes & Gardens promotion ‐ The promotion reached almost 5 million Australians (which is almost a quarter of the total population), had a value of (Aus) $1,228,164, and was one of our most successful promotions for 2014. “Divas Run,” San Mateo Daily Journal, May 30, 2014, www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014‐05‐30/divas‐run‐ this‐weekend‐burlingame‐event‐focused‐on‐empowering‐women‐in‐its‐third‐year/1776425124102.html “Para‐Athletes to Shine at College of San Mateo” by Nathan Mollat, San Mateo Daily Journal, June 11, 2014, www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/sports/2014‐06‐11/para‐athletes‐to‐shine‐at‐college‐of‐san‐ mateo/1776425124766.html Visit CA, French FAM coverage: www.community.visitcalifornia.com/blogs/NickVine/general/61/french‐fam‐ visit‐to‐san‐francisco‐and‐highway‐one and www.tourmag.com/J2‐Visit‐California‐Half‐Moon‐Bay‐la‐Silicon‐Valley‐ et‐Monterey‐_a66917.html “T + L Picks – Walks by the Water” (Devil’s Slide), Travel + Leisure, August 2014 “Best Places to See Baby Animals,” Travel + Leisure, July 2014: features elephant seals in Pescadero. www.travelandleisure.com/articles/best‐places‐to‐see‐baby‐animals/12 “Let’s Go Coasting: Pacifica to Carmel” by Wayne and Judy Bayliff, examiner.com, June 15, 2014, www.examiner.com/article/pacifica‐a‐picturesque‐beach‐town‐south‐of‐san‐francisco?CID=examiner_alerts_article 6 “Exploring Pacifica, a Scenic Coastal Town South of San Francisco” by The2Writers.com Page on tripatini.com, June 17, 2014, www.tripatini.com/profiles/blogs/pacifica‐exploring‐the‐scenic‐coastal‐town‐south‐of‐san‐francisco TourismPros feature on AFAIG in its weekly round‐up email 2013 CVB Fam tour featured on www.touramerica.ie/staff_reviews.html “Ace It!” a California Meetings + Events feature on California’s spectacular golf courses. Summer 2014, www.tigeroakmag.com/california‐meetings/SU14/#?page=38 “Places We Are Talking About: Half Moon Bay, California”, Qantas Travel Insider, July 22, 2014, www.travelinsider.qantas.com.au/half_moon_bay_california.htm?alt_cam=au:qf:edm:aug14:ti:talkstory1:ht “Special Report: Life in the Smart Lane”, Quantas Travel Insider, October 31, 2013, http://travelinsider.qantas.com.au/special_report_life_in_the_smart_lane_business_city_guide_executive_technology.htm “Misty‐eyed at the Oceano Hotel in Half Moon Bay, California” by Mike Dunphy, hotel‐scoop.com, October 2, 2014, www.hotel‐scoop.com/misty‐eyed‐at‐the‐oceano‐hotel‐in‐half‐moon‐bay‐california/ “Tiny Towns” by Jenna Scatena, San Francisco Magazine cover story, September 2014, www.modernluxury.com/san‐francisco/story/tiny‐towns “The Seven Best Camping Beaches in the Bay Area” by Kate Van Brocklin, San Francisco Magazine, August 2014, www.modernluxury.com/san‐francisco/story/the‐seven‐best‐camping‐beaches‐the‐bay‐area. Additional Outreach • Continued to work closely with team at SFO, welcoming new airlines to our area; • Attended new airline/new flight service ceremonies at SFO, creating strong visibility for San Mateo County with new carriers • Gave numerous speeches and presentations in Bay Area in effort to get local assistance with meeting recruitment; • Continued to build relationships with the Cow Palace, San Mateo County Event Center and South San Francisco Conference Center, working to bring leads to their sales teams and assist in closing business; • Worked with SFO, SamTrans, CalTrain and BART to promote our area as easily accessible; • Continued outreach to chambers and cities in county in order to include key area events in our events calendars and to maximize our searches for filming venues. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND ACCEPTING THE 201 4 ANNUAL REPORT OF, AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District was established for the purpose of promoting tourism in the District through promotion of scenic, recreational, cultural, hospitality, and other attractions in the San Mateo County region: and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District Advisory Board has filed its 2014 annual report and requested the Burlingame City Council to set the assessments for the 2015 calendar year; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District through the City’s agreement with the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau has established a basic foundation to promote tourism in the District; and WHEREAS, the enumerated programs proposed by the District for the coming year should significantly assist the hospitality industry continue its economic recovery throughout the geographical area of the District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36533 and 36534, the city Council shall receive and approve the District Advisory Board’s annual report and shall adopt a Resolution establishing assessments for the coming year; NOW, THEREFORE , THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND FIND AS FOLLOWS: 1. The 2014 annual report of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District Advisory Board filed with the City Clerk is received and approved. 2. The Burlingame City Council intends to levy an assessment for the 2015 year on hotels in the District, as the District is described in Ordinance Nos. 1648, 1678, 1774, 1848 and 1851 for the purpose of funding programs and activities of the District. 3. The types of programs and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on hotels in the District are set forth in Exhibit “A”, incorporated herein by reference. These programs and activities are without substantial change from those previously established for the District. 4. The method and basis for levying the assessments on all hotels within the District are set forth in Exhibit “B”, incorporated herein by reference. The method and basis remain unchanged from the previous year. 5. New hotels shall not be exempt from assessment. 6. A public hearing on the proposed assessments and programs for the year 2015 is hereby set for December 1, 2014 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. 7. Oral or written protests may be made at the hearing. To count in a majority protest against the proposed assessment for the 2015 year, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on December 1, 201 4. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of that public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the hotel and its address. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City of Burlingame as the owner of the hotel, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the hotel. 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. 8. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of re cord written protests by the owners of hotels within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed assessments for the 201 5 year, no assessment for the 2015 year shall occur. If at the conclusion of the public hearing there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to a program or activity proposed, then that type of improvement or activity shall not be included in the District for the 2015 year. 9. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Pr imrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650-558-7203. The annual report of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District is on file and available at the Office of the City Clerk at 501 Primrose, Burlingame, California. 10. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public hearing by publishing this Resolution in a newspaper of General circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets & Highways Codes and mailing in accordance with those requirements and Ordinance No. 1648 and 1678. _______________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 3rd day of November, 2014, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: EXHIBIT A SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SAN MATEO COUNTY/SILICON VALLEY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR 2015 For the calendar year 2015, the Bureau plans to continue all of its normal activities, including but not limited to: * Exhibiting in trade shows; * Conducting multiple group FAM (familiarization) tours for meeting planners; * Conducting individual FAM and site tours for planners; * Conducting FAM tours for international travel agents from overseas; * Conducting a group FAM tour for members of the travel media from around the U.S.; * Conducting individual FAM tours for travel media; * Advertising in meeting planner publications; * Advertising in leisure publications; * Promoting the area to international and domestic media via regular releases of editorial; * Creating updated visitor guides, maps and specialty brochures; * Working with area sporting events; * Actively recruiting filming through our film commission. In addition, we will be introducing a Certified Ambassador program for area concierges, front desk reps, sales managers and area front line team members who deal regularly with visitors, awarding certificates and pins to those taking the course and passing the test. EXHIBIT B: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****Burlingame Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentBay Landing A 90.00$ 130 7,020.00$ 585.00$ Burlingame Hotel A 54.00$ 38 1,231.20$ 102.60$ Crowne Plaza SFO A 360.00$ 309 77,311.80$ 6,442.65$ DoubleTree by Hilton A 360.00$ 393 98,328.60$ 8,194.05$ Embassy Suites SFO - Waterfront A 360.00$ 340 85,068.00$ 7,089.00$ Hampton Inn & Suites A 54.00$ 77 2,494.80$ 207.90$ Hilton Garden Inn A 180.00$ 132 14,256.00$ 1,188.00$ Hilton SF Airport Bayfront A 360.00$ 402 100,580.40$ 8,381.70$ Holiday Inn Express SFO South A 90.00$ 146 7,884.00$ 657.00$ Hyatt Regency SFO A 360.00$ 789 197,407.80$ 16,450.65$ Red Roof Inn A 54.00$ 213 6,901.20$ 575.10$ SFO Marriott Waterfront A 360.00$ 685 171,387.00$ 14,282.25$ Vagabond Inn Executive A 54.00$ 93 3,013.20$ 251.10$ Room Total 3747Total: 772,884.00$ San Mateo Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value Inn A 54.00$ 53 1,717.20$ 143.10$ Avalon Motel A 54.00$ 48 1,555.20$ 129.60$ Best Western Plus Coyote Point Inn A 54.00$ 99 3,207.60$ 267.30$ Best Western Los Prados Inn A 90.00$ 113 6,102.00$ 508.50$ Extended Stay America A 54.00$ 136 4,406.40$ 367.20$ Hillsdale Inn A 54.00$ 90 2,916.00$ 243.00$ Hilton Garden Inn A 180.00$ 156 16,848.00$ 1,404.00$ Holiday Inn & Suites A 360.00$ 110 27,522.00$ 2,293.50$ Howard Johnson A 90.00$ 57 3,078.00$ 256.50$ Residence Inn by Marriott A 54.00$ 160 5,184.00$ 432.00$ San Mateo Marriott A 360.00$ 476 119,095.20$ 9,924.60$ San Mateo SFO Airport Hotel A 54.00$ 110 3,564.00$ 297.00$ Stone Villa Inn A 90.00$ 45 2,430.00$ 202.50$ Room Total 1653Total: 195,908.40$ 1 of 6DRAFT 2015 EXHIBIT B: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****South San Francisco Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAirport Inn A 54.00$ 34 1,101.60$ 91.80$ All Seasons Lodge A 54.00$ 13 210.60$ 17.55$ Americana Inn Motel A 54.00$ 17 275.40$ 22.95$ Americas Best Value Inn SFO A 54.00$ 21 680.40$ 56.70$ Best Western Plus Grosvenor Hotel A 360.00$ 206 51,541.20$ 4,295.10$ CitiGarden Hotel A 180.00$ 175 18,900.00$ 1,575.00$ Comfort Inn & Suites SFO A 54.00$ 166 5,378.40$ 448.20$ Courtyard by Marriott A 180.00$ 197 21,276.00$ 1,773.00$ Days Inn A 54.00$ 25 810.00$ 67.50$ Deluxe Inn A 54.00$ 20 324.00$ 27.00$ Embassy Suites SFO A 360.00$ 312 78,062.40$ 6,505.20$ Four Points by Sheraton A 54.00$ 101 3,272.40$ 272.70$ Hampton Inn A 54.00$ 100 3,240.00$ 270.00$ Hilton Garden Inn A 180.00$ 169 18,252.00$ 1,521.00$ Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites A 54.00$ 87 2,818.80$ 234.90$ Holiday Inn SF Int'l Airport A 360.00$ 224 56,044.80$ 4,670.40$ Hotel Focus SFO A 54.00$ 117 3,790.80$ 315.90$ Howard Johnson A 54.00$ 51 1,652.40$ 137.70$ Inn at Oyster Point A 90.00$ 30 1,620.00$ 135.00$ La Quinta Inn A 90.00$ 174 9,396.00$ 783.00$ Larkspur Landing A 90.00$ 111 5,994.00$ 499.50$ Quality Inn & Suites A 54.00$ 45 1,458.00$ 121.50$ Ramada Limited Suites A 54.00$ 45 1,458.00$ 121.50$ Residence Inn by Marriott A 90.00$ 152 8,208.00$ 684.00$ Royal Inn A 54.00$ 17 275.40$ 22.95$ Travelers Inn A 54.00$ 20 324.00$ 27.00$ Travelodge SFO North A 54.00$ 199 6,447.60$ 537.30$ Room Total 2828Total: 302,812.20$ Millbrae Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAloft SFO A 90.00$ 252 13,608.00$ 1,134.00$ Best Western Plus El Rancho Inn A 54.00$ 219 7,095.60$ 591.30$ The Dylan at SFO A 54.00$ 58 1,879.20$ 156.60$ Fairfield Inn & Suites SFO A 54.00$ 80 2,592.00$ 216.00$ La Quinta Inn & Suites SFO A 54.00$ 100 3,240.00$ 270.00$ Millwood Inn & Suites A 54.00$ 34 1,101.60$ 91.80$ The Westin S.F. Airport A 360.00$ 397 99,329.40$ 8,277.45$ Room Total 1140Total: 128,845.80$ 2 of 6DRAFT 2015 EXHIBIT B: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****Foster City Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentCrowne Plaza Foster City-San Mateo A 360.00$ 356 89,071.20$ 7,422.60$ Courtyard by Marriott A 180.00$ 147 15,876.00$ 1,323.00$ Room Total 503Total: 104,947.20$ Half Moon Bay Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value Inn B 54.00$ 27 583.20$ 48.60$ Beach House Hotel B 180.00$ 54 3,888.00$ 324.00$ Cameron's Inn B 54.00$ 3 40.50$ 3.38$ Coastside Inn B 54.00$ 52 1,123.20$ 93.60$ Comfort Inn B 90.00$ 54 1,944.00$ 162.00$ Half Moon Bay Inn B 54.00$ 15 202.50$ 16.88$ Half Moon Bay Lodge B 180.00$ 81 5,832.00$ 486.00$ Mill Rose Inn B 54.00$ 6 81.00$ 6.75$ Nantucket Whale Inn B 54.00$ 7 94.50$ 7.88$ The Ritz-Carlton B 360.00$ 261 51,678.00$ 4,306.50$ San Benito House B 54.00$ 12 162.00$ 13.50$ Zaballa House Bed & Breakfast B 54.00$ 16 216.00$ 18.00$ Room Total 588Total: 65,844.90$ Unincorporated CountyName of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAtherton Inn A 54.00$ 5 67.50$ 5.63$ Best Western Plus Executive Suites A 54.00$ 29 626.40$ 52.20$ Costanoa B 90.00$ 172 6,192.00$ 516.00$ Cypress Inn on Miramar Beach B 54.00$ 18 243.00$ 20.25$ Goose & Turrets Bed & Breakfast B 54.00$ 5 67.50$ 5.63$ Harbor View Inn B 54.00$ 17 229.50$ 19.13$ Inn at Mavericks B 54.00$ 6 81.00$ 6.75$ Landis Shores Oceanfront Inn B 54.00$ 8 108.00$ 9.00$ Motorville Motel B 54.00$ 30 648.00$ 54.00$ Ocean View Inn B 54.00$ 9 121.50$ 10.13$ Oceano Hotel & Spa B 360.00$ 95 18,810.00$ 1,567.50$ Pacific Victorian Bed & Breakfast B 54.00$ 3 40.50$ 3.38$ Pescadero Creek Inn B 54.00$ 4 54.00$ 4.50$ Pescadero Creekside Barn B 54.00$ 1 13.50$ 1.13$ Pillar Point Inn B 54.00$ 11 148.50$ 12.38$ Princess Port Bed & Breakfast B 54.00$ 4 54.00$ 4.50$ Seal Cove Inn B 54.00$ 10 135.00$ 11.25$ Room Total 427Total: 27,639.90$ 3 of 6DRAFT 2015 EXHIBIT B: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****Redwood City Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmerica's Best Inn A 54.00$ 38 1,231.20$ 102.60$ Atherton Park Inn & Suites A 54.00$ 38 1,231.20$ 102.60$ Best Western Plus Inn A 54.00$ 26 842.40$ 70.20$ Budget Inn A 54.00$ 40 1,296.00$ 108.00$ Capri Motel A 54.00$ 50 1,620.00$ 135.00$ Comfort Inn A 54.00$ 52 1,684.80$ 140.40$ Days Inn A 54.00$ 68 2,203.20$ 183.60$ Deluxe Inn A 54.00$ 27 874.80$ 72.90$ Garden Motel A 54.00$ 17 275.40$ 22.95$ Good Nite Inn A 54.00$ 123 3,985.20$ 332.10$ Holiday Inn Express RWC Central A 54.00$ 61 1,976.40$ 164.70$ Pacific Euro Hotel A 54.00$ 55 1,782.00$ 148.50$ Pacific Inn A 54.00$ 75 2,430.00$ 202.50$ Redwood Motor Court A 54.00$ 12 194.40$ 16.20$ Sequoia Inn A 54.00$ 22 712.80$ 59.40$ Sofitel San Francisco Bay A 360.00$ 421 105,334.20$ 8,777.85$ Towne Place Suites by Marriott A 54.00$ 95 3,078.00$ 256.50$ Room Total 1220Total: 130,752.00$ San Bruno Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentBayhill Inn A 54.00$ 24 777.60$ 64.80$ Budget Motel A 54.00$ 29 939.60$ 78.30$ Comfort Inn & Suites A 54.00$ 29 939.60$ 78.30$ Courtyard by Marriott A 180.00$ 147 15,876.00$ 1,323.00$ Days Inn A 54.00$ 48 1,555.20$ 129.60$ Gateway Inn & Suites A 54.00$ 31 1,004.40$ 83.70$ Howard Johnson A 54.00$ 49 1,587.60$ 132.30$ Ramada Limited A 54.00$ 61 1,976.40$ 164.70$ Regency Inn A 54.00$ 32 1,036.80$ 86.40$ Ritz Inn A 54.00$ 23 745.20$ 62.10$ Staybridge Suites A 180.00$ 95 10,260.00$ 855.00$ Super 8 A 54.00$ 54 1,749.60$ 145.80$ Villa Montes Hotel A 90.00$ 41 2,214.00$ 184.50$ Room Total 663Total: 40,662.00$ 4 of 6DRAFT 2015 EXHIBIT B: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****Belmont Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentBel Mateo Motel A 54.00$ 23 745.20$ 62.10$ Belmont Palms A 54.00$ 14 226.80$ 18.90$ Extended Stay America A 54.00$ 108 3,499.20$ 291.60$ Hillside Lodge A 54.00$ 23 745.20$ 62.10$ Holiday Inn Express & Suites A 90.00$ 82 4,428.00$ 369.00$ Hotel Belmont A 54.00$ 16 259.20$ 21.60$ Hyatt House A 90.00$ 132 7,128.00$ 594.00$ Motel 6 A 54.00$ 273 8,845.20$ 737.10$ Room Total 671Total: 25,876.80$ San Carlos Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value Inn A 54.00$ 32 1,036.80$ 86.40$ Country Inn & Suites A 54.00$ 50 1,620.00$ 135.00$ Extended Stay America A 90.00$ 116 6,264.00$ 522.00$ Fairfield Inn & Suites A 54.00$ 112 3,628.80$ 302.40$ Hotel San Carlos A 54.00$ 29 939.60$ 78.30$ San Carlos Inn A 54.00$ 10 162.00$ 13.50$ Travel Inn A 54.00$ 29 939.60$ 78.30$ Room Total 378Total: 14,590.80$ East Palo AltoName of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentFour Seasons Silicon Valley A 360.00$ 200 50,040.00$ 4,170.00$ Palo Alto Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value Sky Ranch Inn C 54.00$ 29 939.60$ 78.30$ Cardinal Hotel Palo Alto C 54.00$ 60 1,944.00$ 162.00$ Comfort Inn Stanford C 54.00$ 70 2,268.00$ 189.00$ Coronet Motel C 54.00$ 21 680.40$ 56.70$ Country Inn Motel C 54.00$ 27 874.80$ 72.90$ Cowper Inn C 54.00$ 14 226.80$ 18.90$ Creekside Inn C 180.00$ 136 14,688.00$ 1,224.00$ Crowne Plaza Palo Alto C 360.00$ 195 47,736.00$ 3,978.00$ Days Inn Palo Alto C 54.00$ 23 745.20$ 62.10$ Dinah's Garden Hotel C 360.00$ 129 31,579.20$ 2,631.60$ The Epiphany C 360.00$ 86 21,052.80$ 1,754.40$ 5 of 6DRAFT 2015 EXHIBIT B: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****Garden Court Hotel C 360.00$ 62 15,177.60$ 1,264.80$ Glass Slipper Inn C 54.00$ 25 810.00$ 67.50$ (will pay Apr-Dec)Hilton Garden Inn Palo Alto C 180.00$ 174 18,792.00$ 1,566.00$ (will pay Apr-Dec)Homewood Suites by Hilton Palo Alto C 90.00$ 138 7,452.00$ 621.00$ Hotel California C 54.00$ 20 324.00$ 27.00$ Hotel Keen C 54.00$ 42 1,360.80$ 113.40$ Hotel Parmani C 54.00$ 36 1,166.40$ 97.20$ Oak Motel Palo Alto C 54.00$ 42 1,360.80$ 113.40$ Palo Alto Lodge C 54.00$ 18 291.60$ 24.30$ Quality Inn Palo Alto C 54.00$ 52 1,684.80$ 140.40$ Sheraton Palo Alto C 360.00$ 355 86,904.00$ 7,242.00$ Stanford Motor Inn C 54.00$ 37 1,198.80$ 99.90$ Stanford Terrace Inn C 90.00$ 80 4,320.00$ 360.00$ Travelodge Palo Alto Silicon Valley C 54.00$ 29 939.60$ 78.30$ The Westin Palo Alto C 360.00$ 184 45,043.20$ 3,753.60$ The Zen Hotel C 54.00$ 37 1,198.80$ 99.90$ Room Total 2121Total: 310,759.20$ Pacifica Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value Inn B 54.00$ 25 540.00$ 45.00$ Best Western Plus Lighthouse B 180.00$ 97 6,984.00$ 582.00$ Holiday Inn Express B 54.00$ 38 820.80$ 68.40$ Pacifica Beach Hotel B 90.00$ 52 1,872.00$ 156.00$ Pacifica Motor Inn B 54.00$ 42 907.20$ 75.60$ Sea Breeze Motel B 54.00$ 20 270.00$ 22.50$ Room Total 274Total: 11,394.00$ Brisbane Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentHomewood Suites by Hilton SFO North A 90.00$ 177 9,558.00$ 796.50$ Radisson Hotel SF Airport Bay Front A 360.00$ 210 52,542.00$ 4,378.50$ Room Total 387Total: 62,100.00$ 6 of 6DRAFT 2015 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 3, 2014 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Metropolitan Planning Group (M- Group) for Current Planning Services through June 30, 2015 RECOMMENDATION The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group) in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for current planning services through June 30, 2015. BACKGROUND The Community Development Department Planning Division is processing an application for a large development project and is revising and updating the General Plan and the Housing Element. All of these projects require ongoing consulting services to supplement staff in facilitating the necessary tasks for these projects. The projects include: Development application for a proposed multiple-family project consisting of 292 residential units at 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue and 1007-1025 Rollins Road. Housing Element Update – review and certification of the draft Housing Element by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and final adoption by City Council, as well as completing the Housing Element implementation programs. Update of the Burlingame General Plan – work with the selected consulting team to coordinate public participation, assist in research, and review of work products. Provide staff support for other ongoing projects on an as-needed basis. DISCUSSION The Community Development Department has selected Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group) to provide the necessary staff support for the above projects for the remainder of the 2014 -2015 fiscal year (through June 30, 2015). Professional Services Agreement – M-Group November 3, 2014 2 Attached is a draft Agreement for Professional Services with Metropolitan Planning Group (M- Group) for current planning services, in an amount not to exceed $75,000.00 through June 30, 2015 (Agreement, Exhibit 2). The Scope of Work for services to be provided by Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group) is attached to this report as Exhibit 3. FISCAL IMPACT The FY 2014-2015 Budget for the Community Development Department – Planning Division includes adequate funding for these services. Exhibits: Resolution Scope of Services Draft Agreement RESOLUTION NO. ________ 1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP (M-GROUP) FOR CURRENT PLANNING SERVICES THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department - Planning Division is processing an application for a large development project and revising and updating the General Plan and the Housing Element, all of which require ongoing consulting services to supplement staff in facilitating the necessary tasks for these projects; and WHEREAS, the projects include a development application for a proposed multiple- family project consisting of 292 residential units at 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue and 1007-1025 Rollins Road, the Housing Element Update, the General Plan Update, and miscellaneous other projects as needed; and WHEREAS, due to the significant workload of the Community Development Department - Planning Division, additional staffing assistance is needed with respect to management of ongoing projects of a larger scale; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department – Planning Division has selected Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group) to provide the necessary staff support for the above projects for the remainder of the 2014-2015 fiscal year (through June 30, 2015) at an estimated cost of $75,000. NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that the City Manager is authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Metropolitan Planning Group for services to be provided to the Community Development Department – Planning Division through June 30, 2015. ___________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 2014, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ___________________________________ Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk Exhibit A Agreement for Professional Services between City of Burlingame and Metropolitan Planning Group Metropolitan Planning Group Scope of Services Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group) will provide professional planning services to the City of Burlingame on an on-call basis to provide staff support for several on-going projects and planning programs which include the following: 1. Process the development application and oversee the environmental consultant contract for a proposed multiple family development project consisting of 292 residential units at 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue and 1007-1025 Rollins Road. 2. Facilitate the preparation of the Burlingame Housing Element Update, to include assistance in revising the document as needed to achieve certification by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and preparation of any necessary reports to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption of the final Housing Element. 3. Prepare the necessary ordinances and staff reports to implement the zoning programs outlined in the Housing Element update. 4. Assist in the General Plan update process by working with the selected consulting team to include coordination of community meetings, providing the consulting team with background information, reviewing and editing work products submitted, and writing reports as needed. 5. Assist Planning Division staff in any ongoing projects on an as-needed basis, to include graphic support, environmental review, overseeing the work of consultants and any other tasks deemed necessary by the Planning Manager. Cost Proposal M-Group will provide staff assistance by Maureen Brooks, Principal Planner, to facilitate these projects on a time and materials basis. The hourly rate for the Principal Planner is $105.00 per hour. It is expected that the above tasks and any other ongoing projects can be accomplished during no more than 20 hours per week, for a total cost through June 30, 2015 not to exceed $75,000.00. The grand total is a not-to-exceed amount for all tasks combined. All costs will be charged on a time and materials basis, commensurate with work completed, in accordance with the charge rate outlined above. If M-Group does not need all the time that has been budgeted, we will only bill for the time actually spent completing the work. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP FOR PLANNING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is by and between Metropolitan Planning Group (“Consultant”) and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”). Consultant and City agree: 1. Services. City wishes to secure planning staffing assistance with identified projects in the Community Development Department. Consultant shall provide the Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for $75,000, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts (“Maximum Compensation”). Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills 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 June 30, 2015 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 2 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. 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 3 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. 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. 4 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME CONSULTANT 501 Primrose Road Metropolitan Planning Group Burlingame, CA 94010 579 Clyde Avenue #340 Mountain View, CA 94043 By: By: Lisa Goldman Geoff Bradley City Manager President Date: Date: Attest: Federal Employer ID Number: 20-5205208 Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk 5 Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A – Scope of Services Exhibit B – City Insurance Provisions 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 3, 2014 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), Section 25.40.060 Building Heights, Related to Building Heights within the Trousdale West (TW) Zoning District RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: 1. Adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), Section 25.40.060 Building Heights, Related to Building Heights within the Trousdale West (TW) Zoning District”, and 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the adopted ordinance in the newspaper within five (5) days of the date of adoption. BACKGROUND The proposed ordinance was introduced by the City Council at its regular meeting on October 20, 2014. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. This proposed amendment was discussed in conjunction with applications related to a proposed 132-unit assisted living/memory care facility at 1600 Trousdale Drive. There were no changes requested to the proposed ordinance at introduction; therefore, the ordinance is presented for adoption at this time. Further discussion of the applications related to the project at 1600 Trousdale Drive will occur as a separate item on the November 3, 2014 City Council agenda. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibit: Ordinance – TW District Amendments ORDINANCE NO. __________ 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE), SECTION 25.40.060 BUILDING HEIGHTS, RELATED TO BUILDING HEIGHTS WITHIN THE TROUSDALE WEST (TW) ZONING DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby ordains as follows: Division 1. Factual Background WHEREAS, at the March 2, 2013 annual joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission, the a conceptual drawing was presented by Peninsula Health Care District that illustrated a proposed five and six story tall assisted living and memory facility project at 1600 Trousdale Drive. In the presentation it was noted that an amendment to the TW Zoning Regulations for building height measurement would be required to accommodate the proposed design. The Planning Commission and City Council viewed the concept favorably and indicated that amendments to the building height standards for the TW district could appropriately be considered as part of an application for entitlements; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of September 22, 2014 the Burlingame Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider an application for a new assisted living and memory care facility, which included a proposed amendment to Title 25, Code Section 25.40.060 (b) of the Burlingame Municipal Code (TW Zoning Regulations) to clarify the maximum allowed building height for mixed commercial and residential structures, including group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses built upon corner lots where the lot front is on Magnolia Avenue or Ogden Drive and where the side property line is on Trousdale Drive; and WHEREAS, after considering all written and oral testimony presented at the September 22, 2014 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0-1-1 to recommend to the City Council, adoption of an ordinance amending Title 25, Code Section 25.40.060 (b) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend the height restrictions for properties within the TW zone that front on Magnolia Avenue or Ogden Drive, but have side property lines on Trousdale Drive ; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of October 20, 2014 the Burlingame City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to amend Title 25, Code Section 25.40.060 (b) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, and following conclusion of the public hearing and consideration of all written and oral testimony provided during the hearing, introduced the ordinance, by title only, waiving further reading, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE NO. __________ 2 Division 2. Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), Section 25.40.060 Building Heights, related to Building Heights within the Trousdale West (TW) Zoning District is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Maximum Allowed Height. (2) Mixed Commercial and Residential Structures, including group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses. (a) Mixed commercial and residential structures, including group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses with a lot front on Trousdale Drive shall have a maximum height of seventy-five (75) feet. (b) Mixed commercial and residential structures, including group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses with a lot front on Magnolia Avenue shall have a maximum height of sixty (60) feet. (c) Mixed commercial and residential structures, including group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses built upon corner lots where the lot front is on Magnolia Avenue or Ogden Drive and where the side property line is on Trousdale Drive, shall be limited to a maximum height of sixty (60) feet for the first 20% of lot depth measured from the front property line. Beyond the first 20% of lot depth from the front property line, the maximum height shall be the same as the maximum height permitted for parcels with lot fronts on Trousdale Drive. Division 3. This ordinance, or a summary as applicable, shall be published as required by law and shall become effective 30-days thereafter. ____________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of October, 2014, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________ Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 3, 2014 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Subject: Consideration of Applications for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Conditional Use Permits Related to Construction of a Five and Six-Story, 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility at 1600 Trousdale Drive RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: 1. Conduct a public hearing and consider all public testimony related to the applications for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Conditional Use Permits related to construction of a five- and six-story, 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility at 1600 Trousdale Drive. 2. Following conclusion of the public hearing, consider adoption of a “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Finding that There is No Substantial Evidence that Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Building Height Restrictions for the Trousdale West (TW) Zoning District and Approval of Requests for Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility for Construction of a Five And Six-Story, 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility at 1600 Trousdale Drive will have a Significant Effect on the Environment Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Article 6 of the CEQA Guidelines”; and 3. Consider Adoption of a “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving Applications for Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for Construction of a Five and Six-Story, 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility at 1600 Trousdale Drive”. BACKGROUND Prior City Council Consideration: The project was previously reviewed by the City Council during a public hearing on October 20, 2014. At that time, the Council also introduced an ordinance amending the Trousdale West (TW) zoning regulations clarifying measurement of 1600 Trousdale Drive – 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility November 3, 2014 2 building heights on corner properties along Magnolia Avenue, Ogden Drive and Trousdale Drive. Though the ordinance amending the TW zoning regulations was introduced without changes, the Council provided direction to the applicant regarding specific elements of the project design. At the Council’s direction, the adoption of the ordinance amending the TW zoning regulations has been placed on the consent calendar for the November 3, 2014 City Council meeting. The remainder of this report provides an overview of the project, as well as the applicant’s response to Council direction provided on October 20th. Project Description: An application has been submitted for construction of a new 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility (group residential facility) at 1600 Trousdale Drive. The project site is zoned Trousdale West (TW) and is located at the northwest corner of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. The proposed project includes demolition of the existing one-story office building and construction of a new, 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility in a building ranging between five and six stories in height. Application Elements: Mitigated Negative Declaration: A determination that with mitigation measures there will be no significant environmental effects as a result of this project. Design Review: Design review is required for the proposed project. The criteria for Design Review shall be based on the Design Guidelines for El Camino Real Area in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Conditional Use Permit: A conditional use permit is required for the assisted living and memory care facility (group residential facility for the elderly). Conditional Use Permit: A conditional use permit is required for building height exceeding 35’-0” from average top of curb (69’-11” proposed as measured from Magnolia Avenue and 67’-8” proposed as measured from Trousdale Drive). A copy of the September 22, 2014 Planning Commission staff report is attached and provides a full discussion and analysis of the proposed project, including conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2014. Planning Commission Action: On September 22, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project, including the zoning code amendment. The Commission voted 5-0-1-1 to recommend approval of the applicant’s requests for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits and Amendment to the TW Zoning Regulations. Since th e City Council is the final decision-making body regarding the request to amend the TW Zoning Regulations, the Planning Commission’s action was in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. In its discussion, the Planning Commission expressed concern that when fully grown the Red Maple street trees along Trousdale Drive will visually block the main entry to the building. The Commission recommended to the City Council that the two street trees flanking the main entry be of a smaller scale. 1600 Trousdale Drive – 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility November 3, 2014 3 In his memorandum dated October 7, 2014 (see attached), the City Arborist notes that “A species that would work well for this purpose would be a Crape Myrtle (Lagerstromia Indica). Crape Myrtle trees have a maturity height of 15 to 20 feet.” However, he also points out that “a smaller tree will be restricted in their height and continue to block the view of the entrance, where a larger tree will eventually grow high enough that the bottom branches can be pruned to allow the entrance to be visible.” If the City Council wishes to approve the project with a smaller scale tree species to flank the front entry, condition of approval No. 1 should be amended to require that, prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant consult with the City Arborist to choose a smaller scale street tree species flanking the building entry. City Council Direction from October 20, 2014: The City Council provided specific direction to the applicant regarding elements of the project design following the October 20th public hearing. The following is a summary of the direction provided by the Council, along with the applicant’s response. Note that all changes are described in detail in an October 24, 2014 letter from the project architect and are also reflected on the revised project plans included with this staff report. Provide Sunscreens on the East and South Elevations: Sunscreens have been provided as directed. Along the south side of the structure, the screens project over the public sidewalk along Trousdale Drive. For this reason, the design of these elements is such that, in the event that they ever need to be removed from the building, this may occur without damage to the exterior finishes of the structure. The Public Works Director concurs with this design approach as it relates to potential impacts upon the Trousdale Drive right-of-way. Provide an Enhanced Cornice Design: The cornice at the top of the building has been redesigned so that it is more prominent and projects much further out from the building to greater effect. As with the sunscreens, this element is designed to be removed along the south elevation in the event that the need ever arises for removal. Again, the Public Works Director concurs with this design approach as it relates to the Trousdale Drive right-of-way. Provide a More Attractive Design for the Fence along the North Property Line: The design of the fence along the north property line has been revised to incorporate a painted steel design for the first 60-feet of depth. As with the prior chain-link design, the fence will serve as a base for vine growth. Beyond this depth the design will be chain-link, which will serve as a base for vine growth. Balcony Railing Details: The details of the balcony railing appeared to differ between the Planning Commission approved plans and the project renderings presented at the October 20th public hearing. This discrepancy has been corrected on the latest iteration of the project plans. 1600 Trousdale Drive – 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility November 3, 2014 4 Street Tree Planting: The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission’s recommendation that the two trees flanking the Trousdale Drive entry shall be of a smaller scale to enhance visibility of the entry. The City’s arborist has provided his recommendations regarding the appropriate species of trees in his October 28, 2014 memo attached to this report. Further, all street trees will be planted pursuant to the arborist’s directive that root barriers be installed along with a deep-watering system to ensure that root growth is drawn downward, reducing potential for adverse impacts upon the adjacent sidewalks. The architect’s letter further describes a minor change to the height of the arbor structure shown along the Trousdale Drive elevation. The structure’s height has been raised to maintain proper clearance for pedestrians. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: CEQA Resolution Project Entitlements Resolution Mitigated Negative Declaration (Distributed with October 20, 2014 Council Packet) September 22, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report Architect’s Letter dated October 24, 2014 City Arborist’s Memorandum dated October 28, 2014 Revised Project Plans RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST (TW) ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVAL OF REQUESTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE AND SIX-STORY, 132-UNIT ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY AT 1600 TROUSDALE DRIVE WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-575- P (attached herewith), is hereby 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, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________ Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE AND SIX-STORY, 132-UNIT ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY AT 1600 TROUSDALE DRIVE RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, on September 22, 2014, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council for approval of requests for applications for Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for an assisted living and memory care facility and building height for construction of a five and six-story, 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility at 1600 Trousdale Drive (APN: 025-121-031 and 025-121-032), owned by Peninsula Health Care District; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered public comment on the project on October 20, 2014 and conducted a public hearing on November 3, 2014; considered all information contained in the written and oral staff reports, the environmental assessment of the project, and all written and oral testimony received during the public hearing. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council moved to approve the requests for Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for an assisted living and memory care facility and building height. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. Said Design Review and Conditional Use Permits are approved by the City Council subject to the conditions set forth in the following pages. Findings for such Design Review and Conditional Use Permits are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 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, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________ Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 2 1600 TROUSDALE DRIVE – 132-UNIT ASSISTED LIVING/MEMORY CARE F ACILITY (Approved by City Council: November 3, 2014) Conditions of Approval: 1. that the assisted living and memory care facility shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 28, 2014, sheets G0.1 through G1.3, C1.00 through C3.00, L0.01 through L5.01, AD2.1.1 and A0.1 through A7.2.2; 2. that a building permit for the project shall not be issued until 30 days after adoption of the Ordinance amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) related to building heights within the Trousdale West (TW) Zoning District; 3. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall consult with the City Arborist to choose a tree species for the two street trees flanking the front entry of the building; 4. to minimize damage to public sidewalks, a root barrier and a deep root watering system shall be installed at every street tree located within the right-of-way along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue; details for the root barriers and deep root watering system shall be included in the plan set and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 7. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 8. that the 44 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the residents, visitors and employees of the assisted living and memory care facility and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles or goods either by businesses on this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; 9. that a "Right Turn Only" sign shall be installed at the exit point along Trousdale Drive to clearly define the vehicular direction for drivers exiting the site; prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required signage and location on the property; 10. that card reader/intercom system shall be installed in the driveway off Trousdale Drive a minimum 20'-0' back from the property line; RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 3 11. that the conditions of the Building Division’s January 23, 2014 and October 11, 2013 memos, the Engineering Program Manager’s March 26, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s March 27, 2014, February 12, 2014 and November 14, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s March 17, 2014, January 23, 2014 and November 7, 2013 memos, the Fire Division’s January 22, 2014 and October 17, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Division’s April 16, 2014 and February 13, 2014 memos shall be met; 12. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the conditional use permits as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 13. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $81,989.60, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 14. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $81,989.60, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 15. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $34,474.79, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; (Planning) 16. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $34,474.79, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 17. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 18. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 19. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 20. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right - of-way shall be prohibited; 21. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 4 22. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following five (5) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 23. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 24. that prior to the underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure; 25. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division; 26. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; 27. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Air Quality 28. The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All streets, 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. RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 5 f. 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 CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. 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. h. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 29. The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with a Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC), which would reduce diesel particulate emissions by at least 85 percent. Biological Resources 30. If construction or vegetation removal is initiated during nesting bird season, between February 1 and August 31 annually, the project applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to survey the project site for active nests. If active nests are observed, no-work buffer zones will be established around trees/shrubs/structure with nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist through consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., CDFW). Buffer zones will be avoided during construction activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. 31. The project applicant shall reduce impacts associated with accidental damage caused to existing off-site trees (for example, the accidental cutting of branches or roots) during construction activity. Any damaged off-site trees will be mitigated for using a 1:1 planting replacement ratio. Any damaged trees will be replaced by an approved replacement species per City of Burlingame, Urban Forest Management Plan (City of Burlingame, 2009). Cultural Resources 32. The project applicant, in consultation with City staff and a Secretary of the Interior- qualified archaeologist, shall undertake archaeological testing following demolition of the existing building on the site but prior to any ground disturbing activities associated with the project. Testing shall involve boring and/or trenching of the site, at locations determined appropriate by the archaeologist, to determine whether site constituents associated with CA-SMA-74 are located at the project site, and would thereby ensure proper treatment of significant archaeological resources and reduce work stoppages resulting from archaeological finds. If testing reveals the presence of archaeological resources associated with CA-SMA-74, or other resources, the archaeologist would determine whether the identified resources are California Register-eligible and therefore considered significant under CEQA. If the resources are significant, the archaeologist would consult with the project applicant and the appropriate Native American representative to determine whether avoidance of significant archaeological resources is feasible. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 6 accomplished through: planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate Native American representative, will design and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP), including systematic data recovery, interpretive/public outreach efforts, and recommendation for additional requirements, including archaeological and Native American monitoring during project implementation, as set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL-1b. If archaeological testing reveals no presence of significant archaeological resources, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1c, which calls for the appropriate handling and treatment of archaeological resources that may be accidentally encountered during project excavation and construction. 33. Prior to authorization to proceed, or issuance of permits, the project proponent will retain a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist to design and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) to recover important archaeological resources that may be present in the project site. The ARDTP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. The ARDTP will identify what scientific/ historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource, what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. Data recovery, in general, shall be limited to the portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical. The ARDTP shall include the following elements: a. Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and operations. b. Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system and artifact analysis procedures. c. Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post- field discard and deaccession policies. d. Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive program during the course of the archaeological data recovery program. e. Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resource from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities. f. Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results. g. Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of any recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities. Once the ARDTP is approved, the archaeologist shall implement the data recovery investigation and/or other treatment, consistent with the ARDTP. A Native American representative will be present during all ground-disturbing activities associated with the RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 7 data recovery effort. Upon completion of the data recovery and treatment efforts, the archaeologist will prepare an Archaeological Data Recovery Report (ADRR). The ADRR shall include: h. the archaeological and historical research methods employed in the archaeological data recovery program; i. a full artifact catalog, analysis of items collected, and results of any special studies conducted; j. interpretations of the resource within a regional and local context; k. potential avenues of public outreach including exhibit displays; public lectures or lecture series; site visits to ongoing archaeological excavations; popular-level articles, books, or pamphlets describing area history; news releases to local venues; and/or website updates, website “exhibits,” and interactive websites combined with activities and timelines; and l. recommendations for pre-construction archaeological sensitivity training for all project personnel, as well as archaeological and Native American monitoring to the extent deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist who carried out the work. Once approved, copies of the final confidential ADRR shall be submitted to the appropriate Native American representative Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, the project applicant, the City of Burlingame, and interested professionals. 34. If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered, all construction activities within 100 feet would halt and the City of Burlingame would be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked- stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. A Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist would inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation would be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist would prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Burlingame. Treatment of unique archaeological resources would follow the applicable requirements of PRC Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the project. The treatment plan would include provisions for analysis of data RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 8 in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. 35. In the event of the discovery of human remains during archaeological data recovery, monitoring, or construction activity, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of within 100 feet of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified by the project applicant and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to State law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 36. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the project applicant shall retain a state certified contractor to conduct pre-demolition surveys of the existing structure for the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint. If these materials are identified to be present in the surveys, they shall be removed by state-certified contractors according to applicable regulations and disposed of as hazardous waste in accordance with the requirements of the state licensed receiving facility. Noise 37. The project applicant shall include sound-rated assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) as described in the Environmental Noise Study Draft to achieve acceptable interior noise levels (45 dBA DNL/CNEL) in proposed residences. In addition, an alternative means of providing outside air (i.e., HVAC, Z-ducts) to habitable spaces is required since windows must be closed to achieve the interior criterion in units along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue, where sound-rated windows are required. A qualified acoustical engineer must review the design as it is developed to refine the specific STC ratings once the building design and site layout has been approved. 38. The project applicant shall require construction to comply with the City of Burlingame Municipal Code operational hour limits, specifically restricting construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. 39. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project applicant shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: a. Equipment and trucks used for project construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques, such as improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible. b. Impact tools (i.e., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 9 unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust will be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10-dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves will be used where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of 5-dBA. Quieter procedures will be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible. c. Stationary noise sources will be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. d. Signs will be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number with the City of Burlingame in the event of noise complaints. The project applicant will designate an onsite complaint and enforcement manager to track and respond to noise complaints. Transportation and Traffic 40. The project applicant and its construction contractor(s) will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan will include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible and traffic congestion during construction: a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes; b. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area; c. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur; and d. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlingame County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-575-P) 1600 Trousdale Drive – Construction of a 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility Project Location: 1600 Trousdale Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The Peninsula Health Care District proposes to construct a new Assisted Living and Memory Care facility on a one-acre lot at 1600 Trousdale Drive, located on the corner of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue in Burlingame, California. The approximate 150,300 gross square foot building would include a subterranean parking for 44 vehicles and storage area, five full above-grade levels and a partial sixth floor. The proposed project would provide 132 units, consisting of 107 assisted living units and 25 memory care units. The proposed project would also include a common dining and kitchen facility, lobby, library, learning center, clinic/exam rooms, café, fitness center, spa and salon, and administrative offices. Outdoor courtyards and a patio are also proposed. The project would remove an existing single story office building on the PHCD-owned property currently housing PHCD office uses. In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the City’s intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A mitigated negative declaration is a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effect on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid effect or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study and mitigations, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on August 8, 2014. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the end of the 20-day review on August 28, 2014. Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to: William Meeker, Community Development Director City of Burlingame Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Fax: (650) 696-3790 Email: wmeeker@burlingame.org Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above. Public Hearing: The City of Burlingame Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and this project on Monday, September 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010. Posted: August 8, 2014 Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 1 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ERRATA Since publication of the Draft IS/MND, the City has identified and corrected certain minor numerical errors presented in the Draft IS/MND. The minor staff-initiated changes reflected in this errata do not change any conclusions reached in the Draft IS/MND, or otherwise trigger any requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 for recirculation of the Draft IS/MND. The following staff-initiated corrections and changes are made to the Draft IS/MND. Revised or new language is underlined. Deleted language is indicated by strikethrough text. Page 81 of the Draft IS/MND, Table 2.16-1 is revised as follows: TABLE 2.16-1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Project Land Use ITE Code Units Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total Assisted Living 254 140 beds 372 13 7 20 14 17 31 Office Building 710 10,800 sq ft 119 15 2 17 3 13 16 Total Net New Vehicle Trips 253 -2 5 3 11 14 4 25 15 SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012; Fehr and Peers, 2014. Page 81 of the Draft IS/MND, fourth full paragaph is revised as follows: “The net new vehicle trips on the project site would be approximately 253 daily trips, 3 a.m. peak hour trips, and 2515 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, and would have a less than significant impact. In addition, the proposed project would not cause any exceedance of level-of-service standards for area roadways, and no significant cumulative impacts on these roadways would occur.” Draft PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for August 2014 City of Burlingame Draft PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for August 2014 City of Burlingame 550 Kearny Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego Santa Cruz Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility i ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Page Environmental Checklist / Initial Study ............................................................................... 1 1.0 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 Report Organization .......................................................................................................... 3 Project Site and Vicinity Description ................................................................................. 3 Project Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 5 Approvals ........................................................................................................................ 17 References...................................................................................................................... 18 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 19 2.0 Environmental Checklist .............................................................................................. 20 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 20 Agricultural and Forest Resources .................................................................................. 24 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 25 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 37 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 41 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ........................................................................................ 49 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 52 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 57 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 61 Land Use and Land Use Planning .................................................................................. 65 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................... 67 Noise ............................................................................................................................... 68 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 75 Public Services ............................................................................................................... 76 Recreation....................................................................................................................... 79 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................... 80 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 87 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 91 Appendices A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases .............................................................................. A-1 B. Noise ............................................................................................................................. B-1 C. Transportation ............................................................................................................... C-1 Table of Contents Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility ii ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Page List of Figures 1-1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 4 1-2 Aerial ...................................................................................................................... 6 1-3 Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 7 1-4 Ground Floor Plan .................................................................................................. 8 1-5 Floor Level 2 ........................................................................................................ 10 1-6 Project Elevations (East and South Elevations) ..................................................... 12 1-7 Project Elevations (West and North Elevations) ..................................................... 13 1-8 Garage Level Plan ................................................................................................ 15 1-9 Planting Plan ........................................................................................................ 16 2-1 Visual Simulation .................................................................................................. 21 List of Tables 1-1 Summary of Proposed Building Uses, by Level .......................................................... 9 2.3-1 Average Daily Construction-related Pollutant Emissions .......................................... 29 2.3-2 Construction-Related Health Impacts ....................................................................... 30 2.3-3 Daily Operational-related Pollutant Emissions .......................................................... 31 2.3-4 Annual Operational-Related Pollutant Emissions ..................................................... 32 2.3-5 Cumulative Health Impacts ....................................................................................... 35 2.7-1 Estimated Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Construction and Operation of the Project ......................................................................................... 55 2.12-1 Typical Commercial Construction Noise Levels ........................................................ 71 2.16-1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................. 81 Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 1 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Initial Study 1. Project Title: Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner City of Burlingame Community Development Department Planning Division Telephone: (650) 558-7256 E-Mail: rhurin@burlingame.org 4. Project Location: 1600 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Cheryl Fama Chief Executive Officer Peninsula Health Care District 1600 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 6. General Plan Designation(s): Office Use Mixed-Use – Office/Residential (North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan) 7. Zoning Designation(s): Trousdale West of El Camino (TW) 8. Description of Project. The Peninsula Health Care District (PHCD) proposes to construct an Assisted Living and Memory Care facility on a one-acre lot at 1600 Trousdale Drive, located on the corner of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue in Burlingame, California. The approximate 150,300 gross square foot building would include a subterranean parking and storage area, five full above-grade levels and a partial sixth floor. The proposed project would provide 132 units, consisting of 107 assisted living units and 25 memory care units. The proposed project would also include a common dining and kitchen facility, lobby, library, learning center, clinic/exam rooms, café, fitness center, spa and salon, and administrative offices. Outdoor courtyards and a patio are also proposed. The project would remove an existing Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 2 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 single story office building on the PHCD-owned property currently housing PHCD office uses. See the Project Description below, for additional project details. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting. The project site is bounded by Trousdale Drive on the southeast, Magnolia Avenue on the northeast, and office uses on the southwest and northwest. The project site is located across Trousdale Drive from the Mills-Peninsula Medical Center complex. There are retail uses across Magnolia Avenue to the northeast and primarily medical offices southwest of the site along Trousdale Drive. The nearest existing residential uses are located approximately 325 feet from the project site, and a residential condominium is under construction approximately 125 feet west of the project site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement. Indicate whether another agency is a responsible or trustee agency.) City of Burlingame City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 3 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 1.0 Project Description Introduction The Peninsula Health Care District (herein referred to as the “project applicant”) proposes to develop a 132-unit (140-bed), approximate 150,300 gross square foot (gsf) assisted living and memory care facility on a one-acre site located at 1600 Trousdale Drive in the City of Burlingame, California.1 The project site is owned by the PHCD, and currently contains an existing one-story building housing PHCD office uses that would be demolished under the project. The proposed assisted living and memory care facility would be operated by Eskaton, a non-profit provider of senior care. The City of Burlingame (City), serving as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is completing the required environmental review for the project pursuant to CEQA, prior to approval of the project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, the City has prepared an Initial Study to determine the potential environmental consequences of approval and implementation of the project. This Initial Study provides the necessary information to inform the City decision-makers, other responsible agencies and the public of the nature of the project and its potential effect on the environment. Report Organization This report is organized as follows: Section 1, Project Description, provides an introduction to the proposed project with project background and discusses the proposed improvements. Section 2, Environmental Checklist Form, presents the CEQA Initial Study Environmental Checklist, and analyzes environmental impacts resulting from the project and describes the mitigation measures that would be incorporated into the proposed project to avoid or reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Project Site and Vicinity Description The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Burlingame, approximately eight miles south of the City of San Francisco and three-quarter mile south of the San Francisco International Airport (see Figure 1-1 for project location). Regional access to the site is provided by U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), Interstate 280 (I-280), and El Camino Real [State Route (SR) 82]. 1 The project applicant’s original application was for a 124-unit (128-bed) assisted living and memory care facility. However, the project applicant subsequently requested an increase in the number of living units to132-units (140 beds), which is described and analyzed in this environmental document. It should be noted the proposed increase in living units did not increase the size of the proposed facility (e.g., building footprint, total floor area, or building height) from the original application. OCCIDENTAL AVE S K Y L I N E B L V D S K Y L I N E B L V D M A G N O L I A A V E AIRPORT BLVD T R O USDA LE DR RALS T O N AVEHILLCRES BLVDHILLSBOROUGHHILLSBOROUGH SAN M A TEO 82 101 101 82 SANBRUNO MILLBRAE BURLINGAME SANBRUNO EL C A M I N O R E A L CAL I F O R N I A D RBROADWAYHILLSIDE DRRO L L I N S R D M A G N O L I A A V ETMILLBRAE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BURLINGAME BAY S H O R E H W Y SAN FR ANC ISC O BAY 280 Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility . 140126Figure 1-1Project Location SOURCE: ESA 0 2000 Feet PROJECT SITE Pacific Ocean NOVATO SANRAFAEL SANJOSE FREMONT HAYWARD SANRAMON WALNUTCREEK CONCORD SANTA ROSA NAPA FAIRFIELD ALAMEDASANFRANCISCO DALYCITY BERKELEY VALLEJO VACAVILLE SANMATEO OAKLAND PROJECTSITE RICHMOND 101 80 680 580 880 280 280 101 REDWOODCITY MOUNTAINVIEW 4 Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 5 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 The project site is located at 1600 Trousdale Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Number 025-121-032), at the corner of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. The project site is 43,560 sf, or one acre, in area. The site is relatively level, sloping gently down from west to east, with ground surface elevation varying from approximately 42 feet above sea level (asl) in the northwest corner of the project site to 36 feet asl near the site’s southeast corner at Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. The PHCD currently operates office uses within a one-story, 10,800 gsf building on the project site; other existing features on the site include a paved parking area containing 37 spaces, walkways and landscaping including four trees. Existing vehicular access to/from the site is provided via Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. Currently, six people work in the building (although the office building could accommodate approximately 45 employees). Surrounding land uses are predominantly commercial and institutional. Figure 1-2 presents an aerial photograph of the project site and vicinity. An office building and its parking lot (accessed from Magnolia Avenue) owned by the Dharma Realm Buddhist Association share the northwestern property boundary of the site, and an American Red Cross office building and associated parking lot (accessed from Trousdale Drive) shares the southwest property boundary of the site. The Mills- Peninsula Medical Center complex is located east of the project site across Trousdale Drive (with the main hospital building located over 500 feet from the site). There are retail uses (including a dry cleaning business and a veterinary clinic) along Magnolia Avenue and there are miscellaneous office and medical office uses on portions of Trousdale Drive near the site. The nearest existing residential uses are located on Trousdale Drive approximately 325 feet west of the project site, and a residential condominium is under construction approximately 125 feet west of the project site. The project site is located within the City’s Trousdale West of El Camino (TW) zoning district. Project Characteristics The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing building on the site and construct a 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility for the elderly. The proposed U-shaped building would consist of 150,332 gsf, and range between 5 and 6 levels over a garage basement. The proposed building would have a lot coverage of 21,455 gsf, utilizing 49.2 percent of the one-acre lot. Figure 1-3 presents the proposed site plan. Table 1-1 presents a summary of building area and uses, by level. Figure 1-4 presents the ground floor plan of the project, including interior building uses and outdoor space. The primary pedestrian entrance to the building would be from Trousdale Drive (see also Vehicular Circulation and Parking, below). The approximate 21,400 gsf first floor (ground) level would contain a common dining and kitchen facility, reception and lobby, learning center, clinic/exam rooms, café, a fitness center, spa and salon, and administrative offices. The project would feature a 7,000 sf ground level exterior courtyard created within the U-shape of the building, and provide an outdoor lounge, hearth, barbeque area, deck and garden. A separate outdoor ground-level staff patio would also be developed adjacent to the building in the northwest area of the project site. Office Building American Red Cross American Red Cross Mills-Peninsula Medical Center Mills-Peninsula Medical Center TROUSDALE DRTROUSDALE DRM A G N O L I A A V E M A G N O L I A A V E 1800 Trousdale (under construction) 1800 Trousdale (under construction) 1818 Trousdale (under construction) 1818 Trousdale (under construction) CommercialCommercial PROJECT SITEPROJECT SITE Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility . 140126Figure 1-2 Aerial SOURCE: ESA; Google Maps 0 100 Feet Project Site Boundary 6 TYPE: LARGE SCALE NARROW MODULAR DIM:36" x 12" x 2-1/2" MFR: STEPSTONE COLOR: GRANADA WHITE 1401 (WITH SLAG), AGAVE #1412 (WITH SLAG), PORCELAIN GRAY #1413 (WITH SLAG) FINISH: MEDIUM SANDBLAST NOTES:PEDESTAL SUPPORT SYSTEM TYPE: LARGE SCALE NARROW MODULAR DIM:36" x 12" x 2-1/2" MFR: STEPSTONE COLOR: GRANADA WHITE #1401 (WITH SLAG) FINISH: LIGHT SANDBLAST NOTES:PEDESTAL SUPPORT SYSTEM TYPE: TRUNCATED DOME PAVERS MFR: STEPSTONE COLOR:CHARCOAL GRAY TYPE: ARTIFICIAL TURF MFR:TO BE DETERMINED TYPE: NARROW MODULAR PAVERS DIM: 9" x 3" x 4" MFR: STEPSTONE COLOR: GRANADA WHITE #1401 (WITH SLAG) FINISH: LIGHT SANDBLAST NOTES:SET ON 6" AGGREGATE BASE TYPE: NARROW MODULAR PAVERS DIM: 9" x 3" x 4" MFR: STEPSTONE COLOR: GRANADA WHITE #1401 (WITH SLAG) FINISH: LIGHT SANDBLAST NOTES:PERMEABLE INSTALLATION, SET ON 4" OF NO. 57 AGG. OVER STRUCTURAL SOIL CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TRUNCATED DOME PAVERS 9'-8" 6'-0" 3'-0" TRUNCATED DOME PAVERS TRUNCATED DOME PAVERS STRIPED CROSSWALK (E) LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN (E) TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT POLES TO REMAIN (E) UTILITIES TO REMAIN (N) LIGHT POLE LOCATION BIKE RACK, TYP OF 3 GENERATOR VALLEY GUTTER STAINLESS STEEL WIRE CABLE TRELLIS FULL HEIGHT OF CONCRETE WALL PROPERTY LINE N 44°10'51" E 248.91'PROPERTY LINEN 45° 49' 09" W182.68'PROPERTY LINE S 40° 47' 06" W 230.50'PROPERTY LINES 45° 49' 09" E149.06'15% SLOPE RAMP DOWN TO PARKING GARAGE6% SLOPE6% SLOPETROUSDALE DRIVE MAGNOLIA AVENUEEXISTING BUILDING RECYCLE CONTAINER TRASH CONTAINER 1600 TROUSALE DRIVE 6 STORY, 124 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING/ MEMORY CARE FACILITY F.F. = 39.00 (N) CURB CUT (N) CURB CUT RETAINING WALL AT RAMP DOWN INTO GARAGE (N) CROSSWALK AND CURB CONFIRGURATION. SEE LANDSDCAPE. 0" 0" REARYARD SETBACK 15' - 0" STAFF PATIO PG&E METER PAD FIRE BACKFLOW PREVENTER TO PL30' - 0"51' - 1"TO PL37' - 1 1/2"MAIN ENTRY (CANOPY ABOVE) ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE RAMP PAVED/PLANTED COURTYARD PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. 20'-0" MIN. WHITE ZONE PASSENGER LOADING/UNLOADING 6" CONCRETE CURB RIGHT TURN ONLY SIGN ONTO TROUSDALE DRIVE CARD READER/INTERCOM C.L. RIGHT OF WAY SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE C.L. RIGHT OF WAY200' - 0"30' - 0"139' - 4"62' - 4"81' - 9"62' - 2" 43' - 2"SIDEYARD SETBACK12' - 0"26' - 2"141' - 3"70' - 6"59' - 9"58' - 11"24' - 7"SLOPE 1/4"/12" 42' - 0" 42' - 9 1/2" PER 2013 CBC 705.8, FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS 30' OR GREATER. FOR UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED AND PROTECTED OPENINGS, AN ALLOWABLE AREA CALC IS "NOT REQUIRED". 30'-0" FROM OUTERMOST PORTION OF BUILDING FACE INDICATED BY BOLD DASHED LINE. 15' - 0" SERVICE DRIVEWAY 20' - 0"20' - 0"30' -0 "30' - 0"30' - 0" 11' - 0" 22' - 0" ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER SCREENED GATE AT UTILITIES. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. STAINLESS STEEL WIRE CABLE TRELLIS FULL HEIGHT OF CONCRETE WALL GFRC CONCRETE PLANTER POTS, 18" & 24" DIAM, TYP.TO PL30' - 0"FOOT PRINT AT GARAGE ENTRY PORTAL FIRE ACCESS STAIRWALL TO TERMINATE 6" ABOVE GRADE. SAFETY RAIL TO 42" ABOVE GRADE WHERE REQUIRED IN SETBACK.10' - 6"Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility . 140126Figure 1-3 Site Plan SOURCE: Smithgroup JJR 0 20 Feet Project Site Boundary 7 RECEIVING TRASH ROOM STAFF ROOM SPA SALON CLINIC LIVING ROOM LOBBY LEARNING CENTER CAFE OFFICES OFFICES DINING DINING KITCHEN ACTIVITY ROOM FITNESS CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility . 140126Figure 1-4 Ground Floor Plan SOURCE: Smithgroup JJR 0 20 Feet 8 Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 9 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BUILDING USES, BY LEVEL Level Area (gross square feet) Proposed Use Living Units Other Uses Garage 28,360 5 accessible parking spaces (2 van accessible) 39 standard parking spaces 44 parking spaces Storage, laundry and mechanical/plumbing/ electrical utilities Level 1 21,418 Lobby and reception, common living and dining rooms, kitchen, learning center, clinic/exam rooms, café, fitness center, spa and salon, and administrative offices. Level 2 21,700 9 studio units 21 one-bedroom units 1 two-bedroom unit Subtotal: 31 living units Library Level 3 21,996 8 studio units 16 one-bedroom units 1 two-bedroom unit Subtotal: 25 living units Common living and dining rooms, kitchen, spa, activity room, administrative offices, terrace courtyard Level 4 21,700 9 studio units 21 one-bedroom units 1 two-bedroom unit Subtotal: 31 living units Activity room Level 5 21,700 6 studio units 18 one-bedroom units 4 two-bedroom units Subtotal: 28 living units Activity room Level 6 13,488 5 studio units 11 one-bedroom units 1 two-bedroom units Subtotal: 17 living units Lounge Total 150,332 37 studio units 87 one-bedroom units 8 two-bedroom units 132 living units (140 beds) SOURCE: SmithGroup JJR, 2014 Floor levels 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the proposed building would house the assisted living residents, and floor level 3 would house memory care residents. Figure 1-5 presents the floor plan for level 2 (this is similar, although not identical to, floor plans for levels 3 through 6). The proposed project would include 107 assisted living units plus an additional 25 memory care units totaling 132 living units. This would consist of 37 studio units, 87 one-bedroom units, and eight two-bedroom units, for a total of 140 beds. Additional uses on these upper floors would include a library (floor level 2), common living and dining rooms kitchen, spa, and administrative offices (floor level 3), activity rooms (floor levels 3, 4 and 5), and lounge (floor level 6). A large outdoor terrace REF.REF. WDDW REF. REF. REF. REF. REF. REF.REF.REF.REF.REF. REF. REF. REF. REF. REF.REF.REF.REF. REF.REF. REF.REF. REF.REF.REF.REF.REF. SA SA SA SASASASASASA SA SA SA SA DN A-STUDIO 201 1 BDRM CONV. 203 1 BDRM NON CONV. 206 1 BDRM CONV. 205 STUDIO 207 STUDIO 209 1 BDRM CONV. 211 1 BDRM CONV. 221 1 BDRM NON CONV. 231 1 BDRM NON CONV. 233 1 BDRM NON CONV. 235 STUDIO 241 1 BDRM CONV. 243 1 BDRM CONV. 245 STUDIO 247 STUDIO 249 1 BDRM CONV. 251 1 BDRM NON CONV. 244 LINEN 1 ELEV 1 E1-2 ELEV 2 E2-2 WORK ROOM 242 LAUNDRY L2-1 TRASH 178 SVC 179 SVC ELEV 180 A-1 BDRM 237 1 BDRM NON CONV. 246 STUDIO 223 OPEN TO BELOW LIBRARY 227 1 BDRM CONV. 226 STUDIO 228 1 BDRM NON CONV. 230 1 BDRM NON CONV. 232 TEL/DATA/ELEC T2-1 JAN C2-1 BALCONYDUMBWAITER KITCHEN EXHAUST LAUNDRY CHUTE 1 BDRM NON CONV. 208 1 BDRM NON CONV. 225 1 BDRM NON CONV. 250 STAIR 1 S1-2 STAIR 2 S3-2 42" HIGH GUARDRAILBALCONYBALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY42" HIGH GUARDRAIL TEL/DATA/ELEC T2-2 11' - 4 5/8" 10' - 4 5/8" 6' - 0"BALCONY12' - 3 9/16"12' - 3 9/16"12' - 3"BALCONYBALCONYKITCHT BDRMBALCONY KITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCH BDRM KITCHTKITCHTKITCHTKITCHTKITCHTKITCHTKITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCHT KITCHTKITCHTKITCHTKITCHTKITCHT BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRMBDRMBDRM BDRMBDRMBDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM BDRM KITCHT BDRM 1 BDRM NON CONV. 202 3' - 6 1 2 1/12 8 " 9' - 3 1/16"3' - 3 9/16"3' - 3 9/16"3' - 8 3/16"1' - 10"26' - 10"4' - 0"1' - 11 3/8" 1' - 6 9/16"3' - 1 11/16"9 9/16"9 9/16"4 15/16"SLATTED ALUMINUM SUNSHADE WITH LIGHT GAGE STEEL FRAMING AT ENTRY CANOPY.57"18 1/2" 22" (18" MIN. CLR. to edge of Lav)66"60 1/2" 1' - 0"2' - 0"24" MIN. CLR.2' - 0"0' - 11 15/32"3' - 8"18" MIN.CLR.26"18 1/2"24" MIN. CLR. 2' - 0"42" MIN.22"42 1/2"3' - 6"1' - 0 1/2" 66 1/2"0' - 11 31/32"2' - 0 1/32"2' - 6"9' - 8"12' - 3 9/16" 10' - 0 7/8" 4' - 1 1/8"4 7/8"7' - 1 1/16"6' - 0" 4' - 1 1/8"2' - 6 1/4"12' - 7 7/8"4' - 7 1/8"7' - 0 1/2"2' - 8 1/2"5 1/2"5 1/2" STAIR VESTIBULE S1-2A 6' - 0"6' - 0"1' - 3" 50"26"30"20" 24" 2' - 6 55/64" Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility . 140126Figure 1-5 Floor Level 2 SOURCE: Smithgroup JJR 0 20 Feet 10 Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 11 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 balcony is proposed on level 3 to provide a secure outdoor environment for residents of the memory care units. While not indicated in the current site plans, installation of an optional rooftop terrace is being considered. Figures 1-6 and 1-7 present building elevations. The building would range between 5 and 6 stories and measure between 57 feet 6 inches to 67 feet 8 inches in height fronting on Trousdale Drive (as measured from the average top of curb). The building would have 5 stories and measure up to 59 feet 9 inches in height from average top of curb fronting on Magnolia Avenue (the 6th story fronting on Trousdale Drive would measure 69 feet 11 inches from the top of curb on Magnolia Avenue). The proposed building would be a Type 1A, Fire Resistive building constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete, using concrete floor and roof slabs, column framing, and shear walls for lateral loading. The building foundation would use either a mat foundation system or spread footings. A variety of materials are proposed for the exterior facades including stone veneer base, EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System) in a Lymestone finish and wood panels. Aluminum windows and doors would be used throughout the building. The main entrance to the facility would be identifiable by an entry canopy made of a slatted aluminum sunshade and light cage steel framing. Slatted aluminum sunshades would also be located along the west side of the building. Balconies would be provided in approximately 80 percent of the residential units. Additional project site features include a portico structure at the vehicular entrance, a six-foot tall chain link fence to be installed along the north and west sides of the project site, a wood slat vine trellis screen walls along the outdoor courtyard, and raised stone veneer planters. The proposed project would be required to comply with the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24), which requires efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce water and energy consumption. Proposed infrastructure improvements include new water, wastewater, storm drainage and electrical/gas utilities on the site. The project would provide stormwater treatment per C.3 requirements by means of a rainwater harvesting system to treat and reuse captured roof runoff for irrigation as well as one open-bottom depressed rain garden in the rear landscape area to treat direct site and pumped garage driveway runoff. Various streetscape improvements that would also be implemented would include widening of the existing sidewalk along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the project site; crosswalk striping across Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue and accessible pedestrian ramps at this corner; bike racks; and street tree planting (see Landscaping Plan, Figure 1-9, below). Vehicular Circulation and Parking The proposed primary vehicular access to the project site would occur at Trousdale Drive, with a vehicular service entry proposed at Magnolia Avenue. This primary vehicular access point from Trousdale Drive is proposed to be right-turn in/out only. The driveway to the project site off Trousdale Drive would transition to a ramp that would provide access for vehicles to/from the GROUND FLOOR EL +39' - 0" FLOOR 2 EL +52' - 4" FLOOR 3EL +62' - 6" FLOOR 4 EL +72' - 8" FLOOR 5 EL +82' - 10" FLOOR 6/DECKEL +93' - 0" ROOF EL +103' - 2"3' - 6"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"13' - 4"PL T.O. PARAPETEL +106' - 8" PL 125' - 7"125' - 7" RECESSED 67' - 8" OVERALL HEIGHT FROM T.O. CURB AT TROUSDALEEXTERIOR FINISH CODE DESCRIPTION COLOR FINISH WATERFALLEIFS MOONLIGHT WHITE WOOD PANEL SYSTEM WITH INTEGRAL RAINSCREEN RUSTIK STONE VENEER BASE LEXINTON GREY ANTIGUA LYMESTONE FINISH LYMESTONE FINISH LYMESTONE FINISH LIMESTONE EX-1 EIFS GETTYSBURG GREY EX-2 EX-3 SB-1 WP-1 PT-1 PT-2 PT-3 PT-4 EIFS RESIN BASED COATING KYNARADOBE RESIN BASED COATING KYNARPEBBLE GRAY RESIN BASED COATING KYNARGREENFIELD PUMPKIN PAINT OR POWDERCOAT SANDY HOOK GRAY EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND FLOOR 5 EL +82' - 10" 20" 51" PER 2013 CBC 1029.2 MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING: 5.7 SF MIN. HEIGHT: 24" MIN. WIDTH:18" MAX. HEIGHT FROM FLOOR:44" 20 1/2" TOTAL NET CLEAR OPENING: 7.1 SF SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 TYPICAL EGRESS WINDOW AT LIVING UNIT GROUND FLOOR EL +39' - 0" FLOOR 2 EL +52' - 4" FLOOR 3EL +62' - 6" FLOOR 4 EL +72' - 8" FLOOR 5 EL +82' - 10" FLOOR 6/DECKEL +93' - 0" ROOF EL +103' - 2" ASKEW PL T.O. PARAPETEL +106' - 8"3' - 6"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"13' - 4"PL RECESSED AVG. T.O. CURB AT MAGNOLIA +36' - 9" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION - MAGNOLIA AVENUE Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility . 140126Figure 1-6 Project Elevations SOURCE: Smithgroup JJR SOUTH ELEVATION (TROUSDALE DRIVE) EAST ELEVATION (MAGNOLIA AVENUE)12 GROUND FLOOR EL +39' - 0" FLOOR 2 EL +52' - 4" FLOOR 3 EL +62' - 6" FLOOR 4EL +72' - 8" FLOOR 5 EL +82' - 10" FLOOR 6/DECK EL +93' - 0" ROOFEL +103' - 2""6 - '3"2 - '01"2 - '01"2 - '01"2 - '01"2 - '01"4 - '31ASKEW T.O. PARAPET EL +106' - 8" PL EXTERIOR FINISH CODE DESCRIPTION COLOR FINISH WATERFALLEIFS MOONLIGHT WHITE WOOD PANEL SYSTEM WITH INTEGRAL RAINSCREEN RUSTIK STONE VENEER BASE LEXINTON GREY ANTIGUA LYMESTONE FINISH LYMESTONE FINISH LYMESTONE FINISH LIMESTONE EX-1 EIFS GETTYSBURG GREY EX-2 EX-3 SB-1 WP-1 PT-1 PT-2 PT-3 PT-4 EIFS RESIN BASED COATING KYNARADOBE RESIN BASED COATING KYNARPEBBLE GRAY RESIN BASED COATING KYNARGREENFIELD PUMPKIN PAINT OR POWDERCOAT SANDY HOOK GRAY EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND GROUND FLOOR EL +39' - 0" FLOOR 2 EL +52' - 4" FLOOR 3 EL +62' - 6" FLOOR 4EL +72' - 8" FLOOR 5EL +82' - 10" FLOOR 6/DECK EL +93' - 0" ROOFEL +103' - 2" GARAGE FLOOREL +28' - 6" RAMP DOWN INTO PARKING, SHOWN IN FOREGROUND AS DASHED LINE GARAGE DOOR OPEN TO GARAGE PL PL T.O. PARAPET EL +106' - 8"8' - 2" MIN.SCALE DRAWING TITLE SEALS AND SIGNATURES SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 WEST ELEVATION Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility . 140126Figure 1-7 Project Elevations SOURCE: Smithgroup JJR NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 13 Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 14 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 building garage. Vehicular access into the building would be controlled via a security gate and a card reader/intercom system. The proposed approximate 28,400 gsf subterranean building garage would provide 44 parking spaces, including five disabled-accessible spaces, and other facility functions including laundry and storage bins for the residents. Figure 1-8 presents the proposed building garage level. An “at grade” service and emergency vehicle access drive would be located along the northern property line, and provide access to the loading bay and receiving area located in the rear of the building. The proposed project would include a passenger loading area in the subterranean parking garage adjacent to Elevator No. 1, to be used for facility shuttle loading and resident pick-ups/drop-offs. Although not currently proposed, in the future the applicant may consider adding a white curb passenger loading zone along Trousdale Drive between the main entry and primary main driveway, to be used for facility shuttle loading and resident pick-ups/drop-offs. Loading zone activity would be consistent with other similar facilities. The loading zone would be 20 to 25 feet in length. A request for a white curb passenger loading zone would need to be presented to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission for review and approval. Landscaping Under the project, all existing vegetation and trees would be removed from the project site. A landscape plan has been developed for the project site that would introduce 42 trees (33 onsite, and 9 street-side along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue) and new vegetation and planters to the site at the ground level (Figure 1-9). Street tree species were chosen to be consistent with street tree recommendations in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. As shown in the planting legend in Figure 1-9, the planting plan proposes landscaping in different zones within the project site. The perimeter planting in Zone 1 would occupy the largest segment of the site (approximately 4,600 sf) with small trees and shrubs. Stormwater planters in Zone 2 would consist of approximately 500 sf of wetland plants. Other zones of herbaceous plants and shrubs would be planted in the courtyards and driveway entry. Planter walls are proposed at the main entrance to the building and along the building recess at the corner of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. Planters and other vegetation would also be installed in the third floor courtyard. Lighting Exterior lighting would consist of wall- and surface-mounted lighting and recessed lighting (e.g., at building pedestrian and vehicular entrances), pole-mounted pedestrian scale lights (e.g., in the proposed courtyard and other pedestrian circulation areas), and one-side output wall lighting (for accent and sign lighting). In the exterior courtyards, dimmable light-emitting diode (LED) light sources would be installed with shielded luminaires to prevent glare. These luminaries would turn off with a programmable timer. Luminaires would also be integrated into architectural features such as planters, canopies and trellises. Two existing street lights along Trousdale Drive adjacent to the project site would remain and one street light along Magnolia Avenue would be relocated slightly south to accommodate the proposed site layout. 44 42 40 38 37 36 3334 31 29 27 25 23 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 13 12 10 8 7 6 11 9 32 30 24 22 39 41 43 STAIR 1 244 MAIN ELEC ROOM 239 ELEV 1 240 ELEV 2 241 STORAGE 246 STAIR 2 245 28 1 2 3 4 5 "0 - '81"6 - '32"0 - '81"0 - '81"2/1 6 - '32"0 - '81 15' - 0"12' - 0"STOP R 2 4' - 0"R 24' - 0"R 2 4' - 0"R 24' - 0"MACH. RM. 359 35 14 LAUNDRY L1-0 STORAGE (120) 363 MAINTENANCE 364 "6 - '11"6 - '11"6 - '11"6 - '11"6 - '11"6 - '11"6 - '11"6 - '11"11 - '0111' - 2"11' - 6"11' - 6"11' - 6"11' - 6"11' - 6"10' - 11"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"11' - 1"9' - 4"11' - 6"TRENCH DRAIN ENHANCED COLORED CONCRETE PAVING 18' - 0"PICKUP/DROP OFF AREA FLOOR DRAIN LAUNDRY CHUTE TOILET 395 MACH. RM. 379 2 A4.2.3 3 A4.2.3 3 A4.2.3 1 A4.2.3 MECH. 426 MAIN EMERGENCY ELEC ROOM 381 239' - 3" 15' - 0" 31' - 10" 15' - 0"11' - 4"11' - 6"11' - 6"11' - 6"11' - 6"11' - 6"11' - 8"11' - 6"10' - 10"10' - 11" EVHS OFF 427 ELEC. RM 428 STORAGE 439 ONE WAY F.F. +28' - 6"ONE WAYONE WAYONE WAY 18' - 0" 23' - 6" 18' - 0""0 - '81"6 - '32"0 - '81BIKE PARKING 451 S2 26 11' - 6"8' - 2"9' - 0"5' - 2"VAN ACCESSIBLEVAN ACCESSIBLEIDF 452 9' - 0" 5' - 0" 9' - 0"11' - 6"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 0" 22' - 0" FIRE ACCESS STAIR UP TO GRADE 8"8"16"16" 4 A4.2.3 4 A4.2.39' - 8"9' - 0"16' - 2" 4' - 1"7' - 4"4' - 1"4' - 1"10"4' - 1"4"4" 16' - 2" 4" 4' - 1"7' - 4"4' - 1" 4" MECHANICAL 361 PLUMBING E3-1C1' - 10"1' - 5" VANACCESSIBLE 6' - 8" CLEARUNAUTHORIZED VEHICLESPARKED IN DESIGNATEDACCESSIBLE SPACES NOTDISPLAYING DISTINGUISHINGPLACARDS OR SPECIALLICENSE PLATES ISSUED FORPERSONS WITH DISABILITIESWILL BE TOWED AWAY ATTHE OWNER'S EXPENSE.TOWED VEHICLES MAY BERECLAIMED AT XXXXXXX ORBY TELEPHONING XXX-XXX-XXXX 1' - 9"2' - 0"6' - 8" CLEAR2 ADA SIGNAGE Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility . 140126Figure 1-8 Garage Level Plan SOURCE: Smithgroup JJR 0 20 Feet 15 Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility . 140126Figure 1-9 Planting Plan SOURCE: Smithgroup JJR 0 20 Feet 4,600 SF 500 SF 16 Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 17 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Project Operation At full capacity, the facility would house a maximum of 140 residents. The proposed assisted living and memory care facility would be operated by Eskaton, a non-profit provider of senior care. The facility would be staffed by resident care associates, maintenance, housekeeping and food service staff as well as an executive director, business office manager, activities director, wellness nurse, and other staff for a total of approximately 85 full-time equivalent employees. The project applicant estimates that up to 27 employees would be at the facility during the busiest (daytime) shift. Construction Project construction is expected to commence in the fourth quarter of 2014 and last approximately 19 months, with completion in the second quarter of 2016. Construction contractors would be required to limit standard construction activities to the requirements of the City of Burlingame. The Burlingame Municipal Code restricts construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The number of construction workers on site could reach a maximum of approximately 50 workers per day during peak construction. Demolition of existing features on the property would include the removal of the 10,800 sf one-story office building, concrete sidewalk, path, curb, asphalt parking area, wood fence, lawn, and all trees and other onsite vegetation. Subsurface excavation for the new building would require temporary shoring using a shoring drill rig. Footings and foundations would be erected in concrete, likely with shotcrete. The proposed new building would be constructed in concrete using column and slab form work. Expected depth of excavation would be 4 to 6 feet below the lowest architectural slab. The proposed project would require approximately 17,000 cubic yards of soil excavation and 1,600 cubic yards of fill. Approximately 1,400 haul loads would be required. The volume of demolished material would be approximately 300 cubic yards and there would be no proposed on-site recycling/reuse of demolition materials. Anticipated construction vehicles and equipment would include a hoe ram for demolition, shoring drill rig, excavator, backhoe, medium size D6 bulldozer, bobcats, 18-yard dump trucks, concrete pump truck, concrete trucks, and a self- erecting crane. The proposed project would not require pile driving. The proposed construction staging area would be on-site at the northern property edge and no street laydown is anticipated. Concrete pumping and concrete trucks would be staged at the edge of the project site on adjacent City streets. Approvals The project site is located within the City of Burlingame. For the purpose of the Initial Study, the City is the Lead Agency responsible for approval of the Initial Study as well as conducting design review and other discretionary planning approvals. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 18 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 The proposed project would be required to comply with the City of Burlingame’s General Plan. The project site is classified under the City of Burlingame’s General Plan as Office Use (Mixed- Use – Office/Residential in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan). A Conditional Use Permit would be required for the proposed group residential facility use, and for building height exceeding 35 feet along Magnolia Avenue and Trousdale Drive. In addition, an amendment to the TW Zoning Regulations would be required to clarify the measurement of building heights on corner properties along Magnolia Avenue, Ogden Drive, and Trousdale Drive. The proposed project would also require Design Review. Because of the site’s proximity to San Francisco International Airport, the proposed project is subject to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco Airport Plan (ALUCP) guidelines related to building height. The Federal Aviation Administration conducted an aeronautical study and concluded that the proposed structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. _________________________ References City of Burlingame, City of Burlingame General Plan, 1969. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 Zoning, http://qcode.us/codes/burlingame/, accessed April 28, 2014. Federal Aviation Administration, Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, June 2, 2014 Project plans and descriptions. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 20 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 2.0 Environmental Checklist Aesthetics Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS — 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 daytime or nighttime views in the area? Discussion a, b) Less than Significant. The proposed project is located about 500 feet southwest of El Camino Real, which is also State Route (SR) 82. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has not designated SR 82 as a state scenic highway under the Scenic Highway Program. However, the Scenic Roads and Highways Element of the City of Burlingame General Plan identifies El Camino Real as a scenic highway, a designation intended to protect attractive views from the road (City of Burlingame, 1969). Interstate 280 (I-280) is the nearest officially designated state scenic highway to the project site. I-280 is approximately 1.4 miles west of the proposed project, and the project site is not visible from this freeway. There are no officially designated county scenic highways or eligible state scenic highways in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The proposed building, while taller than the existing building on the site, is located in a developed commercial area containing other multi-story buildings. Consequently, the project would not have an adverse effect on scenic vistas. The use of the project site as a residential care facility would be a compatible land use with the project area resulting in a less than significant impact on scenic resources. c) Less than Significant. Figure 2-1 presents a photograph of existing conditions on the project site as viewed from the intersection of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue (looking west), and a visual simulation of the proposed project from the same viewpoint, including proposed building, landscaping and street improvements. For context, the visual simulation also simulates two other cumulative residential projects (currently under construction) on Trousdale Drive (1800 and 1818 Trousdale Drive). As shown in existing photograph in Figure 2-1, the existing building on the site is one story in height, set back from the edge of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue, with landscaping along the project frontages. As shown in the project visual simulation in Figure 2-1, the Existing view from Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue looking west Visual simulation of proposed project Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility . 140126Figure 2-1 Visual Simulation of Proposed Project SOURCE: Environmental Vision 21 Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 22 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 proposed building would be taller and have a larger massing than the existing building, and built up to the lot edge. Proposed landscaping that would be visible from this viewpoint would include red oak trees planted along Trousdale Drive and St. Mary Magnolia trees planted along Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the site, and other accent vegetation at the corner. Proposed pedestrian walkway widening and crosswalk striping improvements are also visible in the visual simulation. The proposed building would range between five and six stories in height fronting on Trousdale Drive, and five stories fronting on Magnolia Avenue. The façade would be residential in character and feature metal window systems, stucco with warm tones, wood panels, metal railings and decorative canopies. As described in the Project Description, a variety of materials are proposed for the exterior facades including stone veneer base, lymestone finish and wood panels. Aluminum windows and doors would be used throughout the building. The main entrance to the facility would be identifiable by an entry canopy made of a slatted aluminum sunshade and light cage steel framing. Slatted aluminum sunshades would also be located along the west side of the building. Balconies are proposed in approximately 80 percent of the residential units and would be enclosed by steel guardrails and panels, providing a highly articulated façade with shadowed elements. Additional project site features include a portico structure at the vehicular entrance, a six-foot tall chain link fence to be installed along the north and west sides of the project site, a wood slat vine trellis screen walls along the outdoor courtyard, raised stone veneer planters and landscaping. The building design would conform to the design guidelines specified in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan (Specific Plan) for the El Camino Real North Area which calls for variety in durable materials and textures and architectural elements. The building façade includes articulation with an entrance from the street. A variety of architectural elements and a diverse set of materials have been proposed. Parking is intentionally located underground with a rear circulation system. The land uses surrounding the project site are described in the Project Description, and are predominantly commercial and institutional. The proposed structure would be consistent with the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings and in particular with the more recently constructed buildings, which have been developed in compliance with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The proposed architectural design of the building would adhere to the Specific Plan design guidelines and would complement the more recently constructed Mills Peninsula Hospital design as well as the currently under construction structures at 1800 and 1818 Trousdale Drive. d) Less than Significant. As discussed in the Project Description, exterior lighting would consist of wall- and surface-mounted lighting and recessed lighting, pole-mounted pedestrian scale lights, and one-side output wall lighting. In the exterior courtyards, dimmable light-emitting diode (LED) light sources would be installed with shielded luminaires to prevent glare. These luminaries would turn off with a programmable timer. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 23 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Luminaires would also be integrated into architectural features such as planters, canopies and trellises. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan stipulates that adequate lighting be provided for pedestrian entry access and travel in parking lots, in compliance with the City’s Exterior Illumination Ordinance. In addition, surface lighting should be designed, installed and maintained to direct light only onto the property on which the light source is located and that lighting fixtures be focused, directed and arranged to prevent glare or direct illumination on adjoining properties or streets (City of Burlingame, 2007). The ambient light generated by the proposed project would be of a scale and intensity typical of other structures in the project area, and night lighting effects would be minimized and partially screened by trees and other landscaping. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a substantial new source of light or glare adversely affecting views in the area, and the project would have a less than significant impact. References City of Burlingame, City of Burlingame General Plan, 1969. City of Burlingame. North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, amended February 5, 2007. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 – Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 24 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Agricultural and Forest Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST 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 Department 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 forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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? Discussion a–e) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site is not located on or near any agricultural or forest land, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. The project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, San Mateo County Important Farmland Map (DOC, 2011). Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use, would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or convert forest land to non-forest use; and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract. References California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, San Mateo County Important Farmland Map 2010, published October 2011. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 25 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Air Quality Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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. 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? Discussion Under amendments to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has classified air basins or portions thereof as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the national standards have been achieved. The California CAA, which is patterned after the federal CAA, also requires areas to be designated as “attainment” or “non-attainment” for the state standards. Thus, areas in California have two sets of attainment / non-attainment designations: one set with respect to the national standards and one set with respect to the state standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards, state particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards, and federal PM2.5 (24-hour) standard. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional air quality authority in the project area. The most recently adopted air quality plan for the San Francisco Bay Area is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD, 2010). The 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP) is an update to the BAAQMD 2005 Ozone Strategy to comply with State air quality planning requirements. The 2010 CAP also serves as a multi-pollutant air quality plan to protect public health and the climate. The 2010 CAP control strategy includes revised, updated, and new measures in the three traditional control measure categories, including stationary source measures, mobile source measures, and transportation control measures. In addition, the 2010 CAP identifies two new categories of control measures, including land use and local impact measures, and energy and climate measures. BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, including new thresholds of significance in June 2010, and revised them in May 2011. The Air Quality Guidelines advise lead Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 26 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 agencies on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, including establishing quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance. The BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the significance thresholds in 2011 were set aside by a judicial writ of mandate on March 5, 2012.2 In May of 2012, BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to continue to provide direction on recommended analysis methodologies, but without recommended quantitative significance thresholds (BAAQMD, 2012). On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds.3 BAAQMD has not formally re-instated the thresholds or otherwise responded to this Appellate Court reversal at this time. The air quality impact analysis below uses the previously-adopted 2011 thresholds of the BAAQMD to determine the potential impacts of the project. While the significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD in 2011 are not currently recommended by the BAAQMD, these thresholds are based on substantial evidence identified in BAAQMD’s 2009 Justification Report and are therefore used within this document. Sensitive Receptors For the purposes of this air quality analysis, sensitive receptors are defined as facilities and land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to ambient air quality. The project site is located in the City of Burlingame. The surrounding properties are mainly commercial, institutional, and multi-family residential. The nearest existing residential uses are about 325 feet west of the project along Ogden Drive. There are also several multi-family residential projects under construction along Trousdale Drive, the nearest of which is about 125 feet southwest of the project. The nearest school is the Learning Links Preschool, located about 550 feet south of the project site. The Mills-Peninsula Medical Center complex is located east of the project site across Trousdale Drive, with the main hospital building located about 500 feet from the project site. Approach to Analysis Potential impacts are assessed by modeling the estimated daily emissions generated by project construction and project operations the project using the CalEEMod land use emissions model 2 The thresholds BAAQMD adopted were called into question by a minute order issued January 9, 2012 in California Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD, Alameda Superior Court Case No. RGI0548693. The minute order states that “The Court finds [BAAQMD’s adoption of thresholds] is a CEQA Project, the court makes no further findings or rulings.” The claims made in the case concerned the CEQA impacts of adopting the thresholds, particularly, how the thresholds would affect land use development patterns. Petitioners argued that the thresholds for Health Risk Assessments encompassed issues not addressed by CEQA. 3 California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., Case No. A135335 & A136212 (Court of Appeal, First District, August 13, 2013) Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 27 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 version 2013.2.2. Project emissions are then compared to the BAAQMD 2011 significance criteria, which include the following: Result in total construction emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOx), or PM2.5 (exhaust) of 10 tons per year or greater or 54 pounds per day or greater. Exceed a construction emission threshold for PM10 (exhaust) of 15 tons per year or greater, or 82 pounds per day or greater. For PM10 and PM2.5 as part of fugitive dust generated during construction, the BAAQMD Guidelines specify compliance with Best Management Practices as the threshold. Result in total operational emissions of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5 of 10 tons per year or greater, or 54 pounds per day or greater. Exceed an operational emission threshold for PM10 of 15 tons per year or greater, or 82 pounds per day. Result in carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations of 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) as estimated by roadway vehicle volumes exceeding 44,000 vehicles per hour at any intersection. For risks and hazards during construction and operations, the BAAQMD Guidelines specify an increase in cancer risk exposure by 10 in one million, contribute hazard indices by a ratio of 1.0, or increase local concentrations of PM2.5 by 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). A project’s contribution to cumulative impacts for criteria pollutants are considered significant if the project’s impact individually would be significant (i.e., if it exceeds the BAAQMD’s quantitative thresholds). With regard to cumulative impacts from PM2.5, a significant cumulative air quality impact would be considered to occur if localized annual average concentrations of PM2.5 would exceed 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter at any receptor from project operations in addition to existing emission sources and cumulative emissions sources within a 1,000-foot radius of the property line of the source or receptor. With regard to cumulative impacts from toxic air contaminants (TACs), a significant cumulative air quality impact would be considered to occur if the probability of contracting cancer for the maximally exposed individual (MEI) would exceed 100 in one million or if the project would expose persons to TACs such that a non-cancer chronic Hazard Index (HI) of 10.0 would be exceeded at any receptor as a result of project operations, in addition to existing emission sources and cumulative emissions sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site. However, a project’s construction or operational impacts would be considered to result in a considerable contribution to an identified cumulative health risk impact if the project’s construction or operation activities would exceed the project-level health risk significance thresholds identified above. a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Bay Area is the BAAQMD’s 2010 CAP (BAAQMD, 2010). The 2010 CAP is a roadmap Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 28 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 showing how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the State one- hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The control strategy includes stationary source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2010 CAP also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the State one-hour ozone standard. BAAQMD guidance states that “if approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project would be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP.” As indicated in the discussion of criteria “b,” “c,” and “d” below, the project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. As discussed under b), below, construction TAC and fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 through AIR-3. Long-term operational emissions would be less than significant without mitigation. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project would result in the generation of criteria pollutants and TACs during short-term construction activities. In regards to long- term operations, the proposed project would result in criteria pollutant emissions from sources including on-road vehicles, onsite area and energy sources (e.g., natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance, use of consumer products such as hairsprays, deodorants, cleaning products, etc.). However, since the proposed project consists of development of an assisted living and memory care facility, it would not be a source of substantial TACs. These potential impacts are assessed below. Construction Criteria Air Pollutants. As described in the Project Description, the proposed project includes demolition of the existing 10,800 sf one-story office building and other site features and construction of the new 132 unit assisted living and memory care housing units in a 150,300 gross square foot (sf) building, including a subterranean garage. Project construction is expected to commence in September 2014 and last approximately 19 months, with completion in March 2016. Project related demolition, soil transport, grading, and other construction activities at the project site may cause wind-blown dust that could generate particulate matter into the atmosphere. Fugitive dust includes not only PM10 and PM2.5 but also larger particles as well that can represent a nuisance impact. For mitigation of fugitive dust emissions, the BAAQMD recommends using specific best management practices, which has been a practical and effective approach to control fugitive dust emissions. The guidelines note that Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 29 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 individual measures have been shown to reduce fugitive dust by anywhere from 30 percent to more than 90 percent and conclude that projects that implement construction best management practices would reduce fugitive dust emissions to a less than significant level. To ensure implementation of best management practices (BMPs) they are identified herein as a mitigation measure. Project-related construction would generate air emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, from vehicle trips hauling materials, and from construction workers traveling to and from the project site. Mobile source emissions, primarily NOx, would be generated from the use of construction equipment such as excavators, bulldozers, wheeled loaders, and fork lifts. During the finishing phase, paving operations and the application of asphalt, architectural coatings (i.e., paints) and other building materials would release ROG. The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these sources, and recognizes that construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. The CalEEMod model was used to quantify construction emissions associated with off- road equipment, paving, architectural coatings, haul trucks associated with demolition and soils import/export, on-road worker vehicle emissions and vendor delivery trips. Unmitigated and construction-related criteria pollutant exhaust emissions for the project are presented in Table 2.3-1. The estimated emissions consider the following basic construction phases: demolition; excavation/grading; building construction; asphalt paving; and application of architectural coatings. TABLE 2.3-1 AVERAGE DAILY CONSTRUCTION-RELATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds/day)a Scenario ROG NOx Exhaust PM10b Exhaust PM2.5b Project Emissions 9.4 23.0 1.4 1.3 BAAQMD Construction Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No a Emissions include results modeled with CalEEMod. Total construction emissions over the 19-month duration of construction were divided by the active days of construction in order to determine the average daily construction emissions. Additional data and assumptions are described in Appendix A. b BAAQMD’s construction-related significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 apply to exhaust emissions only and not to fugitive dust. As shown in Table 2.3-1, maximum average daily regional emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD daily significance thresholds during construction. Thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in relation to regional construction emissions. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 30 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Toxic Air Contaminants and PM2.5 Project construction activities would produce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 emissions due to combustion equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and haul truck trips. These emissions could result in elevated concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 at nearby receptors. These elevated concentrations could lead to an increase in the risk of cancer or other health impacts. Consequently, a health risk assessment was performed to determine the extent of increased cancer risks and hazard indices at the maximally exposed receptors. The health risk assessment was based on recommended methodology of Office of Environmental of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and adopted by BAAQMD. The cancer risk to residential receptors assumes exposure would occur 8 hours per day, five days per week, to account for the active construction duration. Additionally, cancer risk estimates also incorporate new age sensitivity factors and daily breathing rates recommended by OEHHA (2012). This approach provides updated calculation procedures of the BAAQMD that factor in the increased susceptibility of infants and children to carcinogens as compared to adults. The maximally exposed receptors would be future residences located at 1800 Trousdale Drive, about 125 feet from the project site. The ISCST3 model was used to estimate maximum downwind concentrations and potential health risk at sensitive receptors resulting from construction activities, which are shown in Table 2.3-2 below. TABLE 2.3-2 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED HEALTH IMPACTSa Residential MEI Cancer Risk (persons per million) Chronic Impact PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Unmitigated Project Construction Scenario 35 0.01 <0.24 BAAQMD Significance Criteria 10 1 0.3 Significant Impact? Yes No No Mitigated Project Construction Scenario 5 0.001 <0.037 BAAQMD Significance Criteria 10 1 0.3 Significant Impact? No No No a Detailed assumptions and methodology of the health risk assessment are included in Appendix A. Notably, mitigation includes incorporation of Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC), which would reduce diesel particulate emissions by at least 85 percent. As shown in Table 2.3-2, the incremental cancer risk at the maximum exposed residential receptor of 35 in one million (assuming child risk) would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million without mitigation. With incorporation of mitigation, the project would result in incremental cancer risk of 5 in one million. The unmitigated and mitigated chronic HI would be 0.01 and 0.001 at the MEI, respectively, which would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1. Finally, the maximum annual PM2.5 unmitigated and mitigated concentrations would be less than 0.24 µg/m3 and 0.037 µg/m3 for the MEI, Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 31 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 respectively, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3. Project health risk impacts would thus be less than significant after mitigation. Notably, unmitigated demolition activities could result in airborne entrainment of asbestos, a TAC, particularly where structures built prior to 1980 would be demolished, such as the office structure on the site which was built in the late 1960s). However, these materials would be removed in accordance with the procedures specified by Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing) of BAAQMD’s regulations (also see Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, required by this analysis); therefore, with adherence to regulatory requirements, asbestos would not be emitted to any substantial degree during demolition. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would ensure that project- generated fugitive dust and exhaust (criteria pollutant and TACs) during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Construction and operation emissions would be less than significant without mitigation. Operations Criteria Air Pollutants. Project site development would result in an increase in criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from a variety of emissions sources, including onsite area and energy sources and mobile on-road sources. Exhaust emissions from on-road vehicle traffic associated with the existing land uses on the project site as well as the proposed project development were calculated using the latest version of the CalEEMod program, which includes the updated EMFAC2011 emission factors for on-road vehicles. Table 2.3-3 summarizes the average daily mobile, energy, and area emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated by project development, as well as existing office use emissions, and compares the net increase to BAAQMD thresholds. Table 2.3-4 summarizes the annual emissions from project operations. As indicated in Tables 2.3-3 and 2.3-4, project- related net operational emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations, and thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions. TABLE 2.3-3 DAILY OPERATIONAL-RELATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds/day)a Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Project Unmitigated Operational Emissions – Year 2016 6.4 2.7 2.0 0.7 Existing Operational Emissions – Year 2014 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.2 Net Increase (Project minus Existing) 5.6 1.7 1.4 0.5 BAAQMD Operational Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No a Emissions include results modeled with CalEEMod for existing use and project operations during the Winter season. Additional data and assumptions are in Appendix A. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 32 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 TABLE 2.3-4 ANNUAL OPERATIONAL-RELATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (tons/year)a Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Project Unmitigated Operational Emissions – Year 2016 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 Existing Operational Emissions – Year 2014 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Net Increase (Project minus Existing) 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 BAAQMD Operational Threshold 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? No No No No a Emissions include results modeled with CalEEMod for existing use and project operations. Additional data and assumptions are in Appendix A. In regards to localized CO concentrations, according to the 2011 thresholds of the BAAQMD, a project would result in a less-than-significant impact if the following screening criteria are met: 1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic 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, below-grade roadway). The project would generate minimal new traffic trips and would comply with these screening criteria. Based on the BAAQMD’s criteria, project-related traffic would not exceed CO standards and therefore, no further analysis was conducted for CO impacts. This impact would be considered less than significant on a project-level and cumulative basis. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 33 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 3. All visible mud or dirt track-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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All streets, 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. 6. 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 CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. 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. 8. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with a Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC), which would reduce diesel particulate emissions by at least 85 percent. c) Less than Significant. The project would result in the generation of criteria pollutants and TACs during short-term construction activities. In regards to long-term operations, the project would result in criteria pollutant emissions primarily from motor vehicles and area sources. The proposed project consists of development of an assisted living facility and would not be a source of substantial TACs that would affect sensitive receptors in the area. However, the cumulative impact of TAC source emissions in the vicinity of the residential uses proposed as part of the project is assessed below. Criteria Air Pollutants According to the BAAQMD, no single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards for regional criteria pollutants. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. There are many projects throughout San Francisco Bay area that have been identified as having significant and unavoidable operational and construction-related regional pollutant impacts. Consequently, for assessment of cumulative regional pollutant impacts, BAAQMD has developed a methodology of assessing whether a project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution. According to the BAAQMD Justification Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 34 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Report, if a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions (BAAQMD, 2009). As described in criterion “b” above, criteria pollutant emissions generated by short-term construction and long-term operations of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, the project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to regional emissions. In addition, project-related traffic would not exceed CO standards and would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to localized CO. Toxic Air Contaminants and PM2.5 Unlike ozone and other regional pollutants, TACs are a localized pollution problem. TACs produced at distant locations do not readily combine to create concentrations at any single location that would cause health risks. The BAAQMD method for determining health risk requires the review of health risk from permitted sources and major streets in the vicinity of a project site (i.e., within 1,000 feet of the proposed new sensitive residential receptors on the project site), then adding the project operational impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded. BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted and Highway TAC emissions sources throughout San Francisco Bay Area for estimating health risks to new sensitive receptors from existing permitted sources. El Camino Real (SR 82) is approximately 550 feet from the project site. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also recommend the inclusion of surface streets with annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater within 1,000 feet of a given project. Upon review, no surface roadways within 1,000 feet met this criterion. Unlike for a project level assessment, for the cumulative assessment the risks from all sources within 1,000 feet of project sensitive receptors are summed and compared to a cumulative significance threshold. Notably, no onsite sources are assumed and project- generated traffic would be negligible. A summary of the cumulative health impacts is found in Table 2.3-5. The cumulative MEI is assumed to be assisted living and memory care units of the project along Magnolia Avenue. As demonstrated in Table 2.3-5, health impacts on the project sensitive receptors from existing sources (permitted sources and streets) in the area would have a cumulative impact below the BAAQMD thresholds for cancer risk, chronic health hazards, and PM2.5 concentrations. As shown in Table 2.3-5, the cumulative cancer risk from all sources within 1,000 feet of proposed sensitive receptors would be approximately 21 in one million, which would be below the BAAQMD cumulative threshold of 100 in one million and would be less than significant. The cumulative hazard index from all such sources would be approximately 0.04, which is well below the significance threshold of 10 and would be less than significant. The cumulative PM2.5 concentration would be approximately 0.04 µg/m3, which would be below the significance threshold of 0.8 µg/m3 and hence is considered less than significant. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 35 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 TABLE 2.3-5 CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTSa Facility Distance from Project Cancer Risk (persons per million) Chronic Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Verizon Wireless 800 0.45a 0.00016a 0.00012a Mills Peninsula Medical Center 900 1.70a 0.0038a 0.0054a City of Burlingame 950 1.89a 0.00067a 0.00045a Lux Cleaners 90 11.2 0.030 0 Burlingame Police Gas Station 950 0.082b 0.00011b -- San Mateo Medical Center 875 3.81 -- 0.012 Permitted Sources Total 19.13 0.035 0.018 Street Sourcesc Highway 82 1.53 0.002 0.022 Grand Total 20.66 0.037 0.04 BAAQMD Cumulative Significance Criteria (new receptor) 100 10 0.8 Significant Impact? No No No a Cancer Risk, Chronic Hazard, and PM2.5 Concentration values for the source generator was adjusted using the BAAQMD Diesel Generator Distance Multiplier. b Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard Impacts associated with the Burlingame Police Gas Station have been adjusted based on the BAAQMD Gas Station Distance Multiplier. c Highway 82 risk for 6 foot height estimates provided by the BAAQMD developed geo-referenced database of permitted and Highway TAC emissions. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As indicated in the discussion of criteria “b” and “c,” above, the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable localized air quality impacts associated with TACs, CO, or fugitive dust. Construction TAC and fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 through AIR-3. Long-term operational emissions of TACs and CO would be less than significant without mitigation. e) Less than Significant. BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a few examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. While sources that generate objectionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the public’s sensitivity to locally produced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds. The project would not include uses that have been identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors; this is a less than significant impact. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 36 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance, October 2009. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, adopted September 15, 2010. Available at http://www.baaqmd.gov. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ceqa/ceqa_guide.pdf. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 37 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Biological Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — 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? Discussion On April 3, 2014, an ESA biologist conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the project site in order to characterize existing conditions, assess habitat types, and assess the potential for special- status species to occur on or in the vicinity of the project site. Located in an urban area of Burlingame, the developed site is surrounded by urban development, including roadways, small businesses, medical centers, and construction sites. The site consists largely of impervious surfaces including the existing PHCD building and parking lot. The remaining areas are landscaped and support various planted trees, hedgerows, and herbaceous species including English ivy (Hedera helix). Thus, there are no natural vegetative communities and there is very limited habitat for special-status species on the site. Existing habitat areas are located in the northwestern corner of the site where there are a few tree species including non-native oak (Quercus sp.), in the center of site within the courtyard where there is a redwood (Sequoia sp.) and rows of plum (Prunus sp.), and near the northeastern side of the building where tea trees (Leptospermum sp.) exist adjacent to a grassy area. All of these areas could potentially support nesting passerines. Nearby habitat outside of the project site occurs to the northeast where there is a small undeveloped parcel that supports an open grass area, and several stands of mature red ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), as well as Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 38 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 cottonwood (Populus sp.) and pine (Pinus sp.). This vegetation provides comparatively higher quality potential avian nesting and bat roosting habitat. The following common wildlife species were observed on site and within the vicinity: American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), chesnut- backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), American robin (Turdus migratorius), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine). a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) documents 130 special-status plant and wildlife species in the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles including and surrounding the project area which were considered for the potential to occur on or near the project site (CNDDB, 2014). The majority of such species were eliminated from consideration because the project site does not provide suitable habitat or is outside of the species’ known range. CNDDB identifies several raptor species with the potential to occur in the nine quads including and surrounding the project area; these species are American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines anatum), merlin (Falco columbarius), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Although not known to occur at the project site itself, all of these raptors have the potential to occur in the greater project area (eBird, 2014). Other special-status raptor species that are likely to occur at the project site and in the vicinity are red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). The stands of red ironbark and pine located in the adjacent undeveloped parcel provide perching habitat for all three species and potential nesting habitat for red-shouldered hawk and red-tailed hawk. Special-Status Bats CNDDB identified two special-status bat species, western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), which could potentially occur at the project site and may occur in the project vicinity. However, the project site does not provide water that bats require for feeding, and no special-status species were observed onsite or near the project site during the reconnaissance survey. Impacts to special-status bat species on the project site would be less than significant. Nesting Birds Initial vegetation clearing activity associated with preparation of the sites for construction could result in the mortality of individual birds, including special-status birds such as red- shouldered hawk and red-tailed hawk, and/or destruction of nests and nestlings, if nests are present and occupied. This would be a significant impact because it could directly harm individuals and could threaten reproductive success. Therefore, the potential for the project to result in bird mortality during project development is considered a significant impact. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 39 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Trees and buildings in and around the proposed project site provide suitable habitats for breeding birds. Most native, breeding birds are protected under Section 3503 of the CDFG Code (Code), and raptors are protected under Section 3503.5 of the Code. In addition, both Section 3513 of the Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S. Code, Sec. 703 Supp. I, 1989) prohibit the killing, possession, or trading of migratory birds. Finally, Section 3800 of the Code prohibits the taking of non-game birds, which are defined as birds occurring naturally in California that are neither game birds nor fully protected species. To the degree feasible, construction activities would be scheduled to avoid the nesting season between February 1 and August 31. In the event construction or vegetation removal must be performed during the nesting season, potential impacts to breeding or nesting special-status birds could be significant and would be minimized to less than significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If construction or vegetation removal is initiated during nesting bird season, between February 1 and August 31 annually, the project applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to survey the project site for active nests. If active nests are observed, no-work buffer zones will be established around trees/shrubs/structure with nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist through consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., CDFW). Buffer zones will be avoided during construction activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. b, c) No Impact. The project site does not contain riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities as defined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project site is completely developed and does not support natural plant communities, resulting in no impact. d) No Impact. The proposed project would not 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 because the project site is not located within a wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. Additionally, the proposed project site does not support habitat conducive to support migratory wildlife species aside from a few common birds, resulting in no impact. e) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project would remove all existing trees on the site. A landscape plan has been developed for the project site that would introduce 42 trees (33 onsite, and 9 street-side along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue) and new vegetation and planters to the site at the ground level (Figure 1-9). Street tree species were chosen to be consistent with street tree recommendations in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The City of Burlingame’s Municipal Code (Title 11, Chapter 11.04 Street Trees and 11.06 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection) requires a permit for removal, pruning, or damage to any street tree or protected tree. Street trees are defined as any woody plant Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 40 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 with a single stem and commonly achieving ten feet or more in height. Protected trees are defined as a) any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured at a height 54 inches above natural grade; b) a tree or stand of trees so designated by the City Council; or c) a stand of trees in which the Parks and Recreation director has determined each tree is dependent on the others for survival. Only one tree, located along the west boundary between the site and the neighboring Red Cross site would qualify as a protected tree as it measures greater than 48-inches in circumference. The applicant will submit all appropriate information and comply with the associated permit measures for tree removal. Because there is the potential for accidental damage to off-site trees, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The project applicant shall reduce impacts associated with accidental damage caused to existing off-site trees (for example, the accidental cutting of branches or roots) during construction activity. Any damaged off-site trees will be mitigated for using a 1:1 planting replacement ratio. Any damaged trees will be replaced by an approved replacement species per City of Burlingame, Urban Forest Management Plan (City of Burlingame, 2009). f) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measures herein are designed to reduce cumulative impacts to special-status species and wetlands, and avoid conflicts with any other local plans or ordinances, resulting in no impact. References City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 11, Chapter 11.04 Street Trees and 11.06 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection. City of Burlingame, Urban Forest Management Plan, Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department, approved August 2007, updated July 2009. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 2014. Data request for U.S. Geological Survey Montara Mountain 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and eight surrounding quads, accessed March 2014. Cornell Lab of Ornithology: eBird, http://ebird.org/content/ebird/, accessed February 2014. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 41 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Cultural Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES — 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? Discussion a) No Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 requires the lead agency to consider the effects of a project on historical resources. A historical resource is defined as any building, structure, site, or object listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or determined by a lead agency to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California. The following discussion focuses on architectural/structural resources. Archaeological resources, including archaeological resources that are potentially historical resources according to Section 15064.5, are addressed under criterion b), below. ESA completed a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System on May 14, 2014 (File No. 13-1735). The review included the project area and a ½-mile radius. Previous surveys, studies, and site records were accessed. Records were also reviewed in the Historic Property Data File for San Mateo County, which contains information on places of recognized historical significance including those evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Inventory of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. The purpose of the records search was to (1) determine whether known cultural resources have been recorded within the project vicinity; (2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded cultural resources to be present based on historical references and the distribution of nearby sites; and (3) develop a context for the identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources. Following Mexican independence in 1822, mission lands were secularized and the northern Burlingame area became a portion of Rancho Buri Buri, a 15,000-acre land grant to José Antonio Sanchez beginning in 1835. Following Sanchez’ death in 1843, Rancho Buri Buri was divided among his 10 children (Hoover et al., 2002). Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 42 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 José de la Cruz Sanchez inherited the land from Mills Creek in the south to Millbrae Avenue in the north in 1843. When in about 1860 José de la Cruz had financial problems and lost his property, Darius Ogden Mills and his wife bought the property. Mills constructed a magnificent mansion enjoyed by three generations of the Mills family, largely as a vacation retreat, until the 1950s. The heirs of D. O. Mills sold the property to the Trousdale Development Corporation, and following a prolonged dispute between the towns of Burlingame and Millbrae over annexation, in 1954 it was decided to divide the property along what is now Murchison Drive, with the southern portion, from Mills Creek to Murchison, going to Burlingame and the northern portion, from Murchison to Millbrae Avenue, going to Millbrae. In addition to the residential area that was created west of El Camino Real, a commercial and light industrial complex was developed on the eastern section of the estate (Burlingame, 2013). The current project area was part of the commercial and light industrial development. The existing building at 1600 Trousdale Drive was originally constructed in the late- 1960s for use as a medical office building. Historical aerial photographs indicate that the project area and the vicinity were vacant lands associated with the Mills Estate until the mid-1950s. The land was annexed by the City of Burlingame in 1954, and throughout the late 1950s and 1960s, the area was developed with the Mills Peninsula Hospital including a number of associated office buildings for medical office and other support uses. The existing building was completed by 1969 as a medical office building in support of the main hospital, which was located across Trousdale Drive. The building includes an L-shaped plan and a flat roof. The architectural style of the building is Modern, typical for office buildings of this period. Exterior walls consist of painted concrete masonry units and painted plaster. Repeating sets of wood frame, fixed sash window units arranged in pairs are recessed slightly from the masonry wall surface. Plaster clad wall surfaces are located above and below these window units. The primary building entry is located on its southern elevation, facing Trousdale Drive, and consists of an aluminum frame window wall with an aluminum frame double door. A flat, plaster- clad canopy extends from the roofline over this entrance for a distance of approximately 12 feet. A secondary access to the building is found on the western elevation, which is partially recessed, and consists of a single, aluminum frame commercial door with inset glass panels. A row of wood frame, fixed sash windows are arranged in a row to the right of the secondary entrance. The existing building does not appear to be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (Criteria 1). The property is associated with the development of the Mills Peninsula Hospital following annexation of the Mills Estate to Burlingame in 1954, and was built in the late 1960s as a medical office building as one of many structures which supported the main hospital. Research does not indicate the building is associated with any individuals who would be considered important persons under Criteria 2. The building is a typical, rather than an outstanding, example of a late-1960s medical office building, and cannot be said to embody distinctive Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 43 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 characteristics of the Modern architectural style, or represent a unique method of construction (Criteria 3). There is nothing to suggest that the property would yield information important about California history (Criteria 4). As such the building is not considered a historical resource under CEQA and no further consideration is necessary. Removal of the building would have no significant impact on historical architectural resources as none are located in the project area. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on historical architectural resources, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Based on a compilation of ethnographic, historic, and archaeological data, a group known as the Ohlone once occupied the general vicinity of the project area (Milliken, 1995). Levy (1978) describes the language group spoken by the Ohlone, known as “Costanoan.” This term is originally derived from a Spanish word designating the coastal peoples of Central California. Today Costanoan is used as a linguistic term that references to a larger language family spoken by distinct sociopolitical groups that spoke at least eight languages (as different as Spanish is from French) of the same Penutian language group. The Ohlone once occupied a large territory from San Francisco Bay in the north to the Big Sur and Salinas Rivers in the south. The project area appears to be located between two known tribal areas: the Urebure tribal area of the San Bruno Creek area just south of San Bruno Mountain and the Ssalson tribal area centered around San Mateo Creek (Milliken et al., 2009:Appendix B). After European contact, Ohlone society was severely disrupted by missionization, disease, and displacement. Today, the Ohlone still have a strong presence in the San Francisco Bay Area, and are highly interested in their historic and prehistoric past. Records at the NWIC indicate that six cultural resources studies have been completed within or adjacent to the project area. These studies have resulted in the identification of several prehistoric archaeological resources in the vicinity, including one site (CA-SMA- 74) that extends within the project site. The site consists of a prehistoric shell midden with lithic materials and human remains. Based on the known site constituents, which includes human remains, CA-SMA-74 appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4 as well as the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. Criterion 4/D emphasizes the potential for a resource to yield significant information important to history or prehistory. Integrity also defines the research potential of a resource. Sites that have been paved over and/or built upon may still retain integrity below the surface; especially in areas where the ground disturbance is not great in depth (i.e. less than one meter). Soils on the project site and surrounding vicinity are classified as Urban Land, including engineered and reworked native soils and imported fill (NRCS, 2014). Based on the geotechnical investigation completed for the project (Rollo and Ridley, 2013), the project site specifically is underlain by approximately 4 to 7 feet of fill consisting of brown to dark brown, stiff to very stiff clay with sand and clay. The clay with sand and clay is Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 44 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 underlain by light brown, olive brown to yellow brown, medium stiff to hard, sandy clay with varying gravel content and silt with varying sand and gravel content and dense to very dense sand, silty sand and clayey sand (alluvial and fluvial deposits) to the maximum depth explored of 51.5 feet. No shell or other evidence of past human use and occupation was noted in the boring logs. These types of materials may have been encountered and not recorded; the geotechnical study was focused on the structural feasibility of the proposed project and not on archaeological potential or sensitivity. While the current surface survey did not identify any site materials on the surface, the project site is covered with pavement, landscaping, and the existing building. Despite the negative survey results, there is a very high potential that cultural materials associated with CA-SMA-74 are located below the pavement, building, and/or artificial fill on the project site. The disturbance of a significant archaeological resource would be a potentially significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, which requires archaeological testing prior to any ground disturbing activities associated with the project. Archaeological testing would determine whether site constituents associated with CA-SMA-74 are located on the project site prior to construction occurring. If the tests are positive, the applicant would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1b, which requires an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan. This approach would reduce potential work stoppages resulting from archaeological finds and ensure proper treatment of significant archaeological resources, and would ensure that impacts to archaeological recourses would be less than significant. If the tests are negative, the applicant would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1c, to ensure that impacts to unknown archaeological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: The project applicant, in consultation with City staff and a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist, shall undertake archaeological testing following demolition of the existing building on the site but prior to any ground disturbing activities associated with the project. Testing shall involve boring and/or trenching of the site, at locations determined appropriate by the archaeologist, to determine whether site constituents associated with CA-SMA-74 are located at the project site, and would thereby ensure proper treatment of significant archaeological resources and reduce work stoppages resulting from archaeological finds. If testing reveals the presence of archaeological resources associated with CA-SMA-74, or other resources, the archaeologist would determine whether the identified resources are California Register-eligible and therefore considered significant under CEQA. If the resources are significant, the archaeologist would consult with the project applicant and the appropriate Native American representative to determine whether avoidance of significant archaeological resources is feasible. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through: planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 45 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 with the appropriate Native American representative, will design and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP), including systematic data recovery, interpretive/public outreach efforts, and recommendation for additional requirements, including archaeological and Native American monitoring during project implementation, a set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL-1b. If archaeological testing reveals no presence of significant archaeological resources, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1c, which calls for the appropriate handling and treatment of archaeological resources that may be accidentally encountered during project excavation and construction. Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Prior to authorization to proceed, or issuance of permits, the project proponent will retain a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist to design and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) to recover important archaeological resources that may be present in the project site. The ARDTP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. The ARDTP will identify what scientific/ historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource, what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. Data recovery, in general, shall be limited to the portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical. The ARDTP shall include the following elements: Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and operations. Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system and artifact analysis procedures. Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post-field discard and deaccession policies. Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive program during the course of the archaeological data recovery program. Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resource from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities. Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results. Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of any recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities. Once the ARDTP is approved, the archaeologist shall implement the data recovery investigation and/or other treatment, consistent with the ARDTP. A Native Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 46 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 American representative will be present during all ground-disturbing activities associated with the data recovery effort. Upon completion of the data recovery and treatment efforts, the archaeologist will prepare an Archaeological Data Recovery Report (ADRR). The ADRR shall include: the archaeological and historical research methods employed in the archaeological data recovery program; a full artifact catalog, analysis of items collected, and results of any special studies conducted; interpretations of the resource within a regional and local context; potential avenues of public outreach including exhibit displays; public lectures or lecture series; site visits to ongoing archaeological excavations; popular-level articles, books, or pamphlets describing area history; news releases to local venues; and/or website updates, website “exhibits,” and interactive websites combined with activities and timelines; and recommendations for pre-construction archaeological sensitivity training for all project personnel, as well as archaeological and Native American monitoring to the extent deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist who carried out the work. Once approved, copies of the final confidential ADRR shall be submitted to the appropriate Native American representative Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, the project applicant, the City of Burlingame, and interested professionals. Mitigation Measure CUL-1c: If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered, all construction activities within 100 feet would halt and the City of Burlingame would be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. A Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist would inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation would be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist would prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Burlingame. Treatment of unique archaeological resources would follow the applicable requirements of PRC Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 47 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the project. The treatment plan would include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. c) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the project would destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geologic feature. Paleontological resources are the fossilized evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary rock deposits preserved worldwide, and the enormous number of organisms that have lived through time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils—particularly vertebrate fossils—are considered to be nonrenewable resources. Because of their rarity, and the scientific information they can provide, fossils are highly significant records of ancient life. Rock formations that are considered of paleontological sensitivity are those rock units that have yielded significant vertebrate or invertebrate fossil remains. The project area is underlain by Holocene alluvium, which is not likely to yield significant paleontological remains, because they are surface deposits that are not considered fossil-bearing rock units. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on paleontological resources, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Based on the results of the records search at the NWIC, there is a high potential that construction could result in impacts on human remains, including Native American remains, during ground disturbing activities. Impacts related to disturbance or destruction of human remains would be potentially significant. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which requires that the treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soil-disturbing activity must comply with applicable state laws. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event of the discovery of human remains during archaeological data recovery, monitoring, or construction activity, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of within 100 feet of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified by the project applicant and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to State law, then the landowner shall Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 48 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. References City of Burlingame, Explore the History of Burlingame, 2013. Available on line at https://www.burlingame.org/index.aspx?page=1741. Accessed May 20, 2014. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Rensch, and William N. Abeloe, Historic Spots in California. Fifth edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 2002. Levy, Richard, Costanoan In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485–495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1978. Milliken, Randall, A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769–1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California, 1995. Milliken, Randall, Laurence H. Shoup, and Beverley R. Ortiz, Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. Prepared for National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. June 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil Survey Staff. U.S. Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed May 20, 2014. Rollo and Ridley, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation 1600 Trousdale Drive, Burlingame, California. Prepared for Peninsula Health Care District. June 2013. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 49 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY — 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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion a.i) Less than Significant. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or on or immediately adjacent to an active or potentially active fault.4 The Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the delineation of zones by the California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey (CGS, formerly known as the California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG]) along sufficiently active and well-defined faults. The purpose of the Act is to restrict construction of structures intended for human occupancy along traces of known active faults. Alquist-Priolo Zones are designated areas most likely to experience surface fault rupture, although fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to those specifically zoned areas. The active faults nearest to the project site are the San Andreas, located approximately 1.5 miles west of the project site, and the 4 An active fault is defined by the State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 10,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary (last 1.6 million years), unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer. This definition does not, of course, mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement are necessarily inactive. Sufficiently active is also used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement occurred on one or more of its segments or branches (Hart, 1997). Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 50 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 San Gregorio, located approximately 7 miles further west. Other nearby active Bay Area faults include the Hayward fault, located 16 miles northeast, and the Calaveras fault, located 25 miles east of the project site. As the project site is not located in an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone nor on or immediately adjacent to an active fault, fault rupture hazards associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant. a.ii, iii) Less than Significant. The City of Burlingame is located in a seismically active region. A 2008 study by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicated there is a 63 percent likelihood of a Richter magnitude 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the Bay Area in the next 30 years (USGS, 2008). The project site could experience a range of ground shaking effects during an earthquake on one of the aforementioned Bay Area faults. An earthquake on the San Andreas fault could result in very strong ground shaking intensities.5 Ground shaking of this intensity could result in moderate damage, such as collapsing chimneys and falling plaster. Seismic shaking of this intensity can also trigger ground failures caused by liquefaction, potentially resulting in foundation damage, disruption of utility service and roadway damage.6 The project site is underlain by alluvial materials that can cause moderately high shaking amplification, but during a geotechnical investigation was found to have a low potential for liquefaction (Rolo & Ridley, 2013). Final project design would be required to comply with all applicable building code regulations and standards to address potential geologic impacts associated with proposed redevelopment of the project site including ground shaking and liquefaction. The detailed design level geotechnical investigation would be submitted to the City of Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The report would include recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements would be designed by a licensed professional engineer based on site-specific soil investigations performed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. The design would ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures and include appropriate recommendations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction. Implementation of these code requirements would ensure that the potential effects of groundshaking and liquefaction would be less than significant. a.iv) Less than Significant. The project site is relatively level at an elevation of approximately 36 to 42 feet above mean sea level, and is not located on or adjacent to a hillside. Potential development resulting from the proposed project would therefore not be affected by potential impacts associated with landslides or mudslides. 5 Shaking intensity is a measure of ground shaking effects at a particular location, and can vary depending on the overall magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of underlying geologic material. The Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale is commonly used to measure earthquake effects due to ground shaking. The MM values for intensity range from I (earthquake not felt) to XII (damage nearly total). 6 Liquefaction is the process by which saturated, loose, fine-grained, granular, soil, like sand, behaves like a dense fluid when subjected to prolonged shaking during an earthquake. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 51 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 b) Less than Significant. Redevelopment of the project site would involve grading, trenching, and other earthwork activities which could expose soils to erosion. The project site is approximately one acre which is the threshold requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction permit (permit required when disturbing one acre or more). Therefore, based on the size of the project and the measures taken to prevent sedimentation in stormwater runoff (see Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality) which would minimize erosion, the potential impact of exposing soils to erosion and loss of topsoil is less than significant. c) Less than Significant. The subsurface materials beneath the project site consist of approximately 4 to 7 feet of fill (i.e., stiff clays with sand and clay) that is underlain by medium stiff to hard, sandy clays, silt with varying sand and gravel content, and dense sand, silty sand and clayey sand (alluvial and fluvial deposits) to the maximum depth explored of 51.5 feet (Rolo & Ridley, 2013). Standard practice for geotechnical investigations, in accordance with current building code standards, calls for all new structures to be designed to mitigate for any potential subsidence associated with the proposed new loading. Incorporation of the recommendations made in the geotechnical investigation in accordance with building code requirements would effectively minimize that potential for unstable soils to impact the proposed project to a less than significant level. d) Less than Significant. According to the geotechnical investigation completed for the proposed project site, the subsurface soils at the site were found to have a low to moderate potential for expansion (Rolo & Ridley, 2013). The geotechnical report calls for site preparation measures that include the reuse of soils onsite or imported engineered fill that meets building code standards such that the potential for expansion is minimized. Incorporation of the recommendations made in the geotechnical investigation would effectively minimize that potential for unstable soils to impact the proposed project to a less than significant level. e) No Impact. The proposed project would dispose of wastewater using existing wastewater infrastructure operated by the City of Burlingame. There are no septic or alternative wastewater systems proposed as part of the proposed project; therefore, no impact would result. References Rolo & Ridley Geotechnical Engineers and Scientists (Rolo&Ridley), Geotechncial Investigation, 1600 Trousdale, Burlingame California, June 3, 2013. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG02), Fact Sheet 2008-2037, Forecasting California’s Earthquakes – What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years?, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/fs2008-3027.pdf, 2008. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 52 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — 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? Discussion “Global warming” and “global climate change” are the terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere are thought to be the main cause of human-induced climate change. GHGs naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that has hit the earth and is reflected back into space. Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earth’s surface inhabitable. However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and resulting in the increase of global average temperature. Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are the principal GHGs. When concentrations of these gases exceed natural concentrations in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect may be enhanced. CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally, and are also generated through human activity. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing7 associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other human- generated GHGs include fluorinated gases such as SFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which have much higher heat-absorption potential than CO2, and are byproducts of certain industrial processes. CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted. The effect that each of the aforementioned gases can have on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential (GWP). GWP indicates, on a pound- for-pound basis, how much a gas is predicted to contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO2. CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with 100-year GWPs of 28 and 265 times that of CO2, respectively. In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds or metric tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). CO2e are calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific GWP. While CH4 and N2O have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is 7 Off-gassing is defined as the release of chemicals under normal conditions of temperature and pressure. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 53 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from residential developments and human activity in general. The City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan (City of Burlingame, 2009) includes an estimate of community-wide GHG emissions of 336,944 metric tons of CO2e in the base year of 2005. In addition, the Climate Action Plan includes the goal of reducing GHG emissions in the City by 15 percent below this 2005 baseline by 2020, and 80 percent reduction by 2050. Implementation actions for reducing GHGs are in the sectors of Energy Efficiency and Green Building, Transportation and Land Use, Waste Reduction and Recycling, Education and Promotion, and Municipal Operations. Approach to Analysis With regard to impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (BAAQMD, 2012; CAPCOA, 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The quantitative approach is used to address the first significance criterion: Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? This analysis considers that, because the quantifiable thresholds developed by BAAQMD in its 2009 Justification Report were formulated based on AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets for which its set of strategies were developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (the state Climate Change Scoping Plan). Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. Separate thresholds of significance are established for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and non-stationary sources (such as on-road vehicles). As no threshold has been established for construction-related emissions, the operational emissions thresholds apply. The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). For non-stationary sources, three separate thresholds have been established: Compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (i.e., if a project is found to be out of compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, its GHG emissions may be considered significant); or 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant); or Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 54 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). (Service population is the sum of residents plus employees expected for a development project.) The quantitative threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e annually proposed by BAAQMD in its 2009 Justification Report is applied to this analysis. If the project construction or operational GHG emissions would exceed this threshold then, consistent with BAAQMD Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change. GHG emissions resulting from the project were estimated using CalEEMod version 2013.2.2, with model data and assumptions included in Appendix A. Construction emissions were estimated for equipment and truck exhaust and construction worker vehicles. In regards to operations, vehicle trips assumed default trip lengths for urban land uses, which are embedded in CalEEMod. The model makes adjustments for implementation of Pavley vehicle standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standards. Area and indirect sources associated with project operations would primarily result from electrical usage, water and wastewater transport (the energy used to pump water and wastewater to and from the project) and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electrical usage are generated when energy consumed on the site is generated by fuel combustion. GHG emissions from water and wastewater transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source, and the energy required to treat wastewater and transport it to its treated discharge point. Solid waste emissions are generated when the increased waste generated by the project are taken to a landfill to decompose. a, b) Less than Significant. Application of BAAQMD’s project-specific GHG emissions thresholds is to include both direct emissions from a project’s vehicle trip generation and onsite water and space heating and other stationary sources, as well as indirect emissions from offsite electrical generation, solid waste generation, and water conveyance and treatment. The following activities associated with the proposed project could contribute to the generation of GHG emissions: Construction Activities. Construction equipment typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O. Methane is also emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Solid Waste Disposal Emissions. Resulting emissions associated with waste generation and disposal in landfills are indirect. Landfills emit anthropogenic methane from the anaerobic breakdown of material. Gas, Electricity, and Water Use. Natural gas use results in the emissions of two GHGs: methane (the major component of natural gas) and CO2 from the combustion of natural gas. Methane is released prior to initiation of combustion of the natural gas (as before a flame on a stove is sparked), and from the small amount of methane that is uncombusted in a natural gas flame. Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combustion of fossil fuel. GHG emissions associated with treatment and transport of water is also included in the analysis below. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 55 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Motor Vehicle Use. Transportation associated with the project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. However, not all of these emissions would be “new” to the region or state since drivers would likely have relocated from another area. To be conservative, however, all vehicle trips predicted to be generated by the project scenarios in the Transportation analysis were assumed to be new trips in this analysis. Construction emissions over the full buildout duration were estimated using CalEEMold and amortized assuming a 30-year development life after completion of construction (which is likely low), and added to overall project emissions for comparison to significance thresholds. Amortized GHG emissions associated with project construction would result in annualized generation of 19 metric tons of CO2e. In regards to operations, the CalEEMod model was used to estimate GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and water/wastewater conveyance). Table 2.7-1 presents an estimate of the proposed project’s unmitigated construction and operational CO2e emissions, as well as the existing land uses to be demolished, and the incremental increase between the project and existing emissions. TABLE 2.7-1 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROJECT Sourcea Emissions (metric tons of CO2e per year) Project Construction (Amortized) 19 Project Operations 653 Total Project GHG Emissions (Construction + Operations) 672 Existing GHG Emissions 155 Total Net Unmitigated GHG Emissions (Project – Existing) 517 BAAQMD GHG Threshold 1,100 Significant (Yes or No)? No a GHG emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod model for the project site development, for the existing scenario and for project buildout. Additional assumptions and data are included in Appendix A. Table 2.7-1 indicates that the net GHG emissions associated with the project would be below BAAQMD’s GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year. This would represent a cumulatively less-than-significant GHG impact. The City of Burlingame has established a GHG reduction plan (City of Burlingame, 2009). Notably, the project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This would be a less than significant impact. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 56 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance, October 2009. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ceqa/ceqa_guide.pdf. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, January 2008. City of Burlingame, 2009. City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan, June 2009. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 57 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — 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 two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 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? Discussion This analysis relies in part on a Phase I Site Assessment that was prepared in support of the proposed project by SOMA Environmental Engineering, Inc. (March, 2014). The Phase I Site Assessment included a site and vicinity reconnaissance, review of historical photographs and maps to identify historical land uses and practice, and review of appropriate federal and state environmental database lists of contaminated sites to determine the potential for soil or groundwater contamination. a) Less than Significant. As an assisted living and memory care facility, the proposed development would not involve the transport, use, storage or disposal of reportable quantities of hazardous materials. Future residents would likely use and store small quantities of household hazardous wastes (i.e., ammonia, paints, and oils) which would not be considered significant. Safe disposal of household hazardous waste is available to future residents at San Mateo County sponsored household hazardous waste collection events. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 58 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Generally, the proposed project would not be expected to pose a risk of accidental release of hazardous materials or wastes, as these materials would not be used or stored on-site in significant quantities. However, the existing structure, which would be demolished as a part of the project, was constructed in a period when it was common to use building materials that may contain lead-based paint and asbestos. If disturbed during demolition, these hazardous building materials could be made airborne by the demolition process, posing a health risk to the nearest residents and construction workers. Consequently, pre-demolition surveys and, if warranted by the surveys, removal and proper disposal of these materials would be prudent prior to demolition. With the procedures specified by Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing) of BAAQMD’s regulations and implementation of the following mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the project applicant shall retain a state certified contractor to conduct pre-demolition surveys of the existing structure for the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint. If these materials are identified to be present in the surveys, they shall be removed by state- certified contractors according to applicable regulations and disposed of as hazardous waste in accordance with the requirements of the state licensed receiving facility. c) Less than Significant. The proposed project would not involve the transport, use, storage or disposal of substantive quantities of hazardous materials. The closest schools to the project site are the Learning Links Preschool and Burlingame Elementary School, both just over 500 feet from the project site. However, considering the minimal storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials at the project site, the proposed project would not impact any schools within one-quarter mile of the project site through the emission of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials. d) Less than Significant. The Phase I Site Assessment reports there are no known groundwater monitoring wells, underground storage tanks or evidence of suspect fill materials on the project site. The Phase I Site Assessment reports that the proposed project site is not found on the environmental databases maintained by the San Mateo County Health System, Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) or State Water Resource Control Board. In addition, the project site is also not found on the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List also known as the Superfund list (EPA, 2014). Furthermore, a review of records from properties within one mile of the project site indicate that there is not a likely potential for those properties to have resulted in soil or groundwater contamination at the project site. Therefore, there are no indications of prior contamination of the project site, a prior onsite land use, or a nearby land use, that would have had the potential to contaminate the project site. e) Less than Significant. The project site is located relatively close to the San Francisco International Airport. The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) develops and implements the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 59 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 (CLUP) which covers the San Francisco International Airport and surrounding areas. The current CLUP was adopted in December 1996. In San Mateo County, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) is the designated ALUC. The CLUP establishes the procedures that C/CAG uses in reviewing proposed local agency actions that affect land use decisions in the vicinity of San Mateo County’s airports. Airport planning boundaries define where height, noise, and safety standards, policies, and criteria are applied to certain proposed land use policy actions. Therefore, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the ALUC review of the proposed project to ensure that it is compatible with the CLUP. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has conducted an aeronautical study of the proposed project under the provisions of 49 U.S.C, Section 14718. The FAA determined that the proposed development would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation (FAA, 2014). With adherence to the CLUP and ALUC review, and FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to potential safety hazards. f) No Impact. There are no private air strips within a two mile radius of the project site. g) No Impact. The proposed project would replace an existing structure and otherwise create no alterations to the existing roadway network. Therefore, the project would have no effect with regard to emergency response/evacuation. h) Less than Significant. Based on a review of satellite photography and review of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s map of Wildland and Urban Interfaces (CDF, 2014) and the County’s Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire) Map (CDF, 2000), the proposed project site is located outside of any sensitive wildland area and would not result in a significant risk with regard to wildland fires. References California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Wildland Urban Interface – Fire Threatened Communities, http://gis3.abag.ca.gov/Website/Fire_Threat_WUI/viewer.htm, accessed May 16, 2014. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, San Mateo County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire), Map NHD-41, January 06, 2000. County of San Mateo, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, December 1996. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Priorities List, Burlingame, http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchrslt.cfm?start=1&CFID=12566190&CFTOK EN=88785855&jsessionid=e030a340d1b1e1e34ece1d39532d363a3956, accessed May 16, 2014. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 60 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, June 2, 2014. SOMA Environmental Engineering, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1600 Trousdale, Burlingame, California, March 27, 2014. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 61 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Hydrology and Water Quality Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — 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 a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that 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 that 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) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion a, f) Less than Significant. The Clean Water Act (CWA) has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. from any point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(p) which established a framework for regulating non-point source stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES storm water program, implemented by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), regulates storm water discharges from construction sites that disturb one or more acres of land. The proposed project site is approximately one acre and therefore would be required to comply with the NPDES storm water program by submitting a General Construction Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 62 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Activities Stormwater Permit. As part of the General Construction Permit, the contractor would be required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control stormwater runoff during the construction period. Current construction practices commonly employ BMPs that minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site. BMPs are proven means to effectively control site runoff during construction and would be applied at the project site. Common BMPs that would likely be a part of the SWPPP could include: a) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted (generally April 15 to October 15) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; b) Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short- term biodegradable erosion control blankets; c) Silt fences, hay bales, or some kind of inlet protection at downstream storm drain inlets; and d) The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. Implementation of these BMPs, would reduce potential construction-related impacts to less-than significant. Following construction, the proposed project would result in a net increase in impervious surfaces. In general, stormwater runoff pollutants are washed by rainwater from roofs, streets, parking areas, and landscape areas into the local drainage network. Pollutant concentrations in site runoff are dependent on a number of factors, including land use conditions; site drainage conditions; intensity and duration of rainfall; the climatic conditions preceding the rainfall event; rooftop materials and implementation of water quality BMPs. Due to the variability of urban runoff characteristics, it is difficult to estimate pollutant loads for NPS pollutants. Without proper mitigation, the proposed project could contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering the San Francisco Bay, potentially causing adverse effects on aquatic life and human health. Despite the fact that the project site is already developed, the disturbance of more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces would require the project to adhere to the Provision C.3 requirements of the countywide NPDES permit for post-construction stormwater runoff management. Fulfilling the requirements of Provision C.3 would address the post-construction stormwater controls for water quality through the required incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater features. These required drainage control features such as biotreatment areas provides post-project treatment measures that must be hydraulically sized to treat the impervious surface areas in accordance with NPDES and San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) requirements. With implementation of these requirements, the Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 63 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 potential impact to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. b) Less than Significant. The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of the site is anticipated. The project site is already developed and the proposed project would not substantially alter the amount of impervious surfaces even though there would be a net increase. However, with implementation of biotreatment areas as proposed by the project design, there would be infiltration of some portion of stormwater runoff. Therefore, there would be a less than significant potential impact to groundwater resources. c) Less than Significant. As described above, the proposed project would result in a net increase in impervious surfaces and include modification of the current drainage infrastructure with the inclusion of new biotreatment areas. As also mentioned above, the project would be required to adhere to NPDES C.3 and STOPPP requirements which include ensuring that proposed improvements include LID drainage features that would minimize the potential for erosion or siltation. Implementation of these measures would reduce project impacts associated with erosion and siltation to less than significant levels. d) Less than Significant. The project site is currently developed and largely covered in impervious surfaces. Project development would result in a net increase of impervious surfaces but would not represent a substantial increase compared to existing conditions. Regardless, post-project runoff would be conveyed using the LID drainage facilities required by NPDES and STOPPP requirements. Potential project impacts associated with flooding would be addressed by improvements determined by applicable Provision C.3 requirements as discussed above. Implementation of these measures would reduce project impacts associated with flooding to less than significant levels. e) Less than Significant. Potential project impacts associated with the capacity of drainage infrastructure are addressed by incorporation of drainage control requirements contained within the NPDES permit and local STOPPP requirements. As previously mentioned, the project site is already largely covered in impervious surfaces and the slight increase in impervious surfaces with the proposed improvements would be countered with the incorporation of LID requirements such as the biotreatment areas that would be used to convey stormwater flows and allow for onsite infiltration. Therefore, the potential impact to existing drainage infrastructure would be less than significant. g, h) Less than Significant. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard zone as delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (FEMA, 2012). The project site is currently developed and would not alter, impede, or redirect flood Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 64 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 flows. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact associated with the 100 year flood zone. i) Less than Significant. According to inundation mapping produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the project site is not located within an inundation area from any potential failure of a dam (ABAG, 2014). As a result, the potential impact is considered less than significant. j) Less than Significant. The project site is located more than a half-mile west of the San Francisco Bay shoreline at an elevation ranging from approximately 36 to 42 feet above mean sea level. According to a study of climate change by the National Research Council, the projected sea level rise that is to be experienced along the California coast by the year 2100 is between 16 and 66 inches (NRC, 2012). Therefore, despite a potentially higher sea level in the future, the project site is still located high enough and far enough away from the Bay to avoid any potential impact from seiche waves. The project site is also in a location that would not be affected by tsunami waves. The project site is not located in an area that would be susceptible to mudflows (note that the potential for slope failure and landslides is discussed above in the Section 6, Geology and Soils). Therefore the potential impact from these hazards is considered less than significant. References Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Dam Failure Inundation Hazards, Burlingame, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/dfpickc.html, May 22, 2014. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), San Mateo County, Community-Panel Number 06081C0134E, October 16, 2012. National Research Council (NRC), Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future, 2012. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 65 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Land Use and Land Use Planning Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANNING — 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? Discussion a, b) Less than Significant. During construction, the site would be fenced off, and sidewalks along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue may be temporarily closed. However, during this period, alternate pedestrian routes would be provided for local residents as needed. Following construction, the project would not include any physical barriers or obstacles to circulation that would restrict existing patterns of movement between the project site and the adjacent neighborhood. The proposed project would be built out within the confines of the existing site parcel, and it would not impede movement across public rights-of-way. Therefore, it would not physically divide an established community. The Land Use Element of the City of Burlingame General Plan designates the project site and surrounding area as Office Use (Mixed-Use – Office/Residential in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan) and the site is zoned Trousdale West of El Camino Real (TW). The City’s zoning policies identify the TW District as an area to encourage the provision of health service and medical office uses to support the neighboring hospital and provide transition housing for those needing the services of the hospital. The proposed project would require a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed group residential facility use, and for building height exceeding 35 feet along Magnolia Avenue and Trousdale Drive. In addition, an amendment to the TW Zoning Regulations would be required to clarify the measurement of building heights on corner properties along Magnolia Avenue, Ogden Drive, and Trousdale Drive. With the incorporation of the zoning amendment and the provisions of the Conditional Use Permit, the project would not result in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, the project would result in a less than significant land use impact. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 66 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 c) No Impact. As described in Section 4, Biological Resources, the project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. References City of Burlingame, City of Burlingame General Plan, 1969. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 Zoning, http://qcode.us/codes/burlingame/, accessed April 28, 2014 Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 67 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Mineral Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES — 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? Discussion a, b) No Impact. According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. No impact would result. References San Mateo County, General Plan, 1986. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 68 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Noise Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12. NOISE — Would the project: a) 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? b) Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Result in 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 area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, in an area within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion The following environmental analysis was developed in part from information contained in the PHCD Burlingame, CA – Environmental Noise Study Draft (Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., 2013), incorporated by reference, expanded on where necessary, and summarized below. Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. The objectionable nature of a particular sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. Most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, several descriptors (DNL and CNEL) were developed. The DNL (Day/Night Average Sound Level) divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10-dBA higher than the daytime noise level. A 10-dBA increase in sound level is perceived by people to be a doubling of loudness. The CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) divides the 24-hour day and accounts Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 69 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 for increased acoustical sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours. Sound levels during the hours from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. are penalized five-dBA; sound levels during the hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. are penalized 10-dBA. Notably, there is less than one-dBA difference between DNL and CNEL. The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified time period. In effect, the Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that actually occurs during the same period. The maximum sound level (Lmax) is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period. Applicable Noise Regulations The California Building Code (Title 24, Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1207) requires that indoor noise levels in new multi-family homes not exceed 45 dBA DNL where the exterior noise level is greater than 60 dBA DNL. The Building Code also states that if windows must be closed to meet this standard, dwelling unit design must include an HVAC system to provide a habitable interior. The City of Burlingame General Plan Noise Element also outlines acceptable exterior and interior noise standards for residential development. The City General Plan interior noise standards are consistent with the State standards described above. In regards to exterior noise, the City General Plan states that exterior noise levels should not exceed 60 dBA CNEL for residential uses. In certain cases where the functional use of a building is such that windows are not opened and outdoor areas are not used for any reason other than parking and walking into the building, outdoor noise levels can be ignored and indoor noise level planning criteria may be appropriate. The City of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.07.110 limits the hours of construction to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Existing Noise Environment To establish ambient noise conditions in the project area, Charles Salter Associates took two long- term (72-hour) measurements and three short-term (15-minute) measurements on the project site. Notably, a one-decibel increase in CNEL was added to the data to account for future traffic increases. Measured long-term Ldn values ranged from 68 dBA to 71 dBA, depending on the proximity to the nearest roadways. Sensitive Receptors The project site is located in the City of Burlingame. The surrounding properties are mainly commercial, institutional, and multi-family residential. The nearest existing residential uses are about 325 feet west of the project along Ogden Drive. There are also several multi-family residential projects under construction along Trousdale Drive, the nearest of which is about 125 feet southwest of the project. The nearest school is the Learning Links Preschool, located about 550 feet south of the project site. The Mills-Peninsula Medical Center complex is located east of the Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 70 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 project site across Trousdale Drive, with the main hospital building located about 500 feet from the site. Although considered less noise sensitive, there is also an office building adjacent to the project site. a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Noise standards are typically addressed in local General Plan policies and local noise ordinance standards. Due to the proximity of the project site to San Francisco International Airport (SFO), policies and standards in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP) would also apply. The proposed project could expose people to, or generate, noise levels in excess of General Plan standards in two ways. First, the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to noise above applicable standards by introducing land uses that are incompatible with the noise environment at the site. Second, the proposed project itself could lead to an increase in ambient noise levels thereby affecting existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. These potential impacts are discussed below. Compatibility of Site for Proposed Uses Exterior Noise Levels. SFO is located to the north of Burlingame, across U.S. Highway 101. Aircraft noise contour maps are the principal tool used in analyzing airport/land use compatibility in the vicinity of airports. Each contour reflects linear bands subject to similar average noise levels. The ALUCP includes noise and land use compatibility standards. Under the ALUCP standards, residences and nursing homes are considered “compatible” with aircraft noise levels less than 65 dBA CNEL and no special noise insulation requirements are required for new construction. The project site is exposed to aircraft noise levels less than 65 CNEL. Thus, aircraft noise levels at the project site would be less than significant. Based on ambient noise monitoring, as described in the Environmental Noise Study Draft, exterior noise levels would not likely exceed CNEL 60 dB in the first-floor courtyard of the project. It is expected that the project building mass would adequately shield the courtyard from adjacent roadway noise, which is the most prominent noise source in the area, to achieve the CNEL 60 dB criteria. Interior Noise Levels. As described in the Environmental Noise Study Draft, to allow the project to meet Title 24 and the City’s 45 dBA DNL and CNEL interior noise requirements in habitable rooms, respectively, sound rated assemblies would be required at exterior building facades (windows, doors and walls). Sound rated assemblies, which are shown in the Environmental Noise Study Draft (see Figure 2 of Appendix B), would be required to meet applicable noise criteria. With appropriate insulation, the noise compatibility impact would be reduced to less than significant. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 71 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Project Could Significantly Increase the Noise Environment at Nearby Sensitive Receptor Locations Project Construction Noise. Construction activity noise levels at and near construction areas within the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular types, number, and duration of usage of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, and the amount of increase would depend on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. Table 2.12-1 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. The noise levels shown in Table 2.12-1 represent composite noise levels associated with typical construction activities, which take into account both the number of pieces and spacing of heavy construction equipment that are typically used during each phase of construction. TABLE 2.12-1 TYPICAL COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Phase Noise Level (Leq)a Ground Clearing Excavation Foundations Erection Exterior Finishing 84 89 78 85 89 a Estimates correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase and 200 feet from the other equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 1971. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Based on the project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of 6 dBA is assumed. The project area contains sensitive residential land uses as close as 125 feet from potential construction activities, which could be exposed to about 81 dBA during excavation and finishing. Although not considered as noise-sensitive as residences, there is also an office building that could be as close as 25 feet from construction activities. At this distance, construction equipment exterior noise could reach about 95 dBA during excavation and finishing. Overall, construction noise would be substantially greater than existing noise levels at nearby uses, and although temporary, would be significant unless mitigated. Project Operational Noise. An increase in average noise levels of 3-dBA is considered barely perceptible, while an increase of 5-dBA is considered readily perceptible to most people (Caltrans, 1998). Over the long-term, an increase in ambient noise levels would be primarily due to the motor vehicle trips generated by the proposed project. Notably, a doubling of traffic on a roadway would result in a 3-dBA increase in noise. The proposed project would result in a minimal increase in on-road traffic on the surrounding roadway network, which would result in a less than significant increase in noise. Since the project Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 72 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 would consist of assisted living and memory care uses, no other sources of substantial noise would be associated with long-term project operations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that the proposed residences would meet the City and Title 24 applicable interior noise criteria. With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3, construction of the proposed project would comply with the City of Burlingame Noise Ordinance and would reduce the temporary construction noise associated with project development to the greatest extent feasible. This would be a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The project applicant shall include sound-rated assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) as described in the Environmental Noise Study Draft to achieve acceptable interior noise levels (45 dBA DNL/CNEL) in proposed residences. In addition, an alternative means of providing outside air (i.e., HVAC, Z-ducts) to habitable spaces is required since windows must be closed to achieve the interior criterion in units along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue, where sound-rated windows are required. A qualified acoustical engineer must review the design as it is developed to refine the specific STC ratings once the building design and site layout has been approved. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The project applicant shall require construction to comply with the City of Burlingame Municipal Code operational hour limits, specifically restricting construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project applicant shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: Equipment and trucks used for project construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques, such as improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically- attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible. Impact tools (i.e., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust will be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10-dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves will be used where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of 5-dBA. Quieter procedures will be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible. Stationary noise sources will be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 73 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Signs will be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number with the City of Burlingame in the event of noise complaints. The project applicant will designate an onsite complaint and enforcement manager to track and respond to noise complaints. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Ground-borne vibration from construction activities at the project site could produce vibration at nearby sensitive receptors. No pile driving would be needed for this project. Typical reference vibration levels for a large bulldozer are 0.089 PPV (inches/second) and 87 RMS (Vdb) at 25 feet (Federal Transit Administration, 2006), which would be representative of the vibration at the nearest off- site office receptors from construction activities. Construction activities on the boundary of the project site would not expose the nearest buildings to significant building vibration (exceeding 0.2 PPV) but could exceed the human annoyance (exceeding 80 Vdb) standard. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 to reduce noise would also reduce human annoyance by requiring best available noise controls and limiting the hours of construction. These measures would reduce potential annoyance to the extent feasible and thus result in less than significant vibration impacts. c) Less than Significant. As described above for significance criterion “a,” the project would not double traffic levels on affected roadways and therefore would not cause an increase of 3-dBA from traffic noise. The permanent increase in noise would be negligible. The proposed project would not be considered to result in a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels above those existing without the project. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As described above for significance criterion “a”, construction equipment could result in the temporary increase of noise levels in the project vicinity. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3, described above, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. e) Less than Significant. The project site is located approximately 0.9 miles south of SFO and is exposed to aircraft noise levels less than 65 CNEL. Under the ALUCP standards, residences and nursing homes are considered “compatible” with aircraft noise levels less than 65 dBA CNEL and no special noise insulation requirements are required for new construction. Thus, aircraft noise levels at the project site would be less than significant. f) No Impact. The project site is not located within two miles of a private airstrip. No impact would result. References City of Burlingame, City of Burlingame General Plan, 1969. City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 Zoning, http://qcode.us/codes/burlingame/, accessed April 28, 2014. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 74 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 City/County Associated of Governments of San Mateo County, 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, October 2012. Caltrans, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, October 1998. Charles Salter Associates, Inc., 2013. PHCD Burlingame, CA – Environmental Noise Study Draft, August 6, 2013. Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Building Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 1971. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 75 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Population and Housing Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING — 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 units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct an institutional facility to provide assisted living and memory care residential units for up to 140 residents. This would not in and of itself be considered be considered a substantial population increase. In addition, the proposed employment for 85 workers would not create a substantial need for new housing that would not be already accommodated in the Bay Area. Consequently, the effect of new project assisted living facilities and associated employment on population growth would be less than significant. b, c) No Impact. The demolition of the existing office land use would not result in the displacement of any existing housing or require the need for new housing in the vicinity of the project site resulting in no impact. References Project plans and descriptions. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 76 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Public Services Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the 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 following public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Discussion a.i) Less than Significant. Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Central County Fire Department has approximately 80 staff with operations divided into three battalions. Each battalion has a chief, six captains, and approximately 15 firefighters and medical staff. The Department responds to approximately 4,500 calls for service annually, covering a service area of 12 square miles (CCFD, 2014). The four fire stations staff four fire engines, one ladder truck, and a heavy-duty urban search and rescue unit. Three fire stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. The project site is located approximately two miles from each of these stations. The increase in population on the project site due to increase of onsite staff and residents, and associated increases in vehicular traffic to/from the site, could lead to an incremental increase in the demand for fire department and emergency medical service response to the project site and vicinity. In accordance with standard City practices, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety regulations. In addition, the proposed project would construct an “at grade” service and emergency vehicle access drive, which would be located along the northern property line at the rear of the building. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection services such that it would affect acceptable service response times, nor would it result in Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 77 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 the need for new or expanded facilities, the project’s potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. a.ii) Less than Significant. Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department (BPD), located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The department employs approximately 37 full-time sworn police officers and 25 full-time civilian personnel. The department is divided into two major divisions, each of which is headed by a Commander who reports directly to the Chief of Police: Field Operations, responsible for uniform patrol duties; and Support Services, responsible for communications, records maintenance, facility and equipment maintenance. The Field Operations Division consists of 27 police officers who patrol the city and answer approximately 31,000 calls per year. Officers make up four patrol teams and are assigned to a team for six months at a time. Each team is managed by a sergeant, and the four teams together are supervised by a commander. There are three patrol beats within Burlingame and officers rotate through the beats weekly (City of Burlingame, 2014). The increase in population on the project site due to increase of onsite staff and residents, and associated increases in vehicular traffic to/from the site, could lead to an incremental increase in the demand for BPD response to the project site and vicinity. The project proposes to include appropriate security measures for the facility, including but not limited to security gates and locks, security night lighting, and video surveillance. In accordance with standard City practices, the BPD would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable access and security measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city regulations. In consideration of these factors, the proposed project would not adversely affect the ability of the BPD to maintain adequate police protection services to the project site, or result in the need for new or expanded facilities, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. a.iii) Less than Significant. Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The BSD serves approximately 3,200 students and SMUHSD serves approximately 8,100 students (CA DOE, 2014). The proposed project would provide residential units as an assisted living and memory care facility for seniors, and therefore, school-aged children would not directly be a part of the increase in population at this facility. Any incidental increase in need for public schools related to children of employees at the project site would be distributed throughout the Bay Area. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on public schools. a.iv, v) Less than Significant. Public parks and recreational facilities are discussed under Recreation, below. Residents and employees of the project are not anticipated to create a substantial increase in need for other governmental facilities. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 78 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 References California Department of Education (DOE), DataQuest, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest, site accessed April 28, 2014. Central County Fire Department (CCFD), http://www.ccfdonline.org/, accessed May 14, 2014. City of Burlingame, http://www.burlingame.org, site accessed May 14, 2014. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 79 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Recreation Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion a, b) Less than Significant. The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 17 parks and playgrounds, an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. The total acreage of parks in the City is nearly 60 acres with an additional 35 acres in the Mill Canyon Park nature preserve. Several parks are within one mile of the project site including Village Park, the Spur Trail, and Mills Canyon Park. Any incremental increase in use of public parks and recreational facilities by residents and employees of the proposed project would not cause substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. Accordingly, project impacts to public parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. References City of Burlingame. City of Burlingame General Plan. Adopted 1969. Project plans and descriptions. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 80 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Transportation and Traffic Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — 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, that 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? Discussion This analysis relies in part on analysis provided in a technical memorandum prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants which is presented in full in Appendix C (June, 2013). a, b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 82 (SR 82, also known as “El Camino Real”) located northeast of the project site, U.S. Highway 101 to the east of the project site, and Interstate 280 (I-280, also known as “Junipero Serra Freeway”) located west of the project site. SR 82 is four- to six-lane arterial roadway (two to three lanes in each direction) in proximity of the project site, and the most recent data published by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) indicates that the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the roadway is about 41,500 vehicles (Caltrans, 2012). U.S. 101 is a ten-lane freeway in proximity to the project site and includes a full interchange (with northbound and southbound on- and off-ramps) located at Millbrae Avenue. According to most recent Caltrans data, the AADT on the freeway is about 233,000 vehicles (Caltrans, 2012). I-280 is an eight-lane freeway and includes a full interchange at its junction with Trousdale Drive. The AADT along the freeway is about 190,000 vehicles (Caltrans, 2012). Local access is provided by Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. Trousdale Drive is a two- to four-lane east-west roadway (one to two lanes in each direction) extending from Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 81 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 California Drive to the east and I-280 to the west. Magnolia Avenue is a primarily north- south roadway that extends from the north through Millbrae to Mills Peninsula Medical Center immediately south of the project site. It forms the eastern boundary of the project site. It is two-lanes with a center turn-lane at the Trousdale Drive intersection. The proposed project would provide 132 units, consisting of 107 assisted living units and 25 memory care units. The proposed project would remove the existing single-story office building on the site. The project would also include onsite parking for 44 vehicles in a subterranean garage. Traffic trip generation was estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (ITE, 2012), using the “Assisted Living” land use category (254). In general, this manual provides guidance on estimating traffic generation for various land use development based on observations conducted across the United States. Table 2.16-1 shows the trip generation analysis for the project. For an entire weekday the proposed project would result in an additional 372 vehicle trips on area roads. Additionally, based on these estimates and applying appropriate trip reductions, the project would generate approximately 20 a.m. peak-hour trips and approximately 31 p.m. peak-hour trips. TABLE 2.16-1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Project Land Use ITE Code Units Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total Assisted Living 254 140 beds 372 13 7 20 14 17 31 Office Building 710 10,800 sq ft 119 15 2 17 3 13 16 Total Net New Vehicle Trips 253 -2 5 3 11 14 25 SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012; Fehr and Peers, 2014. The proposed project would replace a one-story 10,800 square foot office building and 37 parking spaces. Currently, the project site could generate approximately 119 daily trips, 17 a.m. peak hour trips, and 16 p.m. peak hour trips. The net new vehicle trips on the project site would be approximately 253 daily trips, 3 a.m. peak hour trips, and 25 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, and would have a less than significant impact. In addition, the proposed project would not cause any exceedance of level-of-service standards for area roadways, and no significant cumulative impacts on these roadways would occur. Rail and Bus Transit Impacts. The project site is served by a variety of transit services, including both rail and bus. It is located 0.6 miles from the Millbrae Intermodal Station, a Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 82 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 major station for both BART and Caltrain and a transfer station for SamTrans bus routes. The Burlingame- North BART/Caltrain shuttle provides shuttle service between the Millbrae station and nearby employment areas including Mills-Peninsula Health Services, across the street from the site. SamTrans Bus Route 46 operates on Trousdale Drive near the site and connects the Burlingame Intermediate School with the Broadway and Burlingame Caltrain stations. The project is located in an established urban area and development of the project would not conflict with adopted plans or policies supporting rail or bus transit nor would the project impede the performance of such facilities. Due to the proximity to nearby SamTrans bus stops, BART station, and Caltrain station, the project could be expected to generate new transit trips. However, based on recent ridership data and that these nearby transit systems would likely be utilized by employees, it is reasonable to expect that these bus lines, BART, and Caltrain would be able to accommodate the project-generated increases in the number of passengers. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue providing pedestrian access to the site. Crosswalks are located at all four legs of the intersection of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue, and at the west, south and east legs of the intersection of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real. All pedestrian signal heads include a walk symbol and a countdown timer during activated pedestrian phases. Bicycle facilities near the site comprise designated bike routes on Magnolia Drive between Murchison Drive and Trousdale Drive, and on Trousdale Drive between Magnolia Drive and Ashton Avenue. These routes connect to California Drive and Quesada Way. California Drive is located immediately east of El Camino Real and provides the primary north/south bicycle route adjacent to the El Camino Real corridor in Burlingame. Quesada Way is located west of the project site and provides a bicycle route through the western neighborhoods of Burlingame, connecting south to Bernal Avenue, Cabrillo Avenue and Walnut Avenue. An off-street bicycle path is located along the shoreline of the bay, on the west edge of U.S. 101, along Airport Boulevard, and west of Airport Boulevard, connecting to Coyote Point at the south. The proposed project includes various streetscape improvements that would also be implemented including widening of the existing sidewalk along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the project site; crosswalk striping across Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue and accessible pedestrian ramps at this corner; bike racks; and street tree planting (see Landscaping Plan, Figure 1-9). The proposed project would involve physical changes to the site, and minor alterations to the configuration or characteristics of the road network in the project area. However, these changes are designed to improve the pedestrian connections in the project vicinity and would not alter the flow of vehicular traffic. In addition, the proposed project Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 83 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 would not interfere with, or prevent any future planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements, nor would the project increase the potential for conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists, or constrain access for users of these existing and future facilities. Construction Impacts. Project construction activities that would generate off-site traffic would include removal of the existing building; the delivery of construction vehicles, materials, and equipment to the project site; the daily arrival and departure of construction workers; and the delivery of materials throughout the construction period and removal of construction debris. Deliveries would generally include shipments of concrete, lumber, and other building materials for onsite structures, utilities (e.g., plumbing equipment and electrical supplies) and paving and landscaping materials. Construction activity would occur Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Traffic generated from construction activities would be temporary and spread out over approximately 19 months, and therefore, would not result in any long-term degradation in operating conditions on roadways in the project locale. Moreover, daily and peak-hour traffic generated by construction activities would be lower in volume than that for project operations, as described above. The impact of construction-related traffic would be a temporary and intermittent lessening of the capacities of streets in the project site vicinity because of the slower movements and larger turning radii of construction trucks compared to passenger vehicles. However, given the proximity of the project site to regional roadways (i.e., U.S. 101, I-280, and El Camino Real), construction trucks would have relatively direct routes. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would reduce these temporary construction traffic impacts to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: The project applicant and its construction contractor(s) will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan will include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible and traffic congestion during construction: A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes; Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area; Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur; and Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 84 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. c) No Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately one mile from San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The development of the proposed project would not introduce tall objects or structures that represent an obstruction to safe air navigation. The proposed project would not impact aircraft flight paths, arrival and departure procedures, or air traffic patterns at SFO. Please see Hazards and Hazardous Materials, section e), above, for additional detail. d) Less than Significant. As described in the Project Description, the proposed primary vehicular access to the project site would occur at Trousdale Drive, with a vehicular service entry proposed at Magnolia Avenue. This primary vehicular access point from Trousdale Drive is proposed to be right-turn in/out only, as recommended by the City traffic engineer. This design would serve to eliminate the potential for vehicular conflicts that would be otherwise be associated with left turns across two lanes of traffic onto Trousdale Drive. The driveway to the project site off Trousdale Drive would transition to a ramp that would provide access for vehicles to/from the building garage. Vehicular access into the building would be controlled via a security gate and a card reader/intercom system. The proposed subterranean parking garage would provide 44 parking spaces, including five disabled-accessible spaces, and other facility functions including laundry and storage bins for the residents. Figure 1-8 presents the proposed building garage level. A service entry located on Magnolia Avenue would be limited to emergency vehicles, deliveries, and employee vehicles; public access would be prohibited. This service entry would provide access to the loading bay and receiving area located in the rear of the building. Consequently, no delivery or moving truck loading/off-loading would occur on- street. Pick-Up and Drop-Off Activity The proposed project would include a passenger loading area in the subterranean parking garage adjacent to Elevator No. 1, to be used for facility shuttle loading and resident pick-ups/drop-offs. Although not currently proposed, in the future the applicant may also consider adding a white curb passenger loading zone along Trousdale Drive between the main entry and primary main driveway. Loading zone activity would be consistent with other similar facilities. The loading zone would be 20 to 25 feet in length. A request for a white curb passenger loading zone would need to be presented to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission for review and approval. A similar assisted living facility is located in San Mateo, also near shopping, medical and other downtown commercial uses, at which Fehr and Peers observed pick-up and drop- Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 85 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 off activity. The facility has a shuttle (equipped with a wheel chair lift) that provides residents with transportation service to medical and other appointments. Most of the shuttle trips are between 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. (Residents are requested to make appointments during this period.) Shuttle schedules vary according to resident needs. The loading area is used primarily for shuttle passenger loading. Other visitors were observed entering the garage to meet and pick up residents inside the building. Staff onsite confirmed that this is typical. Therefore, the passenger loading zone currently proposed in the garage and the on-street passenger loading zone that may be added along Trousdale Drive in the future would be designed for up to two vehicles and would be primarily used by shuttles. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on design hazards related to load and unloading activities. Parking The proposed approximate subterranean building garage would provide 44 parking spaces, including five disabled-accessible spaces, and other facility functions including laundry and storage bins for the residents. The city’s code requirement is one space for every three Assisted Living units, or 41 spaces. Therefore the proposed project would provide three more spaces than required by the City of Burlingame code. Two-hour on-street parking is available on Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the project, and one-hour on-street parking is available on the opposite side of the street. While adequate off-street parking is proposed, it is likely some visitors may opt to park in short-term parking on the street. The parking supply on Magnolia Avenue could accommodate incidental visitor parking from the proposed project. Because adequate parking for the proposed project would be accommodated onsite, and additional existing short-term on- street parking is also available, impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. The proposed project would not alter the layout of adjacent streets in a way that would introduce unsafe design features, nor would the project introduce incompatible uses into the area. The project site plan and circulation would be subject to final review and approval by the City of Burlingame Public Works Department and the Central County Fire Department to ensure proposed improvements do not include potentially hazardous design features. The physical and traffic characteristics of area roadways (e.g., traffic signals, pedestrian sidewalks, and bicycle routes) would safely accommodate project- generated traffic. The proposed project’s effect on traffic safety would be less than significant. e) Less than Significant. The proposed project would not restrict emergency vehicles from accessing neighboring buildings. Emergency vehicles would be able to enter directly into the project site. The proposed project would not introduce any physical barriers that would restrict emergency vehicle access. As a result, the proposed project would have adequate emergency access to and from the site, and the impact would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 86 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 f) Less than Significant. The project site is well-served by alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facility services. As described under criterion a), the project site is located 0.6 miles from the Millbrae Intermodal Station, a major station for both BART and Caltrain and a transfer station for SamTrans bus routes. Assuming that the average person walks at approximately three feet per second8, this distance equates to an approximate 15-minute walk to the Intermodal Station and the project site; which would be a reasonable walking distance for employees. Furthermore, as described under criterion a), there are several planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements in proximity to the project site; however the proposed project would not permanently change the existing or planned transportation network in the project vicinity or throughout the City; therefore the proposed project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs related to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel. References Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2012. Trip Generation, 9th edition, 2012. Fehr and Peers, 2013. Technical Memorandum, 1600 Trousdale Drive Trip Generation Parking and Site Access. July 10, 2014. Project plans and descriptions. Site reconnaissance April 10, 2014. 8 Standard transportation planning practice to evaluate pedestrian facilities includes an average walking speed of three feet per second (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation Planning Handbook, 2nd Edition, 1999). Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 87 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Utilities and Service Systems Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Conflict with 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 that would 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? Discussion a, b, e) Less than Significant. Wastewater services are provided to the project site by the City of Burlingame. The sewer system includes approximately 88 miles of gravity sewers, nine siphons, eight pump stations, and nearly 16,000 linear feet of force mains. The sewer system is gravity fed to lift stations which transports wastewater to the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at 1103 Airport Boulevard. The treatment plant has a designed capacity to treat 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and 16 mgd during wet weather. The WWTP processes wastewater from the City of Burlingame, the Town of Hillsborough, and the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District serving a total population of approximately 37,000 people. In 2013, the WWTP’s average monthly flow was 2.85 mgd, and the maximum daily flow was 6.43 mgd (RWQCB, 2013; City of Burlingame, 2014). Treated effluent is conveyed to South San Francisco for disposal into San Francisco Bay. Construction of the new building proposed by the project would require connection to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system. The use of the property as a residential facility for up to 140 residents and approximately 85 staff (or up to 27 employees during peak shift) would result in an increase in the generation of wastewater at the project site compared to Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 88 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 existing conditions.9 The proposed facility is anticipated to generate approximately 17,500 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd). However, given the documented flow rates and the existing capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, the project would not result in the need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities or exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant. The new building proposed by the project would require connection to the existing on-site stormwater drainage system. Stormwater runoff from the Project site would be routed to the municipal stormwater collection system. As discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity. Implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the permit would identify Best Management Practices to ensure that construction of new on-site stormwater infrastructure would not result in adverse impacts to water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant. The City of Burlingame purchases all of its water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The SFPUC currently delivers approximately 265 million gallons per day (mgd) to its customers within the San Francisco Bay area. Water is supplied to the City by several SFPUC pipelines that are connected to six metered connections at various locations throughout the City. The City also uses well water and recycled water as sources for non-potable water. A new Water Supply Agreement between the SFPUC and the 27 member agencies of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (which includes the City of Burlingame) was approved in 2009. The Water Supply Agreement now includes an Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) for most wholesale customers. The ISG establishes the minimum quantity of water SFPUC will supply to each wholesale customer during times of normal supply; the ISG for the City secures 5.23 mgd for normal year deliveries. According to the SFPUC, there is sufficient water supply to meet all expected future demand in normal and wet hydrologic periods; however, the Water Supply Agreement allows the SFPUC to curtail deliveries during droughts, emergencies, and scheduled maintenance activities. To overcome the potential supply deficit expected to occur if SFPUC reduces its deliveries by 20 percent during specific critical dry years or over multiple dry years, the City would initiate its water shortage contingency plan as described in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. This plan includes both voluntary and mandatory stages that would allow the City to reduce water deliveries and implement demand reductions. Adherence to the water contingency plan during dry year events would ensure that water supplies to the City, and thus the proposed Project, would be satisfied. 9 Based on Uniform Plumbing Code. This is a conservative net increase as it doesn’t account for the existing office use on the site that currently generates wastewater. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 89 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 The use of the property as an assisted living and memory care facility would result in an increased water demand at the project site compared to existing conditions. The proposed facility is anticipated to generate a demand for approximately 17,500 gallons per day (gpd).10 As described above, the City has adequate water supplies to meet anticipated future demand, even under dry year conditions. Therefore, the increased water demand resulting from the proposed project would not result in the need for new or expanded water supply entitlements. The impact would be less than significant. f, g) Less than Significant. Recology San Mateo County (Recology) provides recycle, compost, and garbage collection services for approximately 92,000 residences and 10,000 businesses in San Mateo County, including the City of Burlingame. The South Bayside Waste Management Authority (also known as RethinkWaste), a joint powers authority of 12 agencies in San Mateo County, ensures compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act and its waste reduction mandates. RethinkWaste also provides strategic oversight, support and management of service providers that collect, process, recycle and dispose of materials for the 12 Member Agencies. The primary goal of the RethinkWaste is to provide cost effective waste reduction, recycling, and solid waste programs to member agencies through franchised services and other recyclers to meet and sustain a minimum of 50 percent diversion of waste from landfill as mandated by California State Law, AB 939. RethinkWaste owns and manages the Shoreway Environmental Center (Shoreway), which receives all of the recyclables, organics, and garbage collected from the RethinkWaste service area. Residential and commercial solid waste recyclable and organic materials that are collected by Recology are taken to the Shoreway Environmental Center for processing, staging, and shipment. Shoreway serves as a transfer station for solid waste, construction and demolition (C&D) debris, and organics. Materials are consolidated at Shoreway and loaded into large transfer trailers for shipment offsite to the Ox Mountain Landfill and to recycling facilities for construction and demolition waste, and organic materials. The Ox Mountain Landfill has a remaining permitted capacity of approximately 44 million cubic yards and an estimated closure date of 2018. Ox Mountain is permitted by the CIWMB to receive 3,598 tons per day. Based on similarly sized facilities, the amount of waste to be generated per resident is estimated to be approximately seven yards of waste per year or approximately 882 yards of waste per year. The proposed project would comply with the City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1704 (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 8.17) regarding the recycling of construction and demolition (C&D) debris. This ordinance requires that 60 percent by weight of all waste generated from C&D be reused and/or recycled. In addition, a minimum 25 percent of structural material (excluding concrete, asphalt, and dirt) must be recycled. Demand for 10 Based on Uniform Plumbing Code. This is a conservative net increase as it doesn’t account for the existing office use on the site that currently generates a water demand. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 90 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 solid waste disposal services generated by the Project could be adequately served by existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the Project would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste; therefore, impacts regarding solid waste disposal are considered less than significant. References CalRecycle, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/Facility/Summary.aspx?FacilityID=18951, accessed May 15, 2014. RWQCB, 2013. Regional Water Quality Control Board Tentative Order, 2013. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_info/agendas/2013/May/5B/5B_TO.pdf City of Burlingame, memorandum from City Community Development Department, Planning Division to ESA, July 1, 2014. Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 91 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Mandatory Findings of Significance Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Would the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) 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) Have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Based upon background research and site visits, with implementation of mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less-than-significant level, as described throughout the Initial Study. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project would contribute to environmental effects in the areas of biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, temporary increases in construction-generated dust and noise, a temporary increase in sedimentation and water quality effects during construction, potential hazardous materials considerations with new development, and short-term traffic impacts during demolition and construction. Mitigation measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative impacts associated with these environmental issues to a less-than-significant level, and would preclude the project from making a substantial contribution to cumulative impacts. Therefore, the Environmental Checklist Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 92 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project may have significant adverse effects on human beings in the areas of air quality, noise, and traffic during construction, and with hazardous materials considerations with redevelopment of the site. Mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study would reduce the effects to less-than-significant level. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility A-1 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 APPENDIX A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases This page intentionally left blank A-2 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Existing Ops Trips and VMT - Existing Ops Demolition - Grading - Architectural Coating - Existing Ops Vehicle Trips - Default weekday trip rate matches traffic analysis trip generation Woodstoves - Off-road Equipment - Existing Ops San Mateo County, Annual Peninsula Assisted Living Project - Existing 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 10.80 1000sqft 0.25 10,800.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 70 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2014Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 1 of 17 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior 5,400.00 0.00 tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Interior 16,200.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 1.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 2 of 17 A-3 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 2015 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 Total 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 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 2015 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 Total 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 Mitigated 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 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.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 3 of 17 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 0.0478 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 Energy 1.1800e- 003 0.0107 9.0200e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 55.3025 55.3025 2.2000e- 003 6.2000e- 004 55.5416 Mobile 0.0627 0.1249 0.6621 1.0600e- 003 0.0795 1.7600e- 003 0.0813 0.0213 1.6100e- 003 0.0230 0.0000 88.1138 88.1138 4.6000e- 003 0.0000 88.2103 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0380 0.0000 2.0380 0.1204 0.0000 4.5674 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6090 4.2195 4.8284 0.0627 1.5200e- 003 6.6160 Total 0.1117 0.1356 0.6712 1.1200e- 003 0.0795 2.5800e- 003 0.0821 0.0213 2.4300e- 003 0.0238 2.6470 147.6359 150.2830 0.1900 2.1400e- 003 154.9354 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 4 of 17 A-4 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 0.0478 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 Energy 1.1800e- 003 0.0107 9.0200e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 55.3025 55.3025 2.2000e- 003 6.2000e- 004 55.5416 Mobile 0.0627 0.1249 0.6621 1.0600e- 003 0.0795 1.7600e- 003 0.0813 0.0213 1.6100e- 003 0.0230 0.0000 88.1138 88.1138 4.6000e- 003 0.0000 88.2103 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0380 0.0000 2.0380 0.1204 0.0000 4.5674 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6090 4.2195 4.8284 0.0627 1.5100e- 003 6.6150 Total 0.1117 0.1356 0.6712 1.1200e- 003 0.0795 2.5800e- 003 0.0821 0.0213 2.4300e- 003 0.0238 2.6470 147.6359 150.2830 0.1900 2.1300e- 003 154.9344 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/16/2015 6/22/2015 5 5 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 0.01 0.47 0.00 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 5 of 17 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2015 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 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 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 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 0.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT 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 Architectural Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 6 of 17 A-5 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2015 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 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 Total 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 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 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 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 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 7 of 17 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 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 0.0627 0.1249 0.6621 1.0600e- 003 0.0795 1.7600e- 003 0.0813 0.0213 1.6100e- 003 0.0230 0.0000 88.1138 88.1138 4.6000e- 003 0.0000 88.2103 Unmitigated 0.0627 0.1249 0.6621 1.0600e- 003 0.0795 1.7600e- 003 0.0813 0.0213 1.6100e- 003 0.0230 0.0000 88.1138 88.1138 4.6000e- 003 0.0000 88.2103 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2015 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 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 Total 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 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 8 of 17 A-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 General Office Building 118.91 25.60 10.58 215,324 215,324 Total 118.91 25.60 10.58 215,324 215,324 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 General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.577757 0.062846 0.176434 0.115876 0.029971 0.004224 0.015173 0.003762 0.002548 0.003722 0.006470 0.000233 0.000983 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 9 of 17 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 43.6088 43.6088 1.9700e- 003 4.1000e- 004 43.7767 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 43.6088 43.6088 1.9700e- 003 4.1000e- 004 43.7767 NaturalGas Mitigated 1.1800e- 003 0.0107 9.0200e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 11.6937 11.6937 2.2000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 11.7649 NaturalGas Unmitigated 1.1800e- 003 0.0107 9.0200e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 11.6937 11.6937 2.2000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 11.7649 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 General Office Building 219132 1.1800e- 003 0.0107 9.0200e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 11.6937 11.6937 2.2000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 11.7649 Total 1.1800e- 003 0.0107 9.0200e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 11.6937 11.6937 2.2000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 11.7649 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 10 of 17 A-7 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 General Office Building 219132 1.1800e- 003 0.0107 9.0200e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 11.6937 11.6937 2.2000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 11.7649 Total 1.1800e- 003 0.0107 9.0200e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 11.6937 11.6937 2.2000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 11.7649 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr General Office Building 149904 43.6088 1.9700e- 003 4.1000e- 004 43.7767 Total 43.6088 1.9700e- 003 4.1000e- 004 43.7767 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 11 of 17 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 0.0478 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 Unmitigated 0.0478 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr General Office Building 149904 43.6088 1.9700e- 003 4.1000e- 004 43.7767 Total 43.6088 1.9700e- 003 4.1000e- 004 43.7767 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 12 of 17 A-8 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 5.6300e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.0422 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 Total 0.0478 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 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 5.6300e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.0422 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 Total 0.0478 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 13 of 17 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 4.8284 0.0627 1.5100e- 003 6.6150 Unmitigated 4.8284 0.0627 1.5200e- 003 6.6160 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr General Office Building 1.91952 / 1.17648 4.8284 0.0627 1.5200e- 003 6.6160 Total 4.8284 0.0627 1.5200e- 003 6.6160 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 14 of 17 A-9 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 General Office Building 1.91952 / 1.17648 4.8284 0.0627 1.5100e- 003 6.6150 Total 4.8284 0.0627 1.5100e- 003 6.6150 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 2.0380 0.1204 0.0000 4.5674 Unmitigated 2.0380 0.1204 0.0000 4.5674 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 15 of 17 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr General Office Building 10.04 2.0380 0.1204 0.0000 4.5674 Total 2.0380 0.1204 0.0000 4.5674 Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr General Office Building 10.04 2.0380 0.1204 0.0000 4.5674 Total 2.0380 0.1204 0.0000 4.5674 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 16 of 17 A-10 10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/22/2014 2:40 PMPage 17 of 17 A-11 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Land use information based on Project Description Construction Phase - Adjusted construction phases based on construction duration and activities described in Project Description Trips and VMT - Adusted haul trips for import/export of soils to match Project Description. Other construction trip assumptions left default. Demolition - Grading - Import/export information from Project Description Architectural Coating - Vehicle Trips - 372 Trips daily, default trip rates adjusted to match revised traffic analysis trip generation Woodstoves - No wood burning hearths assumed San Mateo County, Annual Peninsula Assisted Living Project 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 44.00 Space 0.65 28,400.00 0 Congregate Care (Assisted Living)132.00 Dwelling Unit 1.00 150,300.00 140 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 70 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 1 of 31 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 44.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 284.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 43.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 21.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/26/2014 9/27/2014 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/28/2014 11/30/2014 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/29/2016 1/31/2016 tblFireplaces NumberGas 68.20 100.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 17.36 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 16.13 1.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 17,000.00 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 1,575.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 17,600.00 28,400.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 132,000.00 150,300.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.65 tblLandUse LotAcreage 8.25 1.00 tblLandUse Population 378.00 140.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 2,322.00 1,400.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.20 2.28 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.44 2.52 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.74 2.82 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.62 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.62 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 2 of 31 A-12 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 2014 0.1564 1.3963 1.1545 1.5500e- 003 0.1365 0.0707 0.2072 0.0646 0.0663 0.1309 0.0000 141.4640 141.4640 0.0215 0.0000 141.9144 2015 0.5564 3.1682 3.1694 4.8100e- 003 0.1341 0.1991 0.3332 0.0360 0.1920 0.2280 0.0000 404.6245 404.6245 0.0630 0.0000 405.9472 2016 1.2298 0.1941 0.1674 2.7000e- 004 5.2100e- 003 0.0129 0.0181 1.3900e- 003 0.0122 0.0136 0.0000 23.3511 23.3511 4.7800e- 003 0.0000 23.4515 Total 1.9426 4.7586 4.4913 6.6300e- 003 0.2758 0.2826 0.5584 0.1020 0.2705 0.3724 0.0000 569.4396 569.4396 0.0892 0.0000 571.3131 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 2014 0.1564 1.3963 1.1545 1.5500e- 003 0.1365 0.0707 0.2072 0.0646 0.0663 0.1309 0.0000 141.4640 141.4640 0.0215 0.0000 141.9143 2015 0.5564 3.1682 3.1694 4.8100e- 003 0.1341 0.1991 0.3332 0.0360 0.1920 0.2280 0.0000 404.6242 404.6242 0.0630 0.0000 405.9469 2016 1.2298 0.1941 0.1674 2.7000e- 004 5.2100e- 003 0.0129 0.0181 1.3900e- 003 0.0122 0.0136 0.0000 23.3511 23.3511 4.7800e- 003 0.0000 23.4515 Total 1.9426 4.7586 4.4912 6.6300e- 003 0.2758 0.2826 0.5584 0.1020 0.2705 0.3724 0.0000 569.4392 569.4392 0.0892 0.0000 571.3127 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 3 of 31 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 0.8504 0.0116 0.9942 5.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 003 5.7000e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 0.0000 6.4093 6.4093 1.7300e- 003 9.0000e- 005 6.4729 Energy 6.3000e- 003 0.0539 0.0229 3.4000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 256.8811 256.8811 9.9900e- 003 2.9600e- 003 258.0095 Mobile 0.2050 0.3864 2.0666 3.9100e- 003 0.2939 5.1300e- 003 0.2991 0.0788 4.7200e- 003 0.0836 0.0000 308.3956 308.3956 0.0143 0.0000 308.6964 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 22.9684 0.0000 22.9684 1.3574 0.0000 51.4737 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.5631 17.9035 20.4666 0.2641 6.3800e- 003 27.9909 Total 1.0616 0.4519 3.0837 4.3000e- 003 0.2939 0.0152 0.3091 0.0788 0.0148 0.0936 25.5316 589.5896 615.1212 1.6475 9.4300e- 003 652.6435 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 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.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 4 of 31 A-13 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 0.8504 0.0116 0.9942 5.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 003 5.7000e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 0.0000 6.4093 6.4093 1.7300e- 003 9.0000e- 005 6.4729 Energy 6.3000e- 003 0.0539 0.0229 3.4000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 256.8811 256.8811 9.9900e- 003 2.9600e- 003 258.0095 Mobile 0.2050 0.3864 2.0666 3.9100e- 003 0.2939 5.1300e- 003 0.2991 0.0788 4.7200e- 003 0.0836 0.0000 308.3956 308.3956 0.0143 0.0000 308.6964 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 22.9684 0.0000 22.9684 1.3574 0.0000 51.4737 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.5631 17.9035 20.4666 0.2640 6.3700e- 003 27.9868 Total 1.0616 0.4519 3.0837 4.3000e- 003 0.2939 0.0152 0.3091 0.0788 0.0148 0.0936 25.5316 589.5896 615.1212 1.6475 9.4200e- 003 652.6394 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 0.11 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 5 of 31 Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2014 9/27/2014 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/28/2014 9/30/2014 5 2 3 Grading Grading 10/1/2014 11/30/2014 5 43 4 Building Construction Building Construction 12/1/2014 12/31/2015 5 284 5 Paving Paving 1/1/2016 1/31/2016 5 21 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2016 3/31/2016 5 44 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 304,358; Residential Outdoor: 101,453; Non-Residential Indoor: 42,600; Non-Residential Outdoor: 14,200 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 6 of 31 A-14 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 8.00 255 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 255 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 6.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 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 6.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 6.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 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.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 7 of 31 3.2 Demolition - 2014 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 5.3200e- 003 0.0000 5.3200e- 003 8.0000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0316 0.3048 0.2219 2.5000e- 004 0.0194 0.0194 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 22.9494 22.9494 5.8300e- 003 0.0000 23.0718 Total 0.0316 0.3048 0.2219 2.5000e- 004 5.3200e- 003 0.0194 0.0247 8.0000e- 004 0.0182 0.0190 0.0000 22.9494 22.9494 5.8300e- 003 0.0000 23.0718 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 49.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 3 8.00 0.00 1,400.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 101.00 18.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 20.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 8 of 31 A-15 3.2 Demolition - 2014 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 7.7000e- 004 9.8200e- 003 0.0101 2.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 5.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6533 1.6533 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.6536 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 5.8000e- 004 9.0000e- 004 8.5600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.1307 1.1307 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1322 Total 1.3500e- 003 0.0107 0.0186 3.0000e- 005 1.5800e- 003 1.7000e- 004 1.7600e- 003 4.2000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.7840 2.7840 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.7858 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 5.3200e- 003 0.0000 5.3200e- 003 8.0000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0316 0.3048 0.2219 2.5000e- 004 0.0194 0.0194 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 22.9494 22.9494 5.8300e- 003 0.0000 23.0717 Total 0.0316 0.3048 0.2219 2.5000e- 004 5.3200e- 003 0.0194 0.0247 8.0000e- 004 0.0182 0.0190 0.0000 22.9494 22.9494 5.8300e- 003 0.0000 23.0717 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 9 of 31 3.2 Demolition - 2014 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 7.7000e- 004 9.8200e- 003 0.0101 2.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 5.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6533 1.6533 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.6536 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 5.8000e- 004 9.0000e- 004 8.5600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.1307 1.1307 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1322 Total 1.3500e- 003 0.0107 0.0186 3.0000e- 005 1.5800e- 003 1.7000e- 004 1.7600e- 003 4.2000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.7840 2.7840 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.7858 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2014 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 5.8000e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 003 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5500e- 003 0.0272 0.0171 2.0000e- 005 1.4800e- 003 1.4800e- 003 1.3600e- 003 1.3600e- 003 0.0000 1.6521 1.6521 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6623 Total 2.5500e- 003 0.0272 0.0171 2.0000e- 005 5.8000e- 003 1.4800e- 003 7.2800e- 003 2.9500e- 003 1.3600e- 003 4.3100e- 003 0.0000 1.6521 1.6521 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6623 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 10 of 31 A-16 3.3 Site Preparation - 2014 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 4.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0696 0.0696 0.0000 0.0000 0.0697 Total 4.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0696 0.0696 0.0000 0.0000 0.0697 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 5.8000e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 003 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5500e- 003 0.0272 0.0171 2.0000e- 005 1.4800e- 003 1.4800e- 003 1.3600e- 003 1.3600e- 003 0.0000 1.6521 1.6521 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6623 Total 2.5500e- 003 0.0272 0.0171 2.0000e- 005 5.8000e- 003 1.4800e- 003 7.2800e- 003 2.9500e- 003 1.3600e- 003 4.3100e- 003 0.0000 1.6521 1.6521 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6623 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 11 of 31 3.3 Site Preparation - 2014 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 4.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0696 0.0696 0.0000 0.0000 0.0697 Total 4.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0696 0.0696 0.0000 0.0000 0.0697 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2014 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 0.0987 0.0000 0.0987 0.0536 0.0000 0.0536 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0446 0.4768 0.3046 3.0000e- 004 0.0260 0.0260 0.0240 0.0240 0.0000 29.1726 29.1726 8.6200e- 003 0.0000 29.3537 Total 0.0446 0.4768 0.3046 3.0000e- 004 0.0987 0.0260 0.1247 0.0536 0.0240 0.0775 0.0000 29.1726 29.1726 8.6200e- 003 0.0000 29.3537 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 12 of 31 A-17 3.4 Grading - 2014 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 0.0220 0.2807 0.2872 5.1000e- 004 0.0117 4.6800e- 003 0.0163 3.2000e- 003 4.3000e- 003 7.5000e- 003 0.0000 47.2369 47.2369 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 47.2462 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 7.7000e- 004 1.1800e- 003 0.0113 2.0000e- 005 1.5500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5700e- 003 4.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.4960 1.4960 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4979 Total 0.0228 0.2819 0.2985 5.3000e- 004 0.0132 4.6900e- 003 0.0179 3.6100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 7.9300e- 003 0.0000 48.7329 48.7329 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 48.7441 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 0.0987 0.0000 0.0987 0.0536 0.0000 0.0536 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0446 0.4768 0.3046 3.0000e- 004 0.0260 0.0260 0.0240 0.0240 0.0000 29.1726 29.1726 8.6200e- 003 0.0000 29.3536 Total 0.0446 0.4768 0.3046 3.0000e- 004 0.0987 0.0260 0.1247 0.0536 0.0240 0.0775 0.0000 29.1726 29.1726 8.6200e- 003 0.0000 29.3536 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 13 of 31 3.4 Grading - 2014 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 0.0220 0.2807 0.2872 5.1000e- 004 0.0117 4.6800e- 003 0.0163 3.2000e- 003 4.3000e- 003 7.5000e- 003 0.0000 47.2369 47.2369 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 47.2462 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 7.7000e- 004 1.1800e- 003 0.0113 2.0000e- 005 1.5500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5700e- 003 4.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.4960 1.4960 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4979 Total 0.0228 0.2819 0.2985 5.3000e- 004 0.0132 4.6900e- 003 0.0179 3.6100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 7.9300e- 003 0.0000 48.7329 48.7329 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 48.7441 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 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 0.0449 0.2591 0.1761 2.5000e- 004 0.0184 0.0184 0.0178 0.0178 0.0000 21.5338 21.5338 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 21.6434 Total 0.0449 0.2591 0.1761 2.5000e- 004 0.0184 0.0184 0.0178 0.0178 0.0000 21.5338 21.5338 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 21.6434 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 14 of 31 A-18 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 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 3.3200e- 003 0.0278 0.0407 5.0000e- 005 1.3200e- 003 5.1000e- 004 1.8300e- 003 3.8000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4673 4.4673 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.4682 Worker 5.1800e- 003 8.0000e- 003 0.0765 1.2000e- 004 0.0105 1.0000e- 004 0.0106 2.7900e- 003 9.0000e- 005 2.8800e- 003 0.0000 10.1024 10.1024 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 10.1154 Total 8.5000e- 003 0.0358 0.1172 1.7000e- 004 0.0118 6.1000e- 004 0.0124 3.1700e- 003 5.6000e- 004 3.7300e- 003 0.0000 14.5697 14.5697 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 14.5837 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 0.0449 0.2591 0.1761 2.5000e- 004 0.0184 0.0184 0.0178 0.0178 0.0000 21.5337 21.5337 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 21.6434 Total 0.0449 0.2591 0.1761 2.5000e- 004 0.0184 0.0184 0.0178 0.0178 0.0000 21.5337 21.5337 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 21.6434 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 15 of 31 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 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 3.3200e- 003 0.0278 0.0407 5.0000e- 005 1.3200e- 003 5.1000e- 004 1.8300e- 003 3.8000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4673 4.4673 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.4682 Worker 5.1800e- 003 8.0000e- 003 0.0765 1.2000e- 004 0.0105 1.0000e- 004 0.0106 2.7900e- 003 9.0000e- 005 2.8800e- 003 0.0000 10.1024 10.1024 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 10.1154 Total 8.5000e- 003 0.0358 0.1172 1.7000e- 004 0.0118 6.1000e- 004 0.0124 3.1700e- 003 5.6000e- 004 3.7300e- 003 0.0000 14.5697 14.5697 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 14.5837 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 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 0.4698 2.8141 1.9580 2.8600e- 003 0.1938 0.1938 0.1872 0.1872 0.0000 243.3605 243.3605 0.0561 0.0000 244.5392 Total 0.4698 2.8141 1.9580 2.8600e- 003 0.1938 0.1938 0.1872 0.1872 0.0000 243.3605 243.3605 0.0561 0.0000 244.5392 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 16 of 31 A-19 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 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 0.0341 0.2727 0.4355 5.5000e- 004 0.0150 4.2300e- 003 0.0192 4.3000e- 003 3.8900e- 003 8.1900e- 003 0.0000 50.2115 50.2115 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 50.2209 Worker 0.0525 0.0814 0.7758 1.4000e- 003 0.1191 1.0200e- 003 0.1201 0.0317 9.3000e- 004 0.0326 0.0000 111.0525 111.0525 6.4100e- 003 0.0000 111.1871 Total 0.0866 0.3541 1.2113 1.9500e- 003 0.1341 5.2500e- 003 0.1394 0.0360 4.8200e- 003 0.0408 0.0000 161.2640 161.2640 6.8600e- 003 0.0000 161.4080 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 0.4698 2.8141 1.9580 2.8600e- 003 0.1938 0.1938 0.1872 0.1872 0.0000 243.3602 243.3602 0.0561 0.0000 244.5389 Total 0.4698 2.8141 1.9580 2.8600e- 003 0.1938 0.1938 0.1872 0.1872 0.0000 243.3602 243.3602 0.0561 0.0000 244.5389 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 17 of 31 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 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 0.0341 0.2727 0.4355 5.5000e- 004 0.0150 4.2300e- 003 0.0192 4.3000e- 003 3.8900e- 003 8.1900e- 003 0.0000 50.2115 50.2115 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 50.2209 Worker 0.0525 0.0814 0.7758 1.4000e- 003 0.1191 1.0200e- 003 0.1201 0.0317 9.3000e- 004 0.0326 0.0000 111.0525 111.0525 6.4100e- 003 0.0000 111.1871 Total 0.0866 0.3541 1.2113 1.9500e- 003 0.1341 5.2500e- 003 0.1394 0.0360 4.8200e- 003 0.0408 0.0000 161.2640 161.2640 6.8600e- 003 0.0000 161.4080 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2016 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 0.0135 0.1387 0.0954 1.4000e- 004 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 7.8100e- 003 7.8100e- 003 0.0000 13.0350 13.0350 3.8600e- 003 0.0000 13.1160 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0135 0.1387 0.0954 1.4000e- 004 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 7.8100e- 003 7.8100e- 003 0.0000 13.0350 13.0350 3.8600e- 003 0.0000 13.1160 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 18 of 31 A-20 3.6 Paving - 2016 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 4.9000e- 004 7.6000e- 004 7.2200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.1126 1.1126 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1139 Total 4.9000e- 004 7.6000e- 004 7.2200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.1126 1.1126 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1139 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 0.0135 0.1387 0.0954 1.4000e- 004 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 7.8100e- 003 7.8100e- 003 0.0000 13.0349 13.0349 3.8600e- 003 0.0000 13.1160 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0135 0.1387 0.0954 1.4000e- 004 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 7.8100e- 003 7.8100e- 003 0.0000 13.0349 13.0349 3.8600e- 003 0.0000 13.1160 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 19 of 31 3.6 Paving - 2016 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 4.9000e- 004 7.6000e- 004 7.2200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.1126 1.1126 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1139 Total 4.9000e- 004 7.6000e- 004 7.2200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.1126 1.1126 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1139 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016 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 1.2061 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.1100e- 003 0.0522 0.0415 7.0000e- 005 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 0.0000 5.6172 5.6172 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 5.6311 Total 1.2142 0.0522 0.0415 7.0000e- 005 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 0.0000 5.6172 5.6172 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 5.6311 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 20 of 31 A-21 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016 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 1.5700e- 003 2.4500e- 003 0.0233 5.0000e- 005 3.9800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.0100e- 003 1.0600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.0900e- 003 0.0000 3.5864 3.5864 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.5905 Total 1.5700e- 003 2.4500e- 003 0.0233 5.0000e- 005 3.9800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.0100e- 003 1.0600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.0900e- 003 0.0000 3.5864 3.5864 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.5905 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 1.2061 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.1100e- 003 0.0522 0.0415 7.0000e- 005 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 0.0000 5.6172 5.6172 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 5.6311 Total 1.2142 0.0522 0.0415 7.0000e- 005 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 4.3300e- 003 0.0000 5.6172 5.6172 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 5.6311 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 21 of 31 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 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 0.2050 0.3864 2.0666 3.9100e- 003 0.2939 5.1300e- 003 0.2991 0.0788 4.7200e- 003 0.0836 0.0000 308.3956 308.3956 0.0143 0.0000 308.6964 Unmitigated 0.2050 0.3864 2.0666 3.9100e- 003 0.2939 5.1300e- 003 0.2991 0.0788 4.7200e- 003 0.0836 0.0000 308.3956 308.3956 0.0143 0.0000 308.6964 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016 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 1.5700e- 003 2.4500e- 003 0.0233 5.0000e- 005 3.9800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.0100e- 003 1.0600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.0900e- 003 0.0000 3.5864 3.5864 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.5905 Total 1.5700e- 003 2.4500e- 003 0.0233 5.0000e- 005 3.9800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.0100e- 003 1.0600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.0900e- 003 0.0000 3.5864 3.5864 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.5905 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 22 of 31 A-22 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 372.24 300.96 332.64 795,615 795,615 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 372.24 300.96 332.64 795,615 795,615 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Li i ) 12.40 4.30 5.40 26.10 29.10 44.80 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.579021 0.062765 0.176333 0.114336 0.029695 0.004181 0.015593 0.003984 0.002598 0.003702 0.006580 0.000230 0.000982 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 23 of 31 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 194.5157 194.5157 8.8000e- 003 1.8200e- 003 195.2645 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 194.5157 194.5157 8.8000e- 003 1.8200e- 003 195.2645 NaturalGas Mitigated 6.3000e- 003 0.0539 0.0229 3.4000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 62.3655 62.3655 1.2000e- 003 1.1400e- 003 62.7450 NaturalGas Unmitigated 6.3000e- 003 0.0539 0.0229 3.4000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 62.3655 62.3655 1.2000e- 003 1.1400e- 003 62.7450 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 Enclosed 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 1.16868e +006 6.3000e- 003 0.0539 0.0229 3.4000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 62.3655 62.3655 1.2000e- 003 1.1400e- 003 62.7450 Total 6.3000e- 003 0.0539 0.0229 3.4000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 62.3655 62.3655 1.2000e- 003 1.1400e- 003 62.7450 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 24 of 31 A-23 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 Enclosed 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 1.16868e +006 6.3000e- 003 0.0539 0.0229 3.4000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 62.3655 62.3655 1.2000e- 003 1.1400e- 003 62.7450 Total 6.3000e- 003 0.0539 0.0229 3.4000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 62.3655 62.3655 1.2000e- 003 1.1400e- 003 62.7450 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 477226 138.8306 6.2800e- 003 1.3000e- 003 139.3650 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 191416 55.6851 2.5200e- 003 5.2000e- 004 55.8995 Total 194.5157 8.8000e- 003 1.8200e- 003 195.2645 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 25 of 31 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 0.8504 0.0116 0.9942 5.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 003 5.7000e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 0.0000 6.4093 6.4093 1.7300e- 003 9.0000e- 005 6.4729 Unmitigated 0.8504 0.0116 0.9942 5.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 003 5.7000e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 0.0000 6.4093 6.4093 1.7300e- 003 9.0000e- 005 6.4729 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 477226 138.8306 6.2800e- 003 1.3000e- 003 139.3650 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 191416 55.6851 2.5200e- 003 5.2000e- 004 55.8995 Total 194.5157 8.8000e- 003 1.8200e- 003 195.2645 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 26 of 31 A-24 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 0.1206 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.6979 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 4.8076 4.8076 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.8368 Landscaping 0.0313 0.0116 0.9942 5.0000e- 005 5.3600e- 003 5.3600e- 003 5.3600e- 003 5.3600e- 003 0.0000 1.6018 1.6018 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 1.6361 Total 0.8504 0.0116 0.9942 5.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 003 5.7000e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 0.0000 6.4093 6.4093 1.7200e- 003 9.0000e- 005 6.4729 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 27 of 31 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 20.4666 0.2640 6.3700e- 003 27.9868 Unmitigated 20.4666 0.2641 6.3800e- 003 27.9909 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 0.1206 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.6979 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 4.8076 4.8076 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.8368 Landscaping 0.0313 0.0116 0.9942 5.0000e- 005 5.3600e- 003 5.3600e- 003 5.3600e- 003 5.3600e- 003 0.0000 1.6018 1.6018 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 1.6361 Total 0.8504 0.0116 0.9942 5.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 003 5.7000e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 0.0000 6.4093 6.4093 1.7200e- 003 9.0000e- 005 6.4729 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 28 of 31 A-25 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 8.0791 / 5.09335 20.4666 0.2641 6.3800e- 003 27.9909 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 20.4666 0.2641 6.3800e- 003 27.9909 Unmitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 8.0791 / 5.09335 20.4666 0.2640 6.3700e- 003 27.9868 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 20.4666 0.2640 6.3700e- 003 27.9868 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 29 of 31 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 22.9684 1.3574 0.0000 51.4737 Unmitigated 22.9684 1.3574 0.0000 51.4737 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 113.15 22.9684 1.3574 0.0000 51.4737 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 22.9684 1.3574 0.0000 51.4737 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 30 of 31 A-26 10.0 Vegetation 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 113.15 22.9684 1.3574 0.0000 51.4737 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 22.9684 1.3574 0.0000 51.4737 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:04 PMPage 31 of 31 A-27 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Land use information based on Project Description Construction Phase - Adjusted construction phases based on construction duration and activities described in Project Description Trips and VMT - Adusted haul trips for import/export of soils to match Project Description. Other construction trip assumptions left default. Demolition - Grading - Import/export information from Project Description Architectural Coating - Vehicle Trips - 372 Trips daily, default trip rates adjusted to match revised traffic analysis trip generation Woodstoves - No wood burning hearths assumed San Mateo County, Summer Peninsula Assisted Living Project 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 44.00 Space 0.65 28,400.00 0 Congregate Care (Assisted Living)132.00 Dwelling Unit 1.00 150,300.00 140 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 70 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 1 of 27 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 44.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 284.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 43.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 21.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/26/2014 9/27/2014 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/28/2014 11/30/2014 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/29/2016 1/31/2016 tblFireplaces NumberGas 68.20 100.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 17.36 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 16.13 1.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 17,000.00 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 1,575.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 17,600.00 28,400.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 132,000.00 150,300.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.65 tblLandUse LotAcreage 8.25 1.00 tblLandUse Population 378.00 140.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 2,322.00 1,400.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.20 2.28 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.44 2.52 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.74 2.82 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.62 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.62 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 2 of 27 A-28 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 2014 4.6266 34.7619 26.4401 0.0387 5.8750 1.9555 7.3591 2.9737 1.8334 4.3391 0.0000 4,001.290 3 4,001.290 3 0.6516 0.0000 4,014.974 8 2015 4.2459 24.1277 23.8418 0.0375 1.0715 1.5252 2.5967 0.2866 1.4712 1.7578 0.0000 3,475.382 5 3,475.382 5 0.5320 0.0000 3,486.554 6 2016 55.2656 13.2711 9.8020 0.0148 0.1886 0.8085 0.9311 0.0500 0.7447 0.7772 0.0000 1,492.240 0 1,492.240 0 0.4117 0.0000 1,500.884 9 Total 64.1381 72.1608 60.0839 0.0910 7.1352 4.2891 10.8868 3.3103 4.0493 6.8740 0.0000 8,968.912 8 8,968.912 8 1.5953 0.0000 9,002.414 2 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 2014 4.6266 34.7619 26.4401 0.0387 5.8750 1.9555 7.3591 2.9737 1.8334 4.3391 0.0000 4,001.290 3 4,001.290 3 0.6516 0.0000 4,014.974 8 2015 4.2459 24.1277 23.8418 0.0375 1.0715 1.5252 2.5967 0.2866 1.4712 1.7578 0.0000 3,475.382 5 3,475.382 5 0.5320 0.0000 3,486.554 6 2016 55.2656 13.2711 9.8020 0.0148 0.1886 0.8085 0.9311 0.0500 0.7447 0.7772 0.0000 1,492.240 0 1,492.240 0 0.4117 0.0000 1,500.884 9 Total 64.1381 72.1608 60.0839 0.0910 7.1352 4.2891 10.8868 3.3103 4.0493 6.8740 0.0000 8,968.912 8 8,968.912 8 1.5953 0.0000 9,002.414 2 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 3 of 27 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.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 4 of 27 A-29 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 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 Energy 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Mobile 1.1918 2.0513 11.4600 0.0236 1.7591 0.0294 1.7886 0.4702 0.0270 0.4972 2,049.896 1 2,049.896 1 0.0907 2,051.800 6 Total 6.2861 2.4756 22.6444 0.0260 1.7591 0.2693 2.0285 0.4702 0.2653 0.7355 0.0000 4,916.794 0 4,916.794 0 0.1653 0.0522 4,936.446 8 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 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 Energy 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Mobile 1.1918 2.0513 11.4600 0.0236 1.7591 0.0294 1.7886 0.4702 0.0270 0.4972 2,049.896 1 2,049.896 1 0.0907 2,051.800 6 Total 6.2861 2.4756 22.6444 0.0260 1.7591 0.2693 2.0285 0.4702 0.2653 0.7355 0.0000 4,916.794 0 4,916.794 0 0.1653 0.0522 4,936.446 8 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 5 of 27 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 9/1/2014 9/27/2014 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/28/2014 9/30/2014 5 2 3 Grading Grading 10/1/2014 11/30/2014 5 43 4 Building Construction Building Construction 12/1/2014 12/31/2015 5 284 5 Paving Paving 1/1/2016 1/31/2016 5 21 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2016 3/31/2016 5 44 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: 304,358; Residential Outdoor: 101,453; Non-Residential Indoor: 42,600; Non-Residential Outdoor: 14,200 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 6 of 27 A-30 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 8.00 255 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 255 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 6.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 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 6.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 6.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 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.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 7 of 27 3.2 Demolition - 2014 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 0.5316 0.0000 0.5316 0.0805 0.0000 0.0805 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1589 30.4755 22.1905 0.0245 1.9381 1.9381 1.8174 1.8174 2,529.736 9 2,529.736 9 0.6423 2,543.225 1 Total 3.1589 30.4755 22.1905 0.0245 0.5316 1.9381 2.4696 0.0805 1.8174 1.8979 2,529.736 9 2,529.736 9 0.6423 2,543.225 1 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 49.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 3 8.00 0.00 1,400.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 101.00 18.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 20.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 8 of 27 A-31 3.2 Demolition - 2014 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 0.0714 0.9435 0.8829 1.7800e- 003 0.0424 0.0163 0.0587 0.0116 0.0150 0.0266 182.4293 182.4293 1.6900e- 003 182.4648 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 0.0593 0.0787 0.8809 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 1.0800e- 003 0.1237 0.0325 9.9000e- 004 0.0335 132.0996 132.0996 7.6500e- 003 132.2603 Total 0.1307 1.0222 1.7638 3.2400e- 003 0.1649 0.0174 0.1824 0.0441 0.0160 0.0601 314.5289 314.5289 9.3400e- 003 314.7251 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 0.5316 0.0000 0.5316 0.0805 0.0000 0.0805 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1589 30.4755 22.1905 0.0245 1.9381 1.9381 1.8174 1.8174 0.0000 2,529.736 9 2,529.736 9 0.6423 2,543.225 1 Total 3.1589 30.4755 22.1905 0.0245 0.5316 1.9381 2.4696 0.0805 1.8174 1.8979 0.0000 2,529.736 9 2,529.736 9 0.6423 2,543.225 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 9 of 27 3.2 Demolition - 2014 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 0.0714 0.9435 0.8829 1.7800e- 003 0.0424 0.0163 0.0587 0.0116 0.0150 0.0266 182.4293 182.4293 1.6900e- 003 182.4648 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 0.0593 0.0787 0.8809 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 1.0800e- 003 0.1237 0.0325 9.9000e- 004 0.0335 132.0996 132.0996 7.6500e- 003 132.2603 Total 0.1307 1.0222 1.7638 3.2400e- 003 0.1649 0.0174 0.1824 0.0441 0.0160 0.0601 314.5289 314.5289 9.3400e- 003 314.7251 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2014 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 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5474 27.1661 17.0975 0.0171 1.4834 1.4834 1.3647 1.3647 1,821.089 5 1,821.089 5 0.5382 1,832.390 7 Total 2.5474 27.1661 17.0975 0.0171 5.7996 1.4834 7.2830 2.9537 1.3647 4.3184 1,821.089 5 1,821.089 5 0.5382 1,832.390 7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 10 of 27 A-32 3.3 Site Preparation - 2014 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 0.0365 0.0484 0.5421 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 81.2921 81.2921 4.7100e- 003 81.3909 Total 0.0365 0.0484 0.5421 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 81.2921 81.2921 4.7100e- 003 81.3909 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 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5474 27.1661 17.0975 0.0171 1.4834 1.4834 1.3647 1.3647 0.0000 1,821.089 5 1,821.089 5 0.5382 1,832.390 7 Total 2.5474 27.1661 17.0975 0.0171 5.7996 1.4834 7.2830 2.9537 1.3647 4.3184 0.0000 1,821.089 5 1,821.089 5 0.5382 1,832.390 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 11 of 27 3.3 Site Preparation - 2014 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 0.0365 0.0484 0.5421 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 81.2921 81.2921 4.7100e- 003 81.3909 Total 0.0365 0.0484 0.5421 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 81.2921 81.2921 4.7100e- 003 81.3909 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2014 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 4.5901 0.0000 4.5901 2.4927 0.0000 2.4927 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0759 22.1752 14.1657 0.0141 1.2106 1.2106 1.1138 1.1138 1,495.688 8 1,495.688 8 0.4420 1,504.970 6 Total 2.0759 22.1752 14.1657 0.0141 4.5901 1.2106 5.8007 2.4927 1.1138 3.6065 1,495.688 8 1,495.688 8 0.4420 1,504.970 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 12 of 27 A-33 3.4 Grading - 2014 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 0.9489 12.5383 11.7324 0.0237 0.5627 0.2172 0.7799 0.1538 0.1998 0.3536 2,424.309 5 2,424.309 5 0.0225 2,424.781 9 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 0.0365 0.0484 0.5421 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 81.2921 81.2921 4.7100e- 003 81.3909 Total 0.9854 12.5867 12.2745 0.0246 0.6382 0.2179 0.8561 0.1738 0.2004 0.3742 2,505.601 5 2,505.601 5 0.0272 2,506.172 8 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 4.5901 0.0000 4.5901 2.4927 0.0000 2.4927 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0759 22.1752 14.1657 0.0141 1.2106 1.2106 1.1138 1.1138 0.0000 1,495.688 7 1,495.688 7 0.4420 1,504.970 6 Total 2.0759 22.1752 14.1657 0.0141 4.5901 1.2106 5.8007 2.4927 1.1138 3.6065 0.0000 1,495.688 7 1,495.688 7 0.4420 1,504.970 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 13 of 27 3.4 Grading - 2014 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 0.9489 12.5383 11.7324 0.0237 0.5627 0.2172 0.7799 0.1538 0.1998 0.3536 2,424.309 5 2,424.309 5 0.0225 2,424.781 9 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 0.0365 0.0484 0.5421 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 81.2921 81.2921 4.7100e- 003 81.3909 Total 0.9854 12.5867 12.2745 0.0246 0.6382 0.2179 0.8561 0.1738 0.2004 0.3742 2,505.601 5 2,505.601 5 0.0272 2,506.172 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 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 3.9077 22.5327 15.3098 0.0220 1.5957 1.5957 1.5432 1.5432 2,064.079 7 2,064.079 7 0.5005 2,074.589 3 Total 3.9077 22.5327 15.3098 0.0220 1.5957 1.5957 1.5432 1.5432 2,064.079 7 2,064.079 7 0.5005 2,074.589 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 14 of 27 A-34 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 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 0.2580 2.3346 2.8834 4.2100e- 003 0.1190 0.0442 0.1632 0.0339 0.0407 0.0746 429.5955 429.5955 4.4200e- 003 429.6883 Worker 0.4609 0.6114 6.8440 0.0114 0.9525 8.4200e- 003 0.9609 0.2526 7.6700e- 003 0.2603 1,026.312 3 1,026.312 3 0.0595 1,027.560 7 Total 0.7189 2.9460 9.7274 0.0156 1.0715 0.0527 1.1241 0.2866 0.0483 0.3349 1,455.907 8 1,455.907 8 0.0639 1,457.248 9 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 3.9077 22.5327 15.3098 0.0220 1.5957 1.5957 1.5432 1.5432 0.0000 2,064.079 7 2,064.079 7 0.5005 2,074.589 3 Total 3.9077 22.5327 15.3098 0.0220 1.5957 1.5957 1.5432 1.5432 0.0000 2,064.079 7 2,064.079 7 0.5005 2,074.589 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 15 of 27 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 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 0.2580 2.3346 2.8834 4.2100e- 003 0.1190 0.0442 0.1632 0.0339 0.0407 0.0746 429.5955 429.5955 4.4200e- 003 429.6883 Worker 0.4609 0.6114 6.8440 0.0114 0.9525 8.4200e- 003 0.9609 0.2526 7.6700e- 003 0.2603 1,026.312 3 1,026.312 3 0.0595 1,027.560 7 Total 0.7189 2.9460 9.7274 0.0156 1.0715 0.0527 1.1241 0.2866 0.0483 0.3349 1,455.907 8 1,455.907 8 0.0639 1,457.248 9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 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 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Total 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 16 of 27 A-35 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 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 0.2328 2.0154 2.6939 4.2100e- 003 0.1191 0.0323 0.1514 0.0340 0.0297 0.0636 425.5195 425.5195 3.7400e- 003 425.5981 Worker 0.4130 0.5482 6.1438 0.0113 0.9525 7.8000e- 003 0.9603 0.2526 7.1300e- 003 0.2598 994.2383 994.2383 0.0541 995.3753 Total 0.6458 2.5636 8.8377 0.0156 1.0715 0.0401 1.1116 0.2866 0.0368 0.3234 1,419.757 9 1,419.757 9 0.0579 1,420.973 4 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 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 0.0000 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Total 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 0.0000 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 17 of 27 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 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 0.2328 2.0154 2.6939 4.2100e- 003 0.1191 0.0323 0.1514 0.0340 0.0297 0.0636 425.5195 425.5195 3.7400e- 003 425.5981 Worker 0.4130 0.5482 6.1438 0.0113 0.9525 7.8000e- 003 0.9603 0.2526 7.1300e- 003 0.2598 994.2383 994.2383 0.0541 995.3753 Total 0.6458 2.5636 8.8377 0.0156 1.0715 0.0401 1.1116 0.2866 0.0368 0.3234 1,419.757 9 1,419.757 9 0.0579 1,420.973 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2016 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 1.2872 13.2076 9.0880 0.0133 0.8075 0.8075 0.7438 0.7438 1,368.436 6 1,368.436 6 0.4053 1,376.947 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2872 13.2076 9.0880 0.0133 0.8075 0.8075 0.7438 0.7438 1,368.436 6 1,368.436 6 0.4053 1,376.947 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 18 of 27 A-36 3.6 Paving - 2016 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 0.0480 0.0636 0.7141 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 9.5000e- 004 0.1235 0.0325 8.7000e- 004 0.0334 123.8034 123.8034 6.3900e- 003 123.9375 Total 0.0480 0.0636 0.7141 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 9.5000e- 004 0.1235 0.0325 8.7000e- 004 0.0334 123.8034 123.8034 6.3900e- 003 123.9375 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 1.2872 13.2076 9.0880 0.0133 0.8075 0.8075 0.7438 0.7438 0.0000 1,368.436 6 1,368.436 6 0.4053 1,376.947 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2872 13.2076 9.0880 0.0133 0.8075 0.8075 0.7438 0.7438 0.0000 1,368.436 6 1,368.436 6 0.4053 1,376.947 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 19 of 27 3.6 Paving - 2016 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 0.0480 0.0636 0.7141 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 9.5000e- 004 0.1235 0.0325 8.7000e- 004 0.0334 123.8034 123.8034 6.3900e- 003 123.9375 Total 0.0480 0.0636 0.7141 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 9.5000e- 004 0.1235 0.0325 8.7000e- 004 0.0334 123.8034 123.8034 6.3900e- 003 123.9375 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016 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 54.8234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Total 55.1918 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 20 of 27 A-37 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016 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 0.0738 0.0978 1.0985 2.2400e- 003 0.1886 1.4600e- 003 0.1901 0.0500 1.3400e- 003 0.0514 190.4668 190.4668 9.8300e- 003 190.6731 Total 0.0738 0.0978 1.0985 2.2400e- 003 0.1886 1.4600e- 003 0.1901 0.0500 1.3400e- 003 0.0514 190.4668 190.4668 9.8300e- 003 190.6731 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 54.8234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Total 55.1918 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 21 of 27 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 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 1.1918 2.0513 11.4600 0.0236 1.7591 0.0294 1.7886 0.4702 0.0270 0.4972 2,049.896 1 2,049.896 1 0.0907 2,051.800 6 Unmitigated 1.1918 2.0513 11.4600 0.0236 1.7591 0.0294 1.7886 0.4702 0.0270 0.4972 2,049.896 1 2,049.896 1 0.0907 2,051.800 6 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016 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 0.0738 0.0978 1.0985 2.2400e- 003 0.1886 1.4600e- 003 0.1901 0.0500 1.3400e- 003 0.0514 190.4668 190.4668 9.8300e- 003 190.6731 Total 0.0738 0.0978 1.0985 2.2400e- 003 0.1886 1.4600e- 003 0.1901 0.0500 1.3400e- 003 0.0514 190.4668 190.4668 9.8300e- 003 190.6731 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 22 of 27 A-38 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 372.24 300.96 332.64 795,615 795,615 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 372.24 300.96 332.64 795,615 795,615 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Li i ) 12.40 4.30 5.40 26.10 29.10 44.80 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.579021 0.062765 0.176333 0.114336 0.029695 0.004181 0.015593 0.003984 0.002598 0.003702 0.006580 0.000230 0.000982 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 23 of 27 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 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3201.88 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Enclosed 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 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 24 of 27 A-39 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 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 Unmitigated 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 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 Enclosed 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3.20188 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Total 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 25 of 27 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 0.6609 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 3.8242 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.2265 1.0000e- 005 0.0124 0.0000 0.1565 0.1565 0.1548 0.1548 0.0000 2,470.588 2 2,470.588 2 0.0474 0.0453 2,485.623 8 Landscaping 0.3482 0.1292 11.0465 5.8000e- 004 0.0596 0.0596 0.0596 0.0596 19.6185 19.6185 0.0200 20.0387 Total 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 26 of 27 A-40 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 10.0 Vegetation 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 0.6609 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 3.8242 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.2265 1.0000e- 005 0.0124 0.0000 0.1565 0.1565 0.1548 0.1548 0.0000 2,470.588 2 2,470.588 2 0.0474 0.0453 2,485.623 8 Landscaping 0.3482 0.1292 11.0465 5.8000e- 004 0.0596 0.0596 0.0596 0.0596 19.6185 19.6185 0.0200 20.0387 Total 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:08 PMPage 27 of 27 A-41 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Land use information based on Project Description Construction Phase - Adjusted construction phases based on construction duration and activities described in Project Description Trips and VMT - Adusted haul trips for import/export of soils to match Project Description. Other construction trip assumptions left default. Demolition - Grading - Import/export information from Project Description Architectural Coating - Vehicle Trips - 372 Trips daily, default trip rates adjusted to match revised traffic analysis trip generation Woodstoves - No wood burning hearths assumed San Mateo County, Winter Peninsula Assisted Living Project 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 44.00 Space 0.65 28,400.00 0 Congregate Care (Assisted Living)132.00 Dwelling Unit 1.00 150,300.00 140 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 70 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 1 of 27 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 44.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 284.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 43.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 21.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/26/2014 9/27/2014 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/28/2014 11/30/2014 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/29/2016 1/31/2016 tblFireplaces NumberGas 68.20 100.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 17.36 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 16.13 1.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 17,000.00 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 1,575.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 17,600.00 28,400.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 132,000.00 150,300.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.65 tblLandUse LotAcreage 8.25 1.00 tblLandUse Population 378.00 140.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 2,322.00 1,400.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.20 2.28 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.44 2.52 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.74 2.82 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.62 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.62 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 2 of 27 A-42 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 2014 4.7147 35.5136 29.5113 0.0386 5.8750 1.9556 7.3591 2.9737 1.8335 4.3391 0.0000 3,990.564 1 3,990.564 1 0.6517 0.0000 4,004.249 0 2015 4.3247 24.3592 25.1041 0.0368 1.0715 1.5256 2.5971 0.2866 1.4716 1.7581 0.0000 3,412.420 1 3,412.420 1 0.5321 0.0000 3,423.594 0 2016 55.2691 13.2861 9.8049 0.0147 0.1886 0.8085 0.9311 0.0500 0.7447 0.7772 0.0000 1,484.809 0 1,484.809 0 0.4117 0.0000 1,493.453 9 Total 64.3085 73.1590 64.4202 0.0901 7.1352 4.2896 10.8873 3.3103 4.0497 6.8744 0.0000 8,887.793 2 8,887.793 2 1.5954 0.0000 8,921.296 9 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 2014 4.7147 35.5136 29.5113 0.0386 5.8750 1.9556 7.3591 2.9737 1.8335 4.3391 0.0000 3,990.564 1 3,990.564 1 0.6517 0.0000 4,004.249 0 2015 4.3247 24.3592 25.1041 0.0368 1.0715 1.5256 2.5971 0.2866 1.4716 1.7581 0.0000 3,412.420 1 3,412.420 1 0.5321 0.0000 3,423.594 0 2016 55.2691 13.2861 9.8049 0.0147 0.1886 0.8085 0.9311 0.0500 0.7447 0.7772 0.0000 1,484.809 0 1,484.809 0 0.4117 0.0000 1,493.453 9 Total 64.3085 73.1590 64.4202 0.0901 7.1352 4.2896 10.8873 3.3103 4.0497 6.8744 0.0000 8,887.793 2 8,887.793 2 1.5954 0.0000 8,921.296 9 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 3 of 27 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.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 4 of 27 A-43 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 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 Energy 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Mobile 1.2682 2.3241 12.7695 0.0224 1.7591 0.0296 1.7887 0.4702 0.0272 0.4974 1,946.385 7 1,946.385 7 0.0907 1,948.290 8 Total 6.3624 2.7484 23.9539 0.0248 1.7591 0.2695 2.0286 0.4702 0.2654 0.7356 0.0000 4,813.283 7 4,813.283 7 0.1653 0.0522 4,832.937 1 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 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 Energy 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Mobile 1.2682 2.3241 12.7695 0.0224 1.7591 0.0296 1.7887 0.4702 0.0272 0.4974 1,946.385 7 1,946.385 7 0.0907 1,948.290 8 Total 6.3624 2.7484 23.9539 0.0248 1.7591 0.2695 2.0286 0.4702 0.2654 0.7356 0.0000 4,813.283 7 4,813.283 7 0.1653 0.0522 4,832.937 1 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 5 of 27 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 9/1/2014 9/27/2014 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/28/2014 9/30/2014 5 2 3 Grading Grading 10/1/2014 11/30/2014 5 43 4 Building Construction Building Construction 12/1/2014 12/31/2015 5 284 5 Paving Paving 1/1/2016 1/31/2016 5 21 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2016 3/31/2016 5 44 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: 304,358; Residential Outdoor: 101,453; Non-Residential Indoor: 42,600; Non-Residential Outdoor: 14,200 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 6 of 27 A-44 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 8.00 255 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 255 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 6.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 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 6.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 6.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 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.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 7 of 27 3.2 Demolition - 2014 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 0.5316 0.0000 0.5316 0.0805 0.0000 0.0805 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1589 30.4755 22.1905 0.0245 1.9381 1.9381 1.8174 1.8174 2,529.736 9 2,529.736 9 0.6423 2,543.225 1 Total 3.1589 30.4755 22.1905 0.0245 0.5316 1.9381 2.4696 0.0805 1.8174 1.8979 2,529.736 9 2,529.736 9 0.6423 2,543.225 1 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 49.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 3 8.00 0.00 1,400.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 101.00 18.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 20.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 8 of 27 A-45 3.2 Demolition - 2014 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 0.0827 0.9992 1.1133 1.7800e- 003 0.0424 0.0164 0.0588 0.0116 0.0151 0.0267 181.9889 181.9889 1.7100e- 003 182.0248 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 0.0629 0.0972 0.8961 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 1.0800e- 003 0.1237 0.0325 9.9000e- 004 0.0335 124.1804 124.1804 7.6500e- 003 124.3411 Total 0.1455 1.0964 2.0094 3.1500e- 003 0.1649 0.0175 0.1824 0.0441 0.0161 0.0602 306.1693 306.1693 9.3600e- 003 306.3659 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 0.5316 0.0000 0.5316 0.0805 0.0000 0.0805 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1589 30.4755 22.1905 0.0245 1.9381 1.9381 1.8174 1.8174 0.0000 2,529.736 9 2,529.736 9 0.6423 2,543.225 1 Total 3.1589 30.4755 22.1905 0.0245 0.5316 1.9381 2.4696 0.0805 1.8174 1.8979 0.0000 2,529.736 9 2,529.736 9 0.6423 2,543.225 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 9 of 27 3.2 Demolition - 2014 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 0.0827 0.9992 1.1133 1.7800e- 003 0.0424 0.0164 0.0588 0.0116 0.0151 0.0267 181.9889 181.9889 1.7100e- 003 182.0248 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 0.0629 0.0972 0.8961 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 1.0800e- 003 0.1237 0.0325 9.9000e- 004 0.0335 124.1804 124.1804 7.6500e- 003 124.3411 Total 0.1455 1.0964 2.0094 3.1500e- 003 0.1649 0.0175 0.1824 0.0441 0.0161 0.0602 306.1693 306.1693 9.3600e- 003 306.3659 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2014 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 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5474 27.1661 17.0975 0.0171 1.4834 1.4834 1.3647 1.3647 1,821.089 5 1,821.089 5 0.5382 1,832.390 7 Total 2.5474 27.1661 17.0975 0.0171 5.7996 1.4834 7.2830 2.9537 1.3647 4.3184 1,821.089 5 1,821.089 5 0.5382 1,832.390 7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 10 of 27 A-46 3.3 Site Preparation - 2014 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 0.0387 0.0598 0.5515 8.5000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 76.4187 76.4187 4.7100e- 003 76.5176 Total 0.0387 0.0598 0.5515 8.5000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 76.4187 76.4187 4.7100e- 003 76.5176 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 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5474 27.1661 17.0975 0.0171 1.4834 1.4834 1.3647 1.3647 0.0000 1,821.089 5 1,821.089 5 0.5382 1,832.390 7 Total 2.5474 27.1661 17.0975 0.0171 5.7996 1.4834 7.2830 2.9537 1.3647 4.3184 0.0000 1,821.089 5 1,821.089 5 0.5382 1,832.390 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 11 of 27 3.3 Site Preparation - 2014 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 0.0387 0.0598 0.5515 8.5000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 76.4187 76.4187 4.7100e- 003 76.5176 Total 0.0387 0.0598 0.5515 8.5000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 76.4187 76.4187 4.7100e- 003 76.5176 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2014 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 4.5901 0.0000 4.5901 2.4927 0.0000 2.4927 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0759 22.1752 14.1657 0.0141 1.2106 1.2106 1.1138 1.1138 1,495.688 8 1,495.688 8 0.4420 1,504.970 6 Total 2.0759 22.1752 14.1657 0.0141 4.5901 1.2106 5.8007 2.4927 1.1138 3.6065 1,495.688 8 1,495.688 8 0.4420 1,504.970 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 12 of 27 A-47 3.4 Grading - 2014 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 1.0984 13.2786 14.7942 0.0237 0.5627 0.2181 0.7808 0.1538 0.2006 0.3544 2,418.456 7 2,418.456 7 0.0227 2,418.934 1 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 0.0387 0.0598 0.5515 8.5000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 76.4187 76.4187 4.7100e- 003 76.5176 Total 1.1371 13.3384 15.3456 0.0245 0.6382 0.2187 0.8569 0.1738 0.2012 0.3750 2,494.875 4 2,494.875 4 0.0275 2,495.451 7 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 4.5901 0.0000 4.5901 2.4927 0.0000 2.4927 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0759 22.1752 14.1657 0.0141 1.2106 1.2106 1.1138 1.1138 0.0000 1,495.688 7 1,495.688 7 0.4420 1,504.970 6 Total 2.0759 22.1752 14.1657 0.0141 4.5901 1.2106 5.8007 2.4927 1.1138 3.6065 0.0000 1,495.688 7 1,495.688 7 0.4420 1,504.970 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 13 of 27 3.4 Grading - 2014 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 1.0984 13.2786 14.7942 0.0237 0.5627 0.2181 0.7808 0.1538 0.2006 0.3544 2,418.456 7 2,418.456 7 0.0227 2,418.934 1 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 0.0387 0.0598 0.5515 8.5000e- 004 0.0754 6.7000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 6.1000e- 004 0.0206 76.4187 76.4187 4.7100e- 003 76.5176 Total 1.1371 13.3384 15.3456 0.0245 0.6382 0.2187 0.8569 0.1738 0.2012 0.3750 2,494.875 4 2,494.875 4 0.0275 2,495.451 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 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 3.9077 22.5327 15.3098 0.0220 1.5957 1.5957 1.5432 1.5432 2,064.079 7 2,064.079 7 0.5005 2,074.589 3 Total 3.9077 22.5327 15.3098 0.0220 1.5957 1.5957 1.5432 1.5432 2,064.079 7 2,064.079 7 0.5005 2,074.589 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 14 of 27 A-48 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 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 0.3186 2.4540 4.1083 4.2000e- 003 0.1190 0.0448 0.1638 0.0339 0.0412 0.0751 426.2768 426.2768 4.5100e- 003 426.3715 Worker 0.4884 0.7551 6.9622 0.0107 0.9525 8.4200e- 003 0.9609 0.2526 7.6700e- 003 0.2603 964.7865 964.7865 0.0595 966.0349 Total 0.8071 3.2091 11.0705 0.0149 1.0715 0.0532 1.1247 0.2866 0.0489 0.3354 1,391.063 3 1,391.063 3 0.0640 1,392.406 3 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 3.9077 22.5327 15.3098 0.0220 1.5957 1.5957 1.5432 1.5432 0.0000 2,064.079 7 2,064.079 7 0.5005 2,074.589 3 Total 3.9077 22.5327 15.3098 0.0220 1.5957 1.5957 1.5432 1.5432 0.0000 2,064.079 7 2,064.079 7 0.5005 2,074.589 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 15 of 27 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 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 0.3186 2.4540 4.1083 4.2000e- 003 0.1190 0.0448 0.1638 0.0339 0.0412 0.0751 426.2768 426.2768 4.5100e- 003 426.3715 Worker 0.4884 0.7551 6.9622 0.0107 0.9525 8.4200e- 003 0.9609 0.2526 7.6700e- 003 0.2603 964.7865 964.7865 0.0595 966.0349 Total 0.8071 3.2091 11.0705 0.0149 1.0715 0.0532 1.1247 0.2866 0.0489 0.3354 1,391.063 3 1,391.063 3 0.0640 1,392.406 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 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 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Total 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 16 of 27 A-49 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 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 0.2895 2.1178 3.8910 4.2000e- 003 0.1191 0.0327 0.1518 0.0340 0.0301 0.0640 422.2071 422.2071 3.8300e- 003 422.2875 Worker 0.4352 0.6773 6.2090 0.0107 0.9525 7.8000e- 003 0.9603 0.2526 7.1300e- 003 0.2598 934.5883 934.5883 0.0541 935.7253 Total 0.7246 2.7951 10.1000 0.0149 1.0715 0.0405 1.1120 0.2866 0.0372 0.3238 1,356.795 4 1,356.795 4 0.0580 1,358.012 8 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 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 0.0000 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Total 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 0.0000 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 17 of 27 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 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 0.2895 2.1178 3.8910 4.2000e- 003 0.1191 0.0327 0.1518 0.0340 0.0301 0.0640 422.2071 422.2071 3.8300e- 003 422.2875 Worker 0.4352 0.6773 6.2090 0.0107 0.9525 7.8000e- 003 0.9603 0.2526 7.1300e- 003 0.2598 934.5883 934.5883 0.0541 935.7253 Total 0.7246 2.7951 10.1000 0.0149 1.0715 0.0405 1.1120 0.2866 0.0372 0.3238 1,356.795 4 1,356.795 4 0.0580 1,358.012 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2016 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 1.2872 13.2076 9.0880 0.0133 0.8075 0.8075 0.7438 0.7438 1,368.436 6 1,368.436 6 0.4053 1,376.947 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2872 13.2076 9.0880 0.0133 0.8075 0.8075 0.7438 0.7438 1,368.436 6 1,368.436 6 0.4053 1,376.947 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 18 of 27 A-50 3.6 Paving - 2016 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 0.0503 0.0786 0.7169 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 9.5000e- 004 0.1235 0.0325 8.7000e- 004 0.0334 116.3724 116.3724 6.3900e- 003 116.5065 Total 0.0503 0.0786 0.7169 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 9.5000e- 004 0.1235 0.0325 8.7000e- 004 0.0334 116.3724 116.3724 6.3900e- 003 116.5065 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 1.2872 13.2076 9.0880 0.0133 0.8075 0.8075 0.7438 0.7438 0.0000 1,368.436 6 1,368.436 6 0.4053 1,376.947 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2872 13.2076 9.0880 0.0133 0.8075 0.8075 0.7438 0.7438 0.0000 1,368.436 6 1,368.436 6 0.4053 1,376.947 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 19 of 27 3.6 Paving - 2016 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 0.0503 0.0786 0.7169 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 9.5000e- 004 0.1235 0.0325 8.7000e- 004 0.0334 116.3724 116.3724 6.3900e- 003 116.5065 Total 0.0503 0.0786 0.7169 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 9.5000e- 004 0.1235 0.0325 8.7000e- 004 0.0334 116.3724 116.3724 6.3900e- 003 116.5065 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016 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 54.8234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Total 55.1918 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 20 of 27 A-51 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016 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 0.0773 0.1209 1.1029 2.1100e- 003 0.1886 1.4600e- 003 0.1901 0.0500 1.3400e- 003 0.0514 179.0345 179.0345 9.8300e- 003 179.2408 Total 0.0773 0.1209 1.1029 2.1100e- 003 0.1886 1.4600e- 003 0.1901 0.0500 1.3400e- 003 0.0514 179.0345 179.0345 9.8300e- 003 179.2408 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 54.8234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Total 55.1918 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 21 of 27 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 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 1.2682 2.3241 12.7695 0.0224 1.7591 0.0296 1.7887 0.4702 0.0272 0.4974 1,946.385 7 1,946.385 7 0.0907 1,948.290 8 Unmitigated 1.2682 2.3241 12.7695 0.0224 1.7591 0.0296 1.7887 0.4702 0.0272 0.4974 1,946.385 7 1,946.385 7 0.0907 1,948.290 8 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016 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 0.0773 0.1209 1.1029 2.1100e- 003 0.1886 1.4600e- 003 0.1901 0.0500 1.3400e- 003 0.0514 179.0345 179.0345 9.8300e- 003 179.2408 Total 0.0773 0.1209 1.1029 2.1100e- 003 0.1886 1.4600e- 003 0.1901 0.0500 1.3400e- 003 0.0514 179.0345 179.0345 9.8300e- 003 179.2408 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 22 of 27 A-52 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 372.24 300.96 332.64 795,615 795,615 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 372.24 300.96 332.64 795,615 795,615 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Li i ) 12.40 4.30 5.40 26.10 29.10 44.80 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.579021 0.062765 0.176333 0.114336 0.029695 0.004181 0.015593 0.003984 0.002598 0.003702 0.006580 0.000230 0.000982 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 23 of 27 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 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3201.88 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Enclosed 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 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 24 of 27 A-53 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 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 Unmitigated 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 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 Enclosed 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 Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3.20188 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Total 0.0345 0.2951 0.1256 1.8800e- 003 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 0.0239 376.6912 376.6912 7.2200e- 003 6.9100e- 003 378.9837 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 25 of 27 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 0.6609 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 3.8242 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.2265 1.0000e- 005 0.0124 0.0000 0.1565 0.1565 0.1548 0.1548 0.0000 2,470.588 2 2,470.588 2 0.0474 0.0453 2,485.623 8 Landscaping 0.3482 0.1292 11.0465 5.8000e- 004 0.0596 0.0596 0.0596 0.0596 19.6185 19.6185 0.0200 20.0387 Total 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 26 of 27 A-54 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 10.0 Vegetation 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 0.6609 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 3.8242 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.2265 1.0000e- 005 0.0124 0.0000 0.1565 0.1565 0.1548 0.1548 0.0000 2,470.588 2 2,470.588 2 0.0474 0.0453 2,485.623 8 Landscaping 0.3482 0.1292 11.0465 5.8000e- 004 0.0596 0.0596 0.0596 0.0596 19.6185 19.6185 0.0200 20.0387 Total 5.0597 0.1293 11.0589 5.8000e- 004 0.2161 0.2161 0.2144 0.2144 0.0000 2,490.206 8 2,490.206 8 0.0674 0.0453 2,505.662 6 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/14/2014 12:11 PMPage 27 of 27 A-55 Operational TAC SummaryDistance (ft) Plant # FacilityCancer Risk HI PM2.5[] Cancer RiskHI PM2.5[]800 18931 Verizon Wireless7.462295 0.002637 0.002 0.45 0.00016 0.00012 adjusted using diesel distance multipier900 2227 Mills Peninsula Medical Center1.7 0.00379 0.005329 1.7 0.00382440.005428added the last generator source after adjusted just that 950 14472 City of Burlingame37.8179670.0133380.009 1.891 0.00067 0.00045 adjusted using diesel distance multipier90 12143 Lux Cleaners11.2 0.0299 0 11.2 0.0299 0 no adjustment885 5415 Holiday Cleaners16.5 0.0439 0 0 0 0 updated info ‐ no risk/[] from this source950 G10750 Burlingame Police Station5.1716840.006953 na 0.0818 0.00011 na adjusted using gas station multiplier875 16521 San Mateo Medical Center Burlingame Long 3.808 n/a 0.011937 3.808 n/a 0.011937 no adjustmentTOTAL 19.1308 0.03466440.017935Cancer Risk Chronic Acute PM2.5[]Roadway Highway 82 @ 500'1.528 0.002 0.004 0.022 from Google Earth screening valuesUnadjustedSourceAdjustedA-56 Burlingame Construction Screening3rd Tri‐Birth 0 to 22 to 1616 to 70 TotalDPM2.41E‐01 1.10E+00 2.49E‐06 1.75E‐05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.00E‐05 5 0.0048236DPM2.41E‐01 1.10E+00 0.00E+00 1.48E‐05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.48E‐05 5 0.0048236DPM1.10E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 50DPM1.10E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 50TOTALS3.48E‐050.010Cancer RiskChronic HICancer Risk Inputs Year 1Age CategoryDaily Breathing RateInhalation Absorption Rate days/year yearsDays in 70 YearsChild Risk FactorFraction of Time at Home3rd tri ‐ birth361 1 260 0.3 1.00E‐06 2555010 0.850 to 21090 1 260 0.7 1.00E‐06 2555010 0.852 to 1674512601.00E‐06 255503 0.7216 to 7029012601.00E‐06 255501 0.73Cancer Risk Inputs Year 2Age CategoryDaily Breathing RateInhalation Absorption Rate days/year yearsDays in 70 YearsChild Risk FactorFraction of Time at Home3rd tri ‐ birth361 1 154 1.00E‐06 2555010 0.850 to 21090 1 154 1 1.00E‐06 2555010 0.852 to 1674511541.00E‐06 255503 0.7216 to 7029011541.00E‐06 255501 0.73Cancer Risk Inputs Year 3Age CategoryDaily Breathing RateInhalation Absorption Rate days/year yearsDays in 70 YearsChild Risk FactorFraction of Time at Home3rd tri ‐ birth36112601.00E‐06 2555010 0.850 to 2109012601.00E‐06 2555010 0.852 to 1674512601.00E‐06 255503 0.7216 to 7029012601.00E‐06 255501 0.73Cancer Risk Inputs Year 4Age CategoryDaily Breathing RateInhalation Absorption Rate days/year yearsDays in 70 YearsChild Risk FactorFraction of Time at Home3rd tri ‐ birth36112141.00E‐06 2555010 0.850 to 2109012141.00E‐06 2555010 0.852 to 1674512141.00E‐06 255503 0.7216 to 7029012141.00E‐06 255501 0.73Chronic HIChronic RELCancer Risk (in a million)PollutantAdjusted Concentration Cancer Potency Factor (slope A-57 Burlingame Construction Screening3rd Tri‐Birth 0 to 22 to 1616 to 70 TotalDPM2.41E‐01 1.10E+00 2.49E‐06 1.75E‐05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.00E‐05 5 0.0048236DPM2.41E‐01 1.10E+00 0.00E+00 1.48E‐05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.48E‐05 5 0.0048236DPM1.10E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 50DPM1.10E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 50TOTALS3.48E‐050.010Cancer RiskChronic HICancer Risk Inputs Year 1Age CategoryDaily Breathing RateInhalation Absorption Rate days/year yearsDays in 70 YearsChild Risk FactorFraction of Time at Home3rd tri ‐ birth361 1 260 0.3 1.00E‐06 2555010 0.850 to 21090 1 260 0.7 1.00E‐06 2555010 0.852 to 1674512601.00E‐06 255503 0.7216 to 7029012601.00E‐06 255501 0.73Cancer Risk Inputs Year 2Age CategoryDaily Breathing RateInhalation Absorption Rate days/year yearsDays in 70 YearsChild Risk FactorFraction of Time at Home3rd tri ‐ birth361 1 154 1.00E‐06 2555010 0.850 to 21090 1 154 1 1.00E‐06 2555010 0.852 to 1674511541.00E‐06 255503 0.7216 to 7029011541.00E‐06 255501 0.73Cancer Risk Inputs Year 3Age CategoryDaily Breathing RateInhalation Absorption Rate days/year yearsDays in 70 YearsChild Risk FactorFraction of Time at Home3rd tri ‐ birth36112601.00E‐06 2555010 0.850 to 2109012601.00E‐06 2555010 0.852 to 1674512601.00E‐06 255503 0.7216 to 7029012601.00E‐06 255501 0.73Cancer Risk Inputs Year 4Age CategoryDaily Breathing RateInhalation Absorption Rate days/year yearsDays in 70 YearsChild Risk FactorFraction of Time at Home3rd tri ‐ birth36112141.00E‐06 2555010 0.850 to 2109012141.00E‐06 2555010 0.852 to 1674512141.00E‐06 255503 0.7216 to 7029012141.00E‐06 255501 0.73Chronic HIChronic RELCancer Risk (in a million)PollutantAdjusted Concentration Cancer Potency Factor (slope A-58 Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility B-1 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 APPENDIX B Noise This page intentionally left blank B-2 6 August 2013 Gabriel Fonseca SmithGroupJJR 301 Battery Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Email: gabriel.fonseca@smithgroupjjr.com Subject: PHCD, Burlingame, CA – Environmental Noise Study DRAFT CSA Project: 13-0369 Dear Gabriel: As requested, we conducted an environmental noise study for the Peninsula Health Care District (PHCD) Residential Care Facility for the Elderly in Burlingame between 16 and 18 July 2013. The purpose of the study was to quantify the existing noise environment at the site and to recommend mitigation measures so that the project meets City and State standards. This letter summarizes the project’s acoustical standards, data obtained from our on-site acoustical measurements, and mitigation measures that would allow the project to meet the criteria. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To meet City and State requirements, some exterior window and door assemblies need to be sound- rated. Additionally, some units must be furnished with an alternative method of supplying fresh air while the windows are closed (e.g., mechanical ventilation). DESCRIPTION The PHCD Residential Care Facility for the Elderly is located near the Mills-Peninsula Hospital in Burlingame, approximately 550 feet southwest of Highway 82 and approximately 1100 feet southwest of railroad tracks. The site is bounded by Trousdale Drive to the southeast, Magnolia Avenue to the northeast, and existing commercial buildings to the northwest and southwest. We understand that the project consists of residences in one building and includes below-grade parking and amenity spaces on the first and fourth floors. The most prominent noise sources are vehicular traffic along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA State of California – California Building Code (CBC) The California State Building Code (Title 24, Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1207) requires that the indoor noise level in new multi-family housing not exceed DNL1 45 dB where the exterior noise 1 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) – A descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to describe the average day-night level with a penalty applied to noise occurring during the nighttime hours (10 pm - 7 am) to account for the increased sensitivity of people during sleeping hours. B-3 PHCD Residential Care Facility for the Elderly Environmental Noise Study 6 August 2013 Page 2 level is greater than DNL 60 DB. City of Burlingame – Noise Element of General Plan The City of Burlingame Noise Element is consistent with the State Standards in regards to interior noise levels. Additionally, the City of Burlingame addresses outdoor noise vis-à-vis Table 4-2 (below) in the Noise Element. It indicates that an exterior CNEL2 of 60 and 65 dB or less is the maximum allowable outdoor noise level in residential and commercial areas, respectively. Table 4-2: Outdoor Noise Level Planning Criteria: Maximum Outdoor Noise Levels (dBA) Land Use Category CNEL Residential 60 Commercial 65 In certain cases where the functional use of a building is such that windows are not opened and outdoor areas are not used for any reason other than parking and walking into the building, outdoor noise levels can be ignored and indoor noise level planning criteria may be appropriate. EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT To quantify the existing noise environment at the project site, we conducted two long-term 72-hour measurements (L1 and L2 on Figure 1, enclosed) on 16 through 18 July 2013. Additionally, we conducted three short-term 15-minute measurements (S1, S2, and S3 on Figure 1) on 18 July 2013. Table 1 below summarizes the acoustical measurements. A one-decibel increase in CNEL was added to the data to account for future traffic increases3. 2 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) – A descriptor for the 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. The CNEL concept accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. Sound levels during the hours from 7 pm to 10 pm are penalized five decibels; sound levels during the hours from 10 pm to 7 am are penalized 10 decibels. A 10-decibel increase in sound level is perceived by people to be a doubling of loudness. There is less than one-decibel difference between DNL and CNEL. 3 Caltrans assumes a traffic volume increase of three-percent per year, which corresponds to a one-decibel increase over ten years. B-4 PHCD Residential Care Facility for the Elderly Environmental Noise Study 6 August 2013 Page 3 Table 1: Measured On-Site Data Monitor Location Measured CNEL L1 25’ southwest from Magnolia Avenue 200’ northwest from Trousdale Drive 12’ above grade 68 dB L2 35’ northwest from Trousdale Drive 230’ southwest from Magnolia Avenue 12’ above grade 71 dB S1 55’ northwest from Trousdale Drive 200’ southwest from Magnolia Avenue 35’ above grade 66 dB* S2 65’ southwest from Magnolia Avenue 95’ northwest from Trousdale Drive 35’ above grade 64 dB* S3 170’ northwest from Trousdale Drive 190’ southwest from Magnolia Avenue 5’ above grade 58 dB* *Calculated from offset in CNEL of noise monitors L1 and L2 RECOMMENDATIONS Interior Noise Levels To meet the Building Code DNL 45 dB requirement, as well as the City’s CNEL 45 dB requirement, exterior facades need to be sound-rated. All exterior window and door assemblies will need to have STC4 ratings as shown in Figure 2 (enclosed). These recommendations are based on the site plan and ground floor plan dated 15 July 2013, and we have made the following assumptions in our analysis: ¥ Carpeting in bedrooms, hard-surfaced floors in all other rooms ¥ 50% window area along the facades ¥ Typical room sizes: 10’ x 10’ bedroom, 15’ x 20’ living room ¥ Typical wall construction consists of three-coat stucco finish over an insulated single stud wall Typical construction-grade dual-pane windows achieve an STC rating of 28 to 30. The selected dual- pane window systems should have two glass panes of different thicknesses. It is important to note that the STC ratings are for full window assemblies (glass and frame) rather than just the glass itself. Tested sound-rated assemblies should be used. The California Building Code requires that where windows need to be closed to achieve an indoor DNL of 45 dB, an alternative method of supplying fresh air (e.g., mechanical ventilation) must be provided. This applies to all units facing Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. This issue should be discussed with the project mechanical engineer. 4 Sound Transmission Class (STC) – A single-number rating derived from the sound insulation properties of a partition. Numerically, STC represents the number of decibels of speech sound reduction from one side of the partition to the other B-5 PHCD Residential Care Facility for the Elderly Environmental Noise Study 6 August 2013 Page 4 Exterior Noise Levels Exterior noise levels should not exceed CNEL 60 dB in residential areas. Based on the 15 July 2013 ground floor plan, this criterion would apply to the first-floor courtyard. We expect the building to adequately shield the courtyard from the roadway noise to achieve the CNEL 60 dB criteria. * * * This concludes our preliminary environmental noise study for the PHCD Residential Care Facility for the Elderly. Please send us updated plans and elevations so that we may check our assumptions and calculations. Should you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES Shanna M. Sullivan Eric A. Yee Consultant Principal Consultant Enclosures as noted B-6 Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility C-1 ESA / 140126 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 APPENDIX C Transportation This page intentionally left blank C-2 332 Pine Street | Floor 4 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: July 10, 2014 To: Cheryl Fama, Peninsula Health Care District Copy to: Joel Roos, Pacific Union Development Company Gabriel Fonseca, SmithGroup From: Jane Bierstedt Michale Hawkins Subject: 1600 Trousdale Drive Trip Generation, Parking and Site Access SF13-0675 This memorandum describes the transportation system serving the site and presents vehicle trip generation estimates for the proposed assisted living facility to be located at 1600 Trousdale Drive in Burlingame, California. It also addresses parking and site access. It is an update to the memorandum dated August 28, 2013 and presents additional trip generation estimates for a lightly larger development with the associated effects on Traffic operations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue in Burlingame, California. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The site currently contains an 8,200-square foot building that houses the Peninsula Health Care District. The proposed project will redevelop the site with an assisted living/memory care facility containing a total of 124 units, including four two-bedroom units for a total of 128 beds. An alternative development scheme could provide up to 132 units, including eight two-bedroom units for a total of 140 beds. The building would have a footprint of approximately 22,000 square feet and a total gross area of approximately 150,332 square feet, including a five and six story above grade component and one level below grade. Vehicular site access will be provided by a driveway located on Trousdale Drive. The truck dock would be accessed from Magnolia Avenue. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. C-3 El Camino Rea l El C a m i n o R e a l Cali f o r n i a D r i v e Trousdale DriveCalt r a i n Murchison DriveRay DriveMillbrae Avenue Se q u o i a A v e n u e Davis DriveQu e s a d a W a y Bal b o a W a y Alb e m a r l e W a y We s t m o o r R o a d Pinon AvenueM a r c e l l a W a y Devereaux DriveLa s s e n W a y M a r c o P o l o W a y O g d e n D r i v e M a g n o l i a A v e Co r o n a d o W a y Dr a k e A v e n u eClarice LaneRosedale AvenueDufferin AvenueGarden Dri v e South Magnolia Avenue Clovelly LaneM o n t e C o r v i n o W a y Hamilton LaneKillarney LaneRay Court Davis Co urt Ma r c o P o l o W a y CALIFORNIA82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PROJECT SITE AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 1 Not to Scale N SF13-0675_1600_Trousdale_Drive\Graphics 1600 Trousdale C-4 Project Site Plan FIGURE 2SF13-0675_1600_Trousdale_Drive\Graphics C-5 Cheryl Fama July 10, 2014 Page 4 of 15 The site is located across Trousdale Drive from Mills-Peninsula Medical Center. There are retail uses between the site and El Camino Real, and primarily residential uses between the site and I- 280 (with some office and medical office uses on portions of Trousdale Drive near the site). TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The transportation system in the vicinity of the site includes roadways, rail and bus transit services, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. The site is located approximately 0.6 miles from the Millbrae Intermodal station, a station that serves Caltrain and BART, the two premier passenger rail lines in the Bay Area. ROADWAY SYSTEM Regional access to the site is provided by US 101, I-280, and El Camino Real. Local access is provided by Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. US 101 is a north-south freeway that extends north through San Francisco and south through San Jose. Near the site is has five lanes in each direction and is located approximately 0.6 miles to the northeast of the site. Access is provided by its interchange with Millbrae Avenue, approximately 1 mile from the site. I-280 is a north-south freeway that extends from San Francisco in the north to San Jose in the south. Near the site is has four lanes in each direction and is located approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest of the site. Access is provided by its interchange with Trousdale Drive. El Camino Real is a north-south arterial roadway located to the northeast of the site. The number of travel lanes on El Camino Real varies from six near its intersection with Millbrae Avenue and four near its intersection with Ray Drive. Trousdale Drive is a primarily east-west roadway that extends from I-280 to El Camino Real. It forms the southern boundary of the project site. It is four lanes wide and has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Magnolia Avenue is a primarily north-south roadway that extends from the north through Millbrae to Mills Peninsula Medical Center immediately south of the project. It forms the eastern boundary C-6 Cheryl Fama July 10, 2014 Page 5 of 15 of the project site. It is two lanes wide with a center turn lane at the Trousdale Drive intersection, and has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. RAIL AND BUS TRANSIT SERVICE The site is served by a variety of transit services, including both rail and bus. It is located 0.6 miles from the Millbrae Intermodal Station, a major station for both BART and Caltrain and a transfer station for SamTrans bus routes. The Burlingame- North BART/Caltrain shuttle provides shuttle service between the Millbrae station and nearby employment areas including Mills-Peninsula Health Services, across the street from the site. SamTrans Bus Route 46 operates on Trousdale Drive near the site and connects the Burlingame Intermediate School with the Broadway and Burlingame Caltrain stations. The site, its location in relation to the Millbrae Intermodal Station and the Broadway and Burlingame Caltrain stations, plus the routes for Burlingame North shuttle and Route 46 are shown on Figure 3. These services are described in more detail in the following sections. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) BART provides passenger rail service between Millbrae, the San Francisco International Airport, downtown San Francisco, and points in the East Bay (Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, Fremont, Concord, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Pittsburg/Bay Point). It operates between approximately 4:00 am and 12:00 am on weekdays and between 6:00 am and 12:00 am on weekends. Caltrain Caltrain provides passenger rail service between San Francisco and San Jose, with continuing service to Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The Millbrae Station is one of the baby bullet stations and has more frequent service. It would likely be used by people traveling on Caltrain between the site and points north (via the Burlingame North shuttle). The Broadway and Burlingame stations would likely be used by people traveling on Caltrain between the site and points south. San Mateo Transit District (SamTrans) SamTrans operates bus transit service throughout San Mateo County. It has several limited-stop express bus routes that operate on El Camino Real near the site: Routes 390, 391, 397, and ECR. Route 43 provides bus service between Burlingame Plaza and the San Bruno BART station. Route C-7 Cheryl Fama July 10, 2014 Page 6 of 15 46 provides bus service between the Burlingame Intermediate School and the Broadway and Burlingame Caltrain stations. It has limited service with two runs in the morning and six in the afternoon. It is included in the description of transit services as it may potentially be expanded to serve employees, residents, and visitors of the site. A map of Route 46 is shown below. BART/Caltrain Shuttle The Burlingame North BART/Caltrain Shuttle operates between the Millbrae Intermodal Station, Mills Peninsula Health Services, Sisters of Mercy, with intermediate stops at the intersections of Adeline/Balboa and Adeline/Bernal. It operates between 6:00am and 10:00 am in the morning and then again between 3:00 pm and 7:00 pm in the afternoon/evening. A map of the Burlingame North BART/Caltrain Shuttle route is shown below. SamTrans Route 46 C-8 Cheryl Fama July 10, 2014 Page 7 of 15 BART/Caltrain Shuttle C-9 1600 Trousdale Rol l i n s R o a d Cali f o r n i a D r i v e El C a m i n o R e a l El C a m i n o R e a l Trousdale DriveAd r i a n R o a d BroadwayCo r t e z A v e n u eAdeline DriveGil b r e t h R o a d Bay s h o r e H i g h w a y So u t h M c D o n n e l l R o a d Hillside DriveRichmond Drive Car o l a n A v e n u eCowan RoadCarmelita AvenueMahler RoadSanchez AvenueDavid RoadVictoria AveMillbrae AveMurchison DriveHillcrest BoulevardMa g n o l i a A v e B r o a d w a y Helen Drive La g u n a A v eRay DriveBal b o a A v e Loy o l a D r i v e Se q u o i a A v e P a lm A v e Frontera Way Davis DriveAnita Drive P o p l a r A v e Ca p u c h i n o A v e Dr a k e A v e n u e E l P a s s Pal o m a A v eTaylor BoulevardV a l l e j o D r i v e Be r n a l A v e n u e Ca b r i l l o A v e n u e E l d e r A v e Lake StreetH a z e l A v e Mariposa Drive Chadbourne AveL a u r e l A v e Ca s t e n a d a D r i v eLudeman Lane Encina Drive Qu e s a d a W a y A s h t o n A v e Bal b o a W a y H e m l o c k A v e Madera Way A v i a d o r A v e Paramount Drive Martinez DriveVa n c o u v e r A v e n u e S o u t h A s h t o n A v e Alb e m a r l e W a y Millwood Drive Easton DriveWe s t m o o r R o a dCenter StreetL ew i s A v e Pinon AveLasuen Dri v e M a r c e l l a W a yLa Cruz AveVia Can o n Lincoln AveC u a r d o A v eMonterey S t r e e t Devereaux DriveMills AvePoppy DriveClearf ie ld Dri v e Hale Drive Las s e n W a yMi n o r c a W a y B e v e r l y A v e Oxford RoadM a r c o P o l o W a y Bay Street Aura Vista DriveO g d e n D r i v e M a g n o l i a A v e Cor o n a d o W a y Roble R o a d Dolores Way Oak Stree t Arguello DriveSherman AvenueSilva AveEas t m o o r R o a d Mc D o n a l d W a y Cambridge RoadDufferin AveRivera DriveBarclay AvenueGarden DriveLincoln CircleCamino Alto Hayward DriveSanta Paula Avenue Library Avenue Me a d o w L a n e Hermosa Ave Mo n t e C o r v i n o W a yLansdale Ave Rhinette AveKillarney LaneNadina Ave C o z z o l i n o C o u r t Henry Place R o b e r t P l a c e Ma r c o P o l o W a yMin o r c a W a y L a u r e l A v e 46 43 390 391 ECR 390 391 397 ECR 359 390 391 397 ECR 397 359 46 Millbrae Transit Station Local Transit Service Limited/Express - Millbrae Transit Station El Camino Real connections 43 - Burlingame Plaza too SanBruno BART 46 - Burlingame Intermediate School to Broadway/Burlingame Caltrain Burlingame North - Millbrae TransitStation to Mills Peninsula and Mercy BART/Caltrain Shuttle BART - to San Francisco Airport, San Francisco and East Bay Caltrain - to San Francisco and San Jose CALIFORNIA82 CALIFORNIA82 Calt r a i n C a l t r a i n B A R T 101 101 San Francisco Bay EXISTING TRANSIT NETWORK FIGURE 3 Not to Scale N SF13-0675_1600_Trousdale_Drive\Graphics C-10 Cheryl Fama July 10, 2014 Page 9 of 15 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Sidewalks are provided along both sides of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue providing pedestrian access to the site. Crosswalks are located at all four legs of the intersection of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue, and at the west, south and east legs of the intersection of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real. All pedestrian signal heads include a walk symbol and a countdown timer during activated pedestrian phases. Bicycle facilities near the site comprise designated bike routes on Magnolia Drive between Murchison Drive and Trousdale Drive, and on Trousdale Drive between Magnolia Drive and Ashton Avenue. These routes connect to California Drive and Quesada Way. California Drive is located immediately east of El Camino Real and provides the primary north/south bicycle route adjacent to the El Camino Real corridor in Burlingame. Quesada Way is located west of the project site and provides a bicycle route through the western neighborhoods of Burlingame, connecting south to Bernal Avenue, Cabrillo Avenue and Walnut Avenue. An off-street bicycle path is located along the shoreline of the bay, on the west edge of Bayshore Highway, along Airport Boulevard, and west of Airport Boulevard, connecting to Coyote Point at the south. VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION The amount of vehicle traffic generated by the site was estimated by applying trip generation rates for assisted living units from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. Traffic generated by assisted living units is primarily associated with employees and visitors, as residents have limited vehicle ownership. The trip generation results for the proposed project with 128 beds are presented in Table 1a. The project is anticipated to generate 340 vehicle trips on an average weekday. Of these trips 18 (12 in and 6 out) are projected to occur during the AM peak hour, the one-hour period with the highest adjacent street traffic volume during the morning commute period. The PM peak hour trip estimate is 28 trips (12 in and 16 out). For the mid-afternoon peak hour, which is the one-hour period with the highest number of project trips, 45 trips (21 in and 24 out) are projected. C-11 Cheryl Fama July 10, 2014 Page 10 of 15 TABLE 1A: TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES (128 BEDS) Period Total Trips Trips In Trips Out Daily Total 340 170 170 AM Peak (8-9 AM) 18 12 6 Mid-afternoon Peak (3-4 PM) 45 21 24 PM Peak (5-6 PM) 28 12 16 Note: ITE trip generation rates used to calculate above trip generation estimates; rates for adjacent streets used for AM and PM peak hours, rates for generator used for mid-afternoon peak hour. The trip generation results for the alternative with 140 beds are presented in Table 1b. With the increase in beds the project would generate 372 vehicle trips on an average weekday. Of these trips 20 (13 in and 7 out) would occur during the AM peak hour and 31 trips (14 in and 17 out) would occur during the PM peak hour. For the mid-afternoon peak hour, 49 trips (23 in and 26 out) are projected. The alternative project would generate at most four more vehicle trips in an hour compared to the proposed project. TABLE 1B: TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES (140 BEDS) Period Total Trips Trips In Trips Out Daily Total 372 186 186 AM Peak (8-9 AM) 20 13 7 Mid-afternoon Peak (3-4 PM) 49 23 26 PM Peak (5-6 PM) 31 14 17 Note: ITE trip generation rates used to calculate above trip generation estimates; rates for adjacent streets used for AM and PM peak hours, rates for generator used for mid-afternoon peak hour. The building is partially occupied and the current uses generate some traffic. However no credits for these trips have been applied, creating conservative estimates. PARKING The project proposes to provide 44 parking spaces. The city’s code requirement is one space for every three Assisted Living units, or 41 spaces. Therefore the project will provide three spaces C-12 Cheryl Fama July 10, 2014 Page 11 of 15 more than required by the City of Burlingame code. With 132 units, the provided parking would meet city code. The projected demand for parking was assessed by applying parking demand rates from ITE’s Parking Generation, 4th Edition. These rates are based on national surveys of similar uses. Parking demand is estimated as 0.41 parking spaces per unit for Assisted Living land use. Therefore, the proposed project could generate a demand for approximately 51 parking spaces during weekday peak demand periods (at other times of the day demand may be lower). SITE ACCESS Traffic conditions on the roadways near the site were evaluated to assess site access for vehicles associated with employees and residents, trucks and deliveries, and for passenger pick-up and drop-off activities. Traffic conditions were evaluated during the morning and evening commute periods. Traffic volumes on Trousdale Drive also reach a peak during the afternoon period due to traffic associated with nearby schools and the shift change time at Mills Peninsula Health Services. Therefore afternoon peak traffic conditions were evaluated as well. INTERSECTION VOLUMES Intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the following intersections during the morning (AM), afternoon (AFT), and evening (PM) peak periods: 1. Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real 2. Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue 3. Trousdale Drive and Mill Peninsula Health Services Driveway 4. Trousdale Drive and Ogden Drive 5. Trousdale Drive and Marco Polo Way The AM, AFT, and PM peak hour volumes obtained from the counts are presented on Figure 4. EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection volumes, lane configurations, and traffic control devices (traffic signal or stop signs) are used to evaluate intersection operations. This information was input into a software program C-13 Cheryl Fama July 10, 2014 Page 12 of 15 called Synchro to estimate vehicle delays. A SimTraffic model was developed and used to assess vehicle queuing, especially queuing that could occur on Magnolia Avenue and Trousdale Drive that would interfere with driveway operations. The results show that queuing does occur during the red signal phases, especially on the eastbound approaches of Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue and El Camino Real. However, queues clear within each cycle, as long green phases allow large volumes of traffic to flow through the intersections. The SimTraffic model shows maximum eastbound queues on Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue extending to the far edge of the 1600 Trousdale property line, which is consistent with field observations during the mid-afternoon peak hour traffic (between 3 PM and 4 PM). There is minor queuing on the southbound approach of Magnolia Avenue at Trousdale Drive, which clears with every green phase. C-14 1600 Trousdale El Camino Rea l El C a m i n o R e a l Cali f o r n i a D r i v e Trousdale DriveCalt r a i n Murchison DriveRay DriveMillbrae Avenue Se q u o i a A v e n u e Davis DriveQu e s a d a W a y Bal b o a W a y Alb e m a r l e W a y We s t m o o r R o a d Pinon AvenueM a r c e l l a W a y Devereaux DriveLa s s e n W a y M a r c o P o l o W a y O g d e n D r i v e M a g n o l i a A v e Co r o n a d o W a y Dr a k e A v e n u eClarice LaneRosedale AvenueDufferin AvenueGarden Dri v e South Magnolia Avenue Clovelly LaneM o n t e C o r v i n o W a y Hamilton LaneKillarney LaneRay Court Davis Co urt Ma r c o P o l o W a y CALIFORNIA82 84 [116] (125) 462 [669] (911) 207 [212] (225)33 [57] (48)174 [193] (152)9 [14] (18)268 [329] (233)228 [193] (152)180 [224] (223)37 [14] (26) 535 [615] (705) 262 [243] (252)TrousdaleEl Camino Real 36 [38] (58) 45 [26] (18) 88 [99] (134)43 [75] (74)414 [454] (427)157 [137] (87)155 [115] (110)583 [503] (427)91 [36] (27)73 [211] (154) 16 [51] (27) 21 [71] (60)TrousdaleMagnolia 59 [31] (15) 13 [14] (3) 82 [52] (54)21 [23] (22)410 [545] (625)7 [7] (13)66 [71] (35)700 [541] (423)5 [9] (6)43 [26] (11) 10 [14] (3) 37 [15] (5)TrousdaleSequoia 15 [12] (17) 58 [56] (52)26 [25] (20)453 [596] (700)68 [35] (26)851 [621] (495)TrousdaleOgden 489 [599] (673)30 [6] (6)1 [1] (0)838 [644] (528)41 [10] (4) 18 [47] (41) 3 [29] (31)TrousdaleHospital Drwy 409 [551] (630)103 [103] (104)169 [101] (79) 35 [34] (25)764 [558] (443)66 [51] (14)TrousdaleMarco Polo Wy 48 [53] (38) 34 [37] (24) 20 [32] (30)143 [71] (27)74 [54] (21)1 [4] (1)70 [23] (18)91 [65] (36)17 [13] (2)0 [2] (1) 25 [21] (18) 2 [3] (4)DavisMarco Polo Wy 2 [4] (3) 44 [78] (78) 13 [17] (9)44 [27] (12)57 [41] (7)128 [63] (49) 117 [55] (17)Clarice LnMarco Polo Wy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PROJECT SITE AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 4 Not to Scale N Project #\Graphics Morning [Afternoon] (Evening)XX [YY] (ZZ): Signalized Intersection C-15 Cheryl Fama July 10, 2014 Page 14 of 15 INTERSECTION AND DRIVEWAY OPERATIONS WITH THE PROJECT The main driveway is located at the southwest corner of the property, on Trousdale Drive, based on current site plans. Project driveways and projected traffic volumes were added to the Synchro and SimTraffic models to simulate project conditions and assess how project trips would fit into the traffic flow along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. The analysis focused on the time periods with the highest traffic volumes on the surrounding streets and traffic generated by the site – the AM and mid-afternoon peak hours. The additional trips would have a minor impact on the operations of the adjacent roadways and intersections. The 18 project trips projected for AM peak hour represent only 1.3 percent of the total volume traveling on Trousdale Drive west of Magnolia Avenue during the morning peak hour. The 45 project trips projected for the mid- afternoon peak hour represent only 3.5 percent of the total volume traveling on Trousdale Drive west of Magnolia Avenue during the mid-afternoon peak hour. Vehicles will be able to enter and exit the driveway easily during most times of the day. However, the queues on Trousdale Drive will likely motivate some drivers exiting the project site to turn right to avoid a delay while waiting for a left turn opportunity during the afternoon peak hour. Others may wait several minutes for a clear left turn opportunity, but will find opportunities during gaps in Trousdale Drive traffic regulated by the signals at Magnolia Avenue and El Camino Real. Similar operations would occur with the alternative project. PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF ACTIVITY The project may include a loading zone at the main driveway, to be used for facility shuttle loading and resident pick-ups/drop-offs. Loading zone activity is likely to be consistent with other similar facilities. A similar facility is located in San Mateo, also near shopping, medical and other downtown commercial uses. A site visit was made to observe pick-up and drop-off activity. The facility has a shuttle (equipped with a wheel chair lift) that provides residents with transportation service to medical and other appointments. Most of the shuttle trips are between 7 AM and 2 PM. (Residents are requested to make appointments during this period.) Shuttle schedules vary according to resident needs. The loading area is used primarily for shuttle passenger loading. Other visitors were observed entering the garage to meet and pick up residents inside the building. Staff onsite confirmed that this is typical. Therefore it is expected that the passenger C-16 Cheryl Fama July 10, 2014 Page 15 of 15 loading zone would primarily be used by shuttles at the 1600 Trousdale and space for two vehicles should be sufficient. C-17 PROJECT LOCATION 1600 Trousdale Drive Existing Proposed Item No. 8c Action Item Item No. 8c Action Item City of Burlingame Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits and Amendment to the TW Zoning Regulations Address: 1600 Trousdale Drive Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Request: Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits and Amendment to the TW Zoning Regulations for a new, five and six-story 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility. Applicant: Joel I. Roos, Pacific Union Development Company APN: 025-121-032 Property Owner: Peninsula Healthcare District Zoning: TW Architect: Gabriel Fonseca, SmithGroupJJR Lot Area: 43,560 SF General Plan: Commercial Uses – Office Use North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan: Mixed Use – Office/Residential CEQA Status: Refer to attached Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-575-P Adjacent Development: Retail shopping center, offices, hospital, medical offices and multifamily residential. Current Use: One-story office building. Proposed Use: Five to Six-Story, 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility. Allowable Use: Group residential facility with a Conditional Use Permit. Executive Project Summary: The applicant, Joel Roos with Pacific Union Development Co., representing the Peninsula Healthcare District, is proposing construction of a new 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility (group residential facility) at 1600 Trousdale Drive, zoned TW (Trousdale West of El Camino Real). The proposed facility would be operated by Eskaton, a nonprofit provider, operator and owner of all levels of senior care from skilled nursing to independent living. The proposed project includes demolishing the existing one- story office building and building a new, 132-unit assisted living facility in a building ranging between five and six stories in height. Off-street parking for 44 vehicles is provided in a below-grade garage. The following applications are being requested for the proposed project: Mitigated Negative Declaration, a determination that with mitigation measures there will be no significant environmental effects as a result of this project; Conditional Use Permit for a new 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility (group residential facility for the elderly) (C.S. 25.40.025 (d)); Design Review for a new assisted living and memory care facility building (C.S. 25.40.045 and Chapter 6 of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan); Conditional Use Permit for building height exceeding 35’-0” from average top of curb (69’-11” proposed as measured from Magnolia Drive and 67’-8” proposed as measured from Trousdale Drive); and Amendment to the TW Zoning Regulations to clarify measurement of building heights on corner properties along Magnolia Avenue, Ogden Drive and Trousdale Drive. Clarification – Increase in Number of Units: Planning staff would note that the original application was for a 124-unit (128-bed) assisted living and memory care facility. Since the environmental scoping meeting on April 28, 2014, the project applicant subsequently requested that the application be entitled up to 132 units (140 beds). The 132 unit facility is analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. It should be noted that the increase in living units did not increase the size of the proposed facility (e.g., building footprint, total floor area or building height) from the original application; the numbers of units was increased by reconfiguring floorplans. The increase in the number of units complies with the off-street parking requirements (44 parking spaces required and provided on-site). Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 2 The project applicant notes that although the intent is to build a 124-unit facility, the entitlement for additional units would give the provider an opportunity to increase the number of units in the future without affecting the building envelope and having to submit an application to amend the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant shows how the additional 8 units would be incorporated within the building on Sheet G1.3 (Unit Conversion Options). Environmental Review: Since the project includes construction of a new assisted living and memory care facility which exceeds 10,000 SF (150,369 SF proposed), the project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission held an environmental scoping session for this project on April 28, 2014 (refer to attached April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes). An Initial Study was prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA). Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission. As presented the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified potential impacts in the areas of biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation and traffic and mandatory findings of significance. However, based upon the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project impacts can be addressed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation (please refer to the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 575-P). The mitigation measures in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (in italics). Since there were no State agencies involved in review, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for 20 days for public review on August 8, 2014. The 20-day review periods ended on August 28, 2014. No comments were received during the circulation period. April 28, 2014 Environmental Scoping Meeting: At the April 28, 2014, Planning Commission environmental scoping meeting, the Commission had several questions and concerns regarding this project (refer to attached April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes). The categorized list below provides the questions stated at the scoping meeting and responses by the applicant or Planning Division staff. Building Design Is concerned about the design; feels it looks cold and institutional. Don’t feel that it looks residential. There isn’t a lot of landscaping on the property. There is no sense of arrival at the property. Feels the west elevation has no life to it. Is too similar on every floor. Would like to see balconies opening onto courtyard. Could perhaps use some work to reduce its block appearance. To address the Planning Commission’s concerns regarding the proposed project design, the architect and applicant submitted response letters, dated September 12, 2014 and September 17, 2014, respectively, and revised plans date stamped September 16, 2014. A number of revisions have been made throughout the building and site to present a more residential design; please refer to the revised plans and response letter for a full explanation and rationale for the proposed revisions. Affordable Housing Is there a likelihood that affordable units will be provided as part of the facility? If some of the units are affordable, then how does that relate to the City’s inclusionary policies? Planning staff’s determination is that because a group residential facility provides assisted living and memory care services to its residents as an integral component of the program, the inclusionary zoning requirements do not apply to the project. The services associated with the program are “bundled” Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 3 together with the provision of housing, with neither the services or housing offered separately. This is different than independent living, where services may not necessarily bundled with the housing. In an email to staff, the applicant notes that “attempting to fit these units within the formula for below market rental rates would not account for the cost of the services being provided. Our experience, which includes the development of other assisted living facilities in the Bay Area, is that senior facilities of this nature do not and are not required to provide inclusionary housing units per se. Therefore, we don’t believe that it would be appropriate for there to be a specific affordable condition set upon the project approvals. That said, the Health District’s objective is to provide a number of units that will be priced at a rate lower than comparable units. The current proforma provides a discount of $750 for 8 of the units. Once stabilized occupancy is met, the District will monitor the financial proforma and will adjust the number of units and the level of discount to be offered.” Traffic and Noise Impacts Most concerned about traffic and noise impacts due to hospital and other uses in the area. Regarding traffic concerns, please refer to the “Off-Street Parking and Traffic” section on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report. The Initial Study analyzed any impacts that the surrounding noise level would have on the proposed project. Please refer to pages 68-74 of the Initial Study for a complete discussion regarding noise impacts as it relates to the proposed project. In summary, the Initial Study concluded that residences and nursing homes are considered “compatible” with aircraft noise levels less than 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) and no special noise insulation requirements are required for new construction. The project site is exposed to aircraft noise levels less than 65 CNEL. Thus, aircraft noise levels at the project site would be less than significant. Based on ambient noise monitoring, exterior noise levels would not likely exceed CNEL 60 dB in the first- floor courtyard of the project. It is expected that the project building mass would adequately shield the courtyard from adjacent roadway noise, which is the most prominent noise source in the area, to achieve the CNEL 60 dB criteria. To allow the project to meet Title 24 and the City’s 45 dBA DNL and CNEL interior noise requirements in habitable rooms, respectively, sound rated assemblies would be required at exterior building facades (windows, doors and walls). Sound rated assemblies would be required to meet applicable noise criteria. With appropriate insulation, the noise compatibility impact would be reduced to less than significant. Street Trees Agrees with the public comments requesting representation of the proposed street trees at maturity to determine their scale relative to the building. Perhaps larger trees could be used to soften the building. The previously proposed street trees included St. Mary Magnolia (Magnolia g. ‘St. Mary’) along Magnolia Drive and Red Oak (Quercus rubra) along Trousdale Drive. These tree species are consistent with the street tree recommendations in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The visual simulation on page 21 of the Initial Study shows St. Mary Magnolia (Magnolia g. ‘St. Mary’) trees along Magnolia Drive and Red Oak (Quercus rubra) trees along Trousdale Drive at maturity. St. Mary Magnolia trees can reach up to 20 feet in height at maturity, while Red Oak trees can reach 50 to 70 feet in height at maturity with a 50 foot wide canopy. After reviewing the visual simulations and growth heights, the applicant expressed several concerns with the Red Oak trees along Trousdale Drive, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 4 including blocking natural light and views for units and balconies along Trousdale Drive, proximity of the tree canopies to the building and irregular tree trimming that could be needed over time. After discussing these concerns with the City Arborist, as an alternate he is recommending using Red Maple (Acer rubrum) trees be planted along Trousdale Drive. The City Arborist noted that a large tree species is needed along Trousdale Drive given the width of the street and that the Red Maple trees would both provide large trees and address the applicant’s concerns. In planters, Red Maple trees have a maturity height of approximately 40 feet, can be shaped to have an oval shape and are easier to trim than Red Oak trees. The revised plans show Red Maple trees along Trousdale Drive and St. Mary Magnolia trees along Magnolia Avenue. Planning staff would note that the City Arborist is currently working with the Planning Division to update the street tree recommendations in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Detailed Project Summary: The applicant, Joel Roos with Pacific Union Development Co., representing the Peninsula Healthcare District, is proposing construction of a new 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility (group residential facility) at 1600 Trousdale Drive, zoned TW (Trousdale West of El Camino Real). The applicant notes that the facility would be constructed as a 124-unit facility, however entitling the project for a total of 132 units which would provide the opportunity to add 8 additional units in the future. Sheet G1.3 in the plan set shows how the additional 8 units would be incorporated within the building on the third, fifth and sixth floors by converting common living rooms and activity rooms into units and converting larger living units into more smaller units. Planning staff would note that the analysis contained in this staff report and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on a 132-unit facility. The proposed facility would be operated by Eskaton, a nonprofit provider, operator and owner of all levels of senior care from skilled nursing to independent living with a 45-year history. The applicant notes that the proposed facility “would provide shelter and care for the ever increasing aging population of San Mateo County and the San Francisco Peninsula.” This site is located at the northwest corner of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. Currently, the subject property contains a one-story office building occupied by the Peninsula Health Care District (10,800 SF), at grade parking and landscaping. The site is bordered to the west by a single-story office building, to the east by a retail shopping center (Burlingame Shopping Plaza), to the south by Peninsula Hospital and a skilled nursing facility and to the north by an office building. The proposed project includes demolishing the existing one-story office building and building a new, 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility in a building ranging between five and six stories in height. Off-street parking for 44 vehicles is provided in a below-grade garage. The TW District Regulations states that a group residential facility for the elderly requires a Conditional Use Permit (C.S. 25.40.025 (d)). The proposed assisted living and memory care facility will contain a total of 132 units, consisting of 105 assisted living units and 27 memory care units. The main entrance to the facility is proposed on Trousdale Drive. The ground floor will contain a lobby, common living and dining rooms, the facility kitchen, learning center, clinic/exam rooms, café, fitness center, lounge and spa rooms and administrative services. These services would only be available to facility residents and guests. An outdoor central courtyard is proposed within the U- shape of the building and would contain various hardscape and landscape features, several lounge areas, an outdoor hearth with fireplace and a barbeque area. The second, fourth, fifth and sixth floors will contain assisted living units and a lounge/activity room on each floor. The third floor will contain memory care units and a secure outdoor balcony/courtyard. The units include studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and companion room layouts interspersed throughout the facility. If built as a 124- unit facility, there would be 33 studio units, 8 companion units, 79 one-bedroom units and 4 two-bedroom units. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 5 With the option to increase the number of units within the building to 132, there would be 39 studio units, 8 companion units and 85 one-bedroom units. Studio and one-bedroom units range in size from 314 SF to 578 SF, companions units range in size from 139 SF to 523 SF, while the two-bedroom units range in size from 808 SF to 827 SF. The proposed exterior facades will include a variety of materials including a stone veneer base, EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System) in a Lymestone finish and wood panels. Aluminum clad wood windows and doors will be used in the residential units and aluminum storefront windows will be used in all other areas. The main entrance to the facility will be identified by an entry canopy made of a slatted aluminum sunshade and light cage steel framing. Slatted aluminum sunshades are also located along the west side of the building, along the east and west walls within the courtyard and at the ground level along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. Balconies are enclosed by steel guardrails and panels. A materials board will be available at the meeting. Building Height and Proposed Amendment to the TW Zoning Regulations: The proposed building has frontages on Magnolia Avenue and Trousdale Drive. Planning staff would note that the shorter lot length (along Magnolia Avenue) is defined as the lot front. The site slopes upward approximately 4’-6” from Magnolia Avenue to the rear property line. The first 61’-10” of building length from the property line along Magnolia Avenue is five stories in height; the remaining 138’-4” building length along Trousdale Drive is six stories in height. The maximum allowed building height for structures with a lot front on Magnolia Avenue is 60’-0” (Conditional Use Permit required if building exceeds 35’-0” in height) (C.S. 25.40.060 (b) (3) and 25.40.025 (e)). As measured from the average top of curb along Magnolia Avenue, the five and six story portions of the building measure 59’-9” and 69’-11” in height, respectively. The maximum allowed building height for structures with a lot front on Trousdale Drive is 62’-0” (Conditional Use Permit required if building exceeds 35’-0” in height) (C.S. 25.40.060 (b) (1) and 25.40.025 (e)). However, the zoning code states that on corner lots, the maximum building height allowed for the lot front (in this case Magnolia Avenue) shall be the maximum building height allowed for the entire structure (C.S. 25.40.060 (b) (5)). Therefore, the maximum building height along Trousdale Drive would also be 60’-0”. As measured from the average top of curb along Trousdale Drive, the five and six story portions of the building measure 57’-6” and 67’- 8” in height, respectively. Lastly, the zoning code does not allow Variances to exceed the maximum allowed height limit for structures along Magnolia Avenue (C.S. 25.40.060 (d)). As noted above, the proposed building heights as measured from average top of curb along Magnolia Avenue are 59’-9” and 69’-11” where 60’-0” is the maximum allowed, and the proposed building heights from the average top of curb along Trousdale Drive are 57’-6” and 67’-8” where 60’-0” is the maximum allowed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that as a part of this application, the Planning Commission consider the amending the TW Zoning Regulations to clarify measurement of building heights on corner lots. The applicant presented a conceptual drawing to the Planning Commission and City Council at the 2013 annual joint meeting of the two bodies that illustrated the building height proposed for the project. The Commission and Council received this approach favorably, indicating that an amendment to the TW Zoning Regulations could appropriately be considered as part of the developer’s application for entitlements. The following proposal for amendments to the TW regulations has been submitted with this application: 1. Add “group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses” to Mixed Commercial and Residential Structures in Code Section 25.40.060 (b) (2). This would clarify that the maximum 75’-0” building height would apply to these types of uses. 2. Change the maximum allowed building height for mixed commercial and residential structures, including group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses built upon corner lots where the lot front is on Magnolia Drive or Ogden Drive and where the side property line is on Trousdale Drive. In these cases, allow for a maximum building height of sixty (60) feet for the first 20% of Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 6 lot depth measured from the front property line. Beyond the first 20% of lot depth from the front property line, the maximum height shall be the same as the maximum height permitted for parcels with lot fronts on Trousdale Drive. Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.40.060 (b) would be amended to read as follows: (b) Maximum Allowed Height (1) Residential Structure with a Lot Front on Trousdale Drive. Residential structures without any commercial uses shall have a maximum height of sixty-two (62) feet. Residential structures that meet the city’s inclusionary housing requirements shall have a maximum height of seventy-five (75) feet, if the inclusionary units are provided for a minimum of thirty (30) years. (2) Mixed Commercial and Residential Structures, including group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses. (a) Mixed commercial and residential structures, including group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses with a lot front on Trousdale Drive shall have a maximum height of seventy-five (75) feet. (b) Mixed commercial and residential structures, including group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses with a lot front on Magnolia Drive shall have a maximum height of sixty (60) feet. (c) Mixed commercial and residential structures, including group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent facilities and other similar uses built upon corner lots where the lot front is on Magnolia Drive or Ogden Drive and where the side property line is on Trousdale Drive, shall be limited to a maximum height of sixty (60) feet for the first 20% of lot depth measured from the front property line. Beyond the first 20% of lot depth from the front property line, the maximum height shall be the same as the maximum height permitted for parcels with lot fronts on Trousdale Drive. Planning staff would note that the proposed project would still require an application for Conditional Use Permit to exceed 35’-0” in height; there are no changes proposed to this regulation. Off-Street Parking and Transportation: For a group residential facility, the zoning code requires off-site parking at a minimum of one parking space for each three residential units (C.S. 25.70.034 (c)). The parking requirement encompasses parking for residents, visitors and facility employees within the total. For the proposed 132-unit facility, a minimum of 44 parking spaces are required on-site. The project proposes a total of 44 parking spaces in the below-grade parking garage (39 standard spaces and 5 disabled-accessible spaces). The ingress/egress ramp to the below-grade parking garage is located on Trousdale Drive at the west side of the property. A service driveway is proposed on Magnolia Drive and would be used by trucks making deliveries to the site. The proposed project would include a passenger loading area in the subterranean parking garage adjacent to Elevator No. 1, to be used for facility shuttle loading and resident pick-ups/drop-offs. Although not currently proposed, in the future the applicant may consider adding a white curb passenger loading zone along Trousdale Drive between the main entry and primary main driveway, to be used for facility shuttle loading and resident pick- ups/drop-offs. Loading zone activity would be consistent with other similar facilities. The loading zone would be 20 to 25 feet in length. A request for a white curb passenger loading zone would need to be presented to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission for review and approval. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 7 The City’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed project and recommends a “Right Turn Only” restriction for vehicles exiting the site onto Trousdale Drive. He notes that there is a concern of high vehicular traffic conflicts at Trousdale Drive if vehicles are allowed to turn left across two lanes of traffic onto Trousdale Drive. This has been added as Condition No. 3. To address traffic impacts from the proposed project, the following analysis is included in the Initial Study and relies in part on analysis provided in a technical memorandum prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants. Table 2.16-1 shows the trip generation analysis for the project. For an entire weekday the proposed project would result in an additional 340 vehicle trips on area roads. Additionally, based on these estimates and applying appropriate trip reductions, the project would generate approximately 18 a.m. peak-hour trips and approximately 28 p.m. peak-hour trips. TABLE 2.16-1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Project Land Use ITE Code Units Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total Assisted Living 254 140 beds 372 13 7 20 14 17 31 Office Building 710 10,800 sf 119 15 2 17 3 13 16 Total Net New Vehicle Trips 253 -2 5 3 11 14 15 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012; Fehr and Peers, 2014. The proposed project would replace a one-story 10,800 square foot office building and 37 parking spaces. Currently, the project site could generate approximately 119 daily trips, 17 a.m. peak hour trips, and 16 p.m. peak hour trips. The net new vehicle trips on the project site would be approximately 253 daily trips, 3 a.m. peak hour trips, and 15 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, and would have a less than significant impact. In addition, the proposed project would not cause any exceedance of level-of- service standards for area roadways, and no significant cumulative impacts on these roadways would occur. Landscaping: All existing landscaping on the site, which primarily consists of lawn areas, shrubs, hedges and four non-protected size landscape trees, will be removed. The proposed landscaping and hardscaping throughout the site and on the third floor balcony/courtyard is shown on the Landscape Plans (sheets L1.01 through L5.01). The Planting Legend on Sheet L4.02 details the variety of trees and plants to be installed throughout the site and within the public right-of-way. Street trees include St. Mary Magnolia (Magnolia g. ‘St. Mary’) along Magnolia Drive and Red Maple (Acer rubrum ‘Armstrong’) along Trousdale Drive. Landscaping requirements in the TW District require that at least sixty (60) percent of the area of the front setback, if any, shall be landscaped to provide a transition to the sidewalk. In this case landscaping is not required within the front setback since there are no setback requirements along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue and the proposed building is located at the property line. However, there are planter walls proposed at the main entrance to the building and a planting area is proposed along the building recess at the corner of Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 8 Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue. Landscaping is also required at access points to off-street parking. Specifically, a landscaped buffer at least ten (10) feet deep perpendicular to the sidewalk with a width of at least fifteen (15) feet shall be provided at all access points to off-street parking. This requirement is met at the entrance to the off-street parking at Trousdale Drive. This space intentionally left blank. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 9 Table 1 below provides a comparison of the proposed project to the TW District development standards. Planning staff would note that the shorter lot length (along Magnolia Avenue) is considered to be lot front. Table 1 - Compliance with TW Regulations Lot Area: 43,560 SF Plans date stamped: September 17, 2014 Proposed Allowed/Required Use: 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility (group residential facility) ¹ CUP required for group residential facility Maximum Front Setback and Build- to-line: Magnolia Ave: Trousdale Dr: 0'-0" (61.1% of the of building is located at front property line) 0'-0" (65.2% of the of building is located at front property line) 0'-0" (at least 60% of building must be located at front property line) 0'-0" (at least 60% of building must be located at front property line) Interior Side Setback: 30'-0" 7'-0” + 1’-0” for each story above the first floor = 12’-0” Exterior Side Setback (Trousdale): 0'-0" 0'-0" Rear Setback: 43’-2” to building/15’-0” to garage entry portal 15'-0" Lot Coverage: 21,455 SF (49.2%) 21,780 SF (50%) Minimum Required Building Height Magnolia Ave: Trousdale Dr: 5 stories/69’-11” 5 and 6 stories/67’-8” 3 stories/35’-0” 3 stories/35’-0” Maximum Building Height Magnolia Ave: Trousdale Dr: 69'-11” from average top of curb along Magnolia Ave to highest point of building ² 67’-8” from average top of curb along Trousdale Dr to highest point of building ² 35'-0" w/CUP 60’ maximum 35'-0" w/CUP 60’ maximum Off-Street Parking: 44 spaces in below-grade garage 44 spaces (1 space per 3 units) ¹ Conditional Use Permit required for an assisted living and memory care facility (group residential facility). ² Conditional Use Permit required for building height exceeding 35’-0” (69’-11” proposed as measured from Magnolia Drive and 67’-8” proposed as measured from Trousdale Drive). Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 10 Table 2 below indicates whether the proposed project complies, partially complies or does not comply with the intent of the design guidelines of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. A copy of the design guidelines for the El Camino Real North Area is included in the staff report. The goal of the North of Trousdale Drive area is to be developed with a mixture of uses, including multi-family residences and offices including health services, financial institutions and group residential facilities for the elderly. Table 2 - Compliance with Specific Plan Design Guidelines – El Camino Real Area Design Guidelines Compliance Build-To Lines: 0'-0" required on Magnolia Avenue 0'-0" required on Trousdale Drive Complies: 0’-0” on Magnolia Avenue 0’-0” on Trousdale Drive Minimum Building Height: 3 stories on Magnolia Avenue 3 stories on Trousdale Drive Complies: 5 stories on Magnolia Avenue 5 and 6 stories on Trousdale Drive Maximum Building Height: 35' review line/60' maximum on Magnolia Avenue and Trousdale Drive Partially complies – CUP required because building exceeds 35' in height along Magnolia Avenue and Trousdale Drive Minimum Percent Frontage: 60% of building frontage must be at build-to line on Magnolia Avenue 60% of building frontage must be at build-to line on Trousdale Drive Complies: 61.1% proposed at the build-to line on Magnolia Avenue Complies: 65.2% proposed at the build-to line on Trousdale Drive Front Setback Areas: Except for driveways, all areas between the sidewalk and the front façades of buildings shall be adequately designed and maintained, including installation of an irrigation system for planted areas. Complies. This space intentionally left blank. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 11 Design Guidelines Compliance Building Façade – Articulation Buildings shall have architecturally-articulated storefronts. Window treatments, awnings and public entries should be designed to promote active use of ground floor businesses. Reviewed by Planning Commission as part of design review process. Building Façade – Scale of Detailing Building façades should have elements that relate to the scale of a person. All façades shall emphasize three dimensional detailing, such as cornices, window moldings and reveals, to cast shadows and create visual interest on the façade. Architectural elements used to provide relief can include awnings and projections, trellises, detailed parapets and arcades. Reviewed by Planning Commission as part of design review process. Building Façade – Roof Lines All buildings shall provide strong roof termination features. A variety of distinctive roofline profiles is encouraged. Cornices and horizontal bands of foam molds with stucco finish are discouraged. Reviewed by Planning Commission as part of design review process. Building Façade – Entries to Ground Floor Pedestrian activity can be encouraged by having entries accented with features such as moldings, lighting, overhangs, or awnings. Building entries into entry bays can create transitional spaces between the street and buildings. Reviewed by Planning Commission as part of design review process. Building Façade – Materials Palette The ground floor façade should provide a variety of architectural elements and should use a diverse set of materials. Reviewed by Planning Commission as part of design review process. Building Materials – Variety A variety of durable materials and textures is encouraged. Such materials may include both traditional materials, such as wood and stucco, and materials such as concrete, structural steel, corten steel, and other high-quality durable metals which have not been traditionally used in "Main Street" architecture. Stucco is not encouraged and should not be overly used, particularly at the building base, because it is more susceptible to damage than more durable materials. Reviewed by Planning Commission as part of design review process. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 12 Specific Plan Design Guidelines – El Camino Real District Design Guidelines Compliance Building Materials – Differentiation of Architectural Elements A wide variety of other materials is encouraged to articulate building elements, such as the base, the first floor and the upper floors. These basic components of a building should be articulated by means other than the exterior finish. Such means can include horizontal break bands above the ground floor, pier and column bases, roof terminations, sills and awnings. Reviewed by Planning Commission as part of design review process. Building Materials – Decorative Elements Tile artwork, plaques, decorative glass and lighting fixtures are encouraged to provide visual relief to façades. Where extensive stucco exteriors are proposed, façades shall maximize the above features. Reviewed by Planning Commission as part of design review process. Lighting Adequate lighting shall be provided for building signage, storefront display, pedestrian entry access and travel in parking lots, in compliance with the City's illumination ordinance. Reviewed by Planning Commission as part of design review process. Parking - Access Parking lots, whether in parking structures or surface lots, shall be located behind or next to buildings, in accordance with the minimum frontage requirements specified in Section A.4 of this chapter. Complies: below grade parking proposed. Streetscape Improvements - Sidewalks 8'-0" sidewalk width on Magnolia Avenue 10'-0" sidewalk width on Trousdale Drive Complies: 9’-8” proposed Complies: 10’-0” proposed Streetscape Improvements – Trees St. Mary Magnolia tree on Magnolia Avenue Golden Rain tree on Trousdale Drive Alternate: Red Oak Complies: St. Mary Magnolia trees proposed Complies: Red Maple trees proposed (accepted by the City Arborist as an alternative species) Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Planning staff would note that the applicant has been working with the various city departments and has addressed their comments on the proposed plans. Public Facilities Impact Fee: The purpose of public facilities impact fees is to provide funding for necessary maintenance and improvements created by development projects. Public facilities impact fees are based on the uses, the number of dwelling units, and the amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of the development project. New development that, through demolition or conversion, will eliminate existing development is entitled to a fee credit offset if the existing development is a lawful use under this title, including a nonconforming use. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 13 Based on the proposed 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility and providing a credit for the existing 10,800 SF office building, the required public facilities impact fee for this development project is $163,979.20 (see table below). One-half of the public facilities impact fees payment will be required prior to issuance of a building permit issuance; the second half of the payment will be required before the final framing inspection. Service Area Group Residential Facility 122,009 SF (commercial) (fee based on per 1,000 SF) Existing Office 10,800 SF (office) (fee based on per 1,000 SF) General Facilities & Equipment $640 x 122 = $78,080.00 $930 x 10.8 = $10,044.00 Libraries not applicable not applicable Police $102 x 122 = $12,444.00 $147 x 10.8 = $1,587.60 Parks and Recreation $118 x 122 = $14,396.00 $172 x 10.8 = $1,857.60 Streets and Traffic Exempt Exempt Fire $248 x 122 = $30,256.00 $360 x 10.8 = $3,888.00 Storm Drainage $442 x 122 = $53,924.00 $717 x 10.8 = $7,743.60 Subtotal $189,100.00 $25,120.80 Total $189,100.00 - $25,120.80 (credit for existing office building) $163,979.20 North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee: The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan identifies a series of improvements that are necessary to improve the area so that the goals of the Specific Plan, and in turn, the City’s General Plan, can be accomplished as the area is developed. The purpose of the development fee is to provide funding for future construction, improvement, and enhancement of public arterials and access. Based on the proposed net increase in square footage (credit for 10,800 SF office building and exempting the below-grade garage), the required Public Facilities Impact Fee for this development project is $68,949.58 (111,209 SF x $0.62 per square foot). One-half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee payment will be required prior to issuance of a building permit issuance; the second half of the payment will be required before the final framing inspection. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Since the project includes construction of a new structure greater than 10,000 square feet (12,561 SF proposed), the project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission held an environmental scoping session for this project on October 22, 2012 (refer to attached October 22, 2012 P.C. Minutes). An Initial Study was prepared by Planning Division staff. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission. As presented the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified issues that were "less than significant with mitigation incorporation" in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise and transportation/traffic. Based upon the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project can be addressed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review on November 6, 2012 for 20 days. The 20-day review period ended on November 25, 2012. There were no comments submitted during the review period. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 14 Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652 adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows: 1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas; 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant Conditional Use Permits for building height, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. This space intentionally left blank. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 15 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings for accepting the environmental document (Mitigated Negative Declaration), Design Review and Conditional Use Permits. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. Since the City Council is the final decision-making body regarding the request to amend the TW Zoning Regulations, the Planning Commission’s action should be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council, since the entire application will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Please note that the conditions below include mitigation measures taken from the mitigated negative declaration (shown in italics). A copy of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is attached for review. If the Commission determines that these conditions do not adequately address any potential significant impacts on the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report would need to be prepared for this project. The mitigations will be placed on the building permit as well as recorded with the property and constitute the mitigation monitoring plan for this project. At the public hearing the following mitigation measures and conditions should be considered: 1. that the assisted living and memory care facility shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 16, 2014, sheets G0.1 through G1.3, C1.00 through C3.00, L0.01 through L5.01, AD2.1.1 and A0.1 through A7.2.2; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. that the 44 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the residents, visitors and employees of the assisted living and memory care facility and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles or goods either by businesses on this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; 6. that a "Right Turn Only" sign shall be installed at the exit point along Trousdale Drive to clearly define the vehicular direction for drivers exiting the site; prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required signage and location on the property; 7. that card reader/intercom system shall be installed in the driveway off Trousdale Drive a minimum 20'-0' back from the property line; 8. that the conditions of the Building Division’s January 23, 2014 and October 11, 2013 memos, the Engineering Program Manager’s March 26, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s March 27, 2014, February 12, 2014 and November 14, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s March 17, 2014, January 23, 2014 and November 7, 2013 memos, the Fire Division’s January 22, 2014 and October 17, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Division’s April 16, 2014 and February 13, 2014 memos shall be met; Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 16 9. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the conditional use permits as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $81,989.60, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 11. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $81,989.60, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 12. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $34,474.79, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; (Planning) 13. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $34,474.79, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 14. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 15. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 16. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 17. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 18. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 19. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following five (5) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 20. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 21. that prior to the underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure; Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 17 22. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division; 23. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; 24. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Air Quality 25. The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All streets, 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. f. 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 CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. 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. h. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 18 26. The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with a Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC), which would reduce diesel particulate emissions by at least 85 percent. Biological Resources 27. If construction or vegetation removal is initiated during nesting bird season, between February 1 and August 31 annually, the project applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to survey the project site for active nests. If active nests are observed, no-work buffer zones will be established around trees/shrubs/structure with nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist through consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., CDFW). Buffer zones will be avoided during construction activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. 28. The project applicant shall reduce impacts associated with accidental damage caused to existing off-site trees (for example, the accidental cutting of branches or roots) during construction activity. Any damaged off-site trees will be mitigated for using a 1:1 planting replacement ratio. Any damaged trees will be replaced by an approved replacement species per City of Burlingame, Urban Forest Management Plan (City of Burlingame, 2009). Cultural Resources 29. The project applicant, in consultation with City staff and a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist, shall undertake archaeological testing following demolition of the existing building on the site but prior to any ground disturbing activities associated with the project. Testing shall involve boring and/or trenching of the site, at locations determined appropriate by the archaeologist, to determine whether site constituents associated with CA-SMA-74 are located at the project site, and would thereby ensure proper treatment of significant archaeological resources and reduce work stoppages resulting from archaeological finds. If testing reveals the presence of archaeological resources associated with CA-SMA-74, or other resources, the archaeologist would determine whether the identified resources are California Register-eligible and therefore considered significant under CEQA. If the resources are significant, the archaeologist would consult with the project applicant and the appropriate Native American representative to determine whether avoidance of significant archaeological resources is feasible. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through: planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate Native American representative, will design and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP), including systematic data recovery, interpretive/public outreach efforts, and recommendation for additional requirements, including archaeological and Native American monitoring during project implementation, as set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL-1b. If archaeological testing reveals no presence of significant archaeological resources, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1c, which calls for the appropriate handling and treatment of archaeological resources that may be accidentally encountered during project excavation and construction. 30. Prior to authorization to proceed, or issuance of permits, the project proponent will retain a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist to design and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) to recover important archaeological resources that may be present in the project site. The ARDTP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. The ARDTP will identify what scientific/ historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource, what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 19 research questions. Data recovery, in general, shall be limited to the portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical. The ARDTP shall include the following elements: a. Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and operations. b. Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system and artifact analysis procedures. c. Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post-field discard and deaccession policies. d. Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive program during the course of the archaeological data recovery program. e. Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resource from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities. f. Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results. g. Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of any recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities. Once the ARDTP is approved, the archaeologist shall implement the data recovery investigation and/or other treatment, consistent with the ARDTP. A Native American representative will be present during all ground-disturbing activities associated with the data recovery effort. Upon completion of the data recovery and treatment efforts, the archaeologist will prepare an Archaeological Data Recovery Report (ADRR). The ADRR shall include: h. the archaeological and historical research methods employed in the archaeological data recovery program; i. a full artifact catalog, analysis of items collected, and results of any special studies conducted; j. interpretations of the resource within a regional and local context; k. potential avenues of public outreach including exhibit displays; public lectures or lecture series; site visits to ongoing archaeological excavations; popular-level articles, books, or pamphlets describing area history; news releases to local venues; and/or website updates, website “exhibits,” and interactive websites combined with activities and timelines; and l. recommendations for pre-construction archaeological sensitivity training for all project personnel, as well as archaeological and Native American monitoring to the extent deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist who carried out the work. Once approved, copies of the final confidential ADRR shall be submitted to the appropriate Native American representative Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, the project applicant, the City of Burlingame, and interested professionals. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 20 31. If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered, all construction activities within 100 feet would halt and the City of Burlingame would be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. A Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist would inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation would be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist would prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Burlingame. Treatment of unique archaeological resources would follow the applicable requirements of PRC Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the project. The treatment plan would include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. 32. In the event of the discovery of human remains during archaeological data recovery, monitoring, or construction activity, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of within 100 feet of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified by the project applicant and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to State law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 33. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the project applicant shall retain a state certified contractor to conduct pre-demolition surveys of the existing structure for the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint. If these materials are identified to be present in the surveys, they shall be removed by state- certified contractors according to applicable regulations and disposed of as hazardous waste in accordance with the requirements of the state licensed receiving facility. Noise 34. The project applicant shall include sound-rated assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) as described in the Environmental Noise Study Draft to achieve acceptable interior noise levels (45 dBA DNL/CNEL) in proposed residences. In addition, an alternative means of providing outside air (i.e., HVAC, Z-ducts) to habitable spaces is required since windows must be closed to achieve the interior criterion in units along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue, where sound-rated windows are required. A qualified acoustical engineer must review the design as it is developed to refine the specific STC ratings once the building design and site layout has been approved. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 21 35. The project applicant shall require construction to comply with the City of Burlingame Municipal Code operational hour limits, specifically restricting construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. 36. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project applicant shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: a. Equipment and trucks used for project construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques, such as improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible. b. Impact tools (i.e., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust will be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10-dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves will be used where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of 5-dBA. Quieter procedures will be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible. c. Stationary noise sources will be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. d. Signs will be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number with the City of Burlingame in the event of noise complaints. The project applicant will designate an onsite complaint and enforcement manager to track and respond to noise complaints. Transportation and Traffic 37. The project applicant and its construction contractor(s) will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan will include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible and traffic congestion during construction: a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes; b. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area; c. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur; and d. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Joel I. Roos, applicant Gabriel Fonseca, SmithGroupJJR, architect Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits & Amendment 1600 Trousdale Drive to the TW Zoning Regulations 22 Attachments: April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes from Environmental Scoping Meeting Response to Planning Commission’s Comments, submitted by Lawrence Cappel, Ph.D, Chair of the Board, Peninsula Health Care District, letter dated September 18, 2014 Response to Commission’s Comments, submitted by Gabriel Fonseca, Project Manager, SmithGroup JJR, letter dated September 12, 2014 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Application to the Planning Commission Applicant's Letter of Explanation, dated September 26, 2013 Conditional Use Permit Application Design Guidelines of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan - El Camino Real North Area Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Information Form, date stamped September 26, 2013 Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) – Recommendation to the City Council Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed September 12, 2014 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-575-P), dated August 6, 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, April 28, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 14. 1600 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND AMENDMENT TO THE TW ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 124-UNIT GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY (JOEL I. ROOS, PACIFIC UNION DEVELOPMENT CO., APPLICANT; GABRIEL FONSECA, SMITHGROUPJJR, ARCHITECT; PENINSULA HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: How can this project be built when Sunrise is not yet completed? (Meeker – each project must be considered on its own merits.) Why is this project different from the Sunrise project? (Meeker – is the same type of project.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Dr. Lawrence Kopell, PHCD and the project architect represented the applicant. Commission comments: Has the traffic analysis been completed for the project? (Meeker – will include more analysis in the environmental analysis for the project.) Is there a LEED goal identified for the project? (Project Architect – not yet. Anticipate meeting some of the LEED requirements.) Feels is a great project. Not concerned regarding approving another assisted living facility in the area. Is there a likelihood that affordable units will be provided as part of the facility? (Kopell – will have eight to ten units that are below market. Will be rental units.) If some of the units are affordable, then how does that relate to the City’s inclusionary policies? (Meeker – at this point, staff’s determination is that the inclusionary policies do not apply to the project. Will research this further.) Has any consideration been given to using rooftops for open space? (Project Architect – have a memory care garden on the Trousdale side of the project, but the potential also exists for other portions of the project.) Is concerned about the design; feels it looks cold and institutional. Doesn’t feel that it looks residential. There isn’t a lot of landscaping on the property. There is no sense of arrival at the property. Feels the west elevation has no life to it. Is too similar on every floor. Would like to see balconies opening onto courtyard. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 2 Public comments: Dennis Zell, Treasurer of the Peninsula Health Care District: Held public meetings in advance of the presentation this evening. Are very sensitive to the residents of Burlingame. The inside of the building has a lot to do with the outside design of the building. This project needs to move forward to ensure its profitability. The hospital is across the street; the design blends with the style of that building. Feels the architecture is appropriate for the north Burlingame area. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue: Was present at the meetings where the zoning standards for the area were created. Wants to know the difference between a house in a residential neighborhood that is licensed to provide assisted living services and this project. Feels that those units are inclusionary units. The project is primarily an apartment building with additional services. Reconsider whether or not the project fits into the inclusionary requirements. Would rather remain in Burlingame than to move to another community for such care. Perhaps choose a tree that grows a bit larger with something deciduous as a means of enhancing the landscaping for the project. Additional Commission comments: Likes the design and color scheme. Compliments the hospital. Could perhaps use some work to reduce its block appearance. Most concerned about traffic and noise impacts due to hospital and other uses in the area. Feels that the finished project will appear better in real life than in the rendering. Feels the massing is handled nicely. Agrees with the public comments requesting representation of the proposed street trees at maturity to determine their scale relative to the building. Perhaps larger trees could be used to soften the building. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission action is not required for this item at this time. Comments received will inform the analysis in the environmental analysis for the project as well as the overall project design. This item concluded at 12:23 p.m. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 1 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY Introduction When approving projects with Mitigated Negative Declarations that identify significant impacts, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt monitoring and reporting programs or conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects (Public Resources Code §21081.6(a)(1)). A public agency adopting measures to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts of a proposed project is required to ensure that the measures are fully enforceable, through permit conditions, agreements, or other means (Public Resources Code §21081.6(b)). The mitigation measures required by a public agency to reduce or avoid significant project impacts not incorporated into the design or program for the project, may be made conditions of project approval as set forth in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The program must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. The MMRP includes the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration required to address only the significant impacts associated with the project being approved. The required mitigation measures are summarized in this program. Format The MMRP is organized in a table format, keyed to each significant impact and each Mitigated Negative Declaration mitigation measure. Only mitigation measures adopted to address significant impacts are included in this program. Each mitigation measure is set out in full, followed by a tabular summary of monitoring requirements. The column headings in the tables are defined as follows: • Mitigation Measure: This column presents the mitigation measure identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Implementation Procedure: This column provides additional information on how the mitigation measures will be implemented. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 2 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Monitoring and Reporting Actions: This column contains an outline of the appropriate steps to verify compliance with the mitigation measure. • Monitoring Responsibility: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for the monitoring and reporting tasks. • Monitoring Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each monitoring and reporting task, identifying where appropriate both the timing and the frequency of the action. Enforcement The MMRP will be incorporated as a condition of project approval. Therefore, all mitigation measures for significant impacts must be carried out in order to fulfill the requirements of approval. A number of the mitigation measures will be implemented during the course of the development review process. These measures will be checked on plans, in reports, and in the field prior to construction. Most of the remaining mitigation measures will be implemented during the construction, or project implementation phase. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 3 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME / DATE) AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All streets, 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. 6. 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 CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. 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. 8. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD requires construction contractor to incorporate BAAQMD best management practices in construction specifications. 3. Contractor implements measures during construction. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City reviews construction specifications to verify inclusion. 3. City conducts periodic site investigations during construction to ensure compliance; and adds inspection report to file. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 3. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permit. 3. During construction Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 4 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME / DATE) AIR QUALITY (cont.) Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with a Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC), which would reduce diesel particulate emissions by at least 85 percent. 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD requires construction contractor to incorporate specified measure into construction contract specifications. 3. Contractor implements measures during construction. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City reviews construction contract specifications to verify inclusion. 3. City conducts periodic site investigations during construction to ensure compliance; and adds inspection report to file. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 3. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permit. 3. During construction BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If construction or vegetation removal is initiated during nesting bird season, between February 1 and August 31 annually, the project applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to survey the project site for active nests. If active nests are observed, no-work buffer zones will be established around trees/shrubs/structure with nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist through consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., CDFW). Buffer zones will be avoided during construction activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD contracts with a qualified biologist to conduct nesting bird surveys, and provides copies of surveys to City. 3. If required by CDFW, adopt and implement CDFW nest avoidance procedures. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City includes field surveys in project file. 3. City conducts periodic site investigations during construction to ensure compliance; and adds inspection report to file. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 3. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to construction. 3. Prior to construction. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 5 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME / DATE) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The project applicant shall reduce impacts associated with accidental damage caused to existing off-site trees (for example, the accidental cutting of branches or roots) during construction activity. Any damaged off-site trees will be mitigated for using a 1:1 planting replacement ratio. Any damaged trees will be replaced by an approved replacement species per City of Burlingame, Urban Forest Management Plan (City of Burlingame, 2009). 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD will document the condition of existing off-site trees prior to construction. 3. PHCD will report accidental damages to trees to City during construction and document mitigation of damages. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City includes documentation of condition of existing off- site trees in project file. 3. City will include documentation of mitigation of accidental damages in project file. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 3. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to construction. 3. During construction. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: The project applicant, in consultation with City staff and a Secretary of the Interior- qualified archaeologist, shall undertake archaeological testing following demolition of the existing building on the site but prior to any ground disturbing activities associated with the project. Testing shall involve boring and/or trenching of the site, at locations determined appropriate by the archaeologist, to determine whether site constituents associated with CA-SMA-74 are located at the project site, and would thereby ensure proper treatment of significant archaeological resources and reduce work stoppages resulting from archaeological finds. If testing reveals the presence of archaeological resources associated with CA- SMA-74, or other resources, the archaeologist would determine whether the identified resources are California Register-eligible and therefore considered significant under CEQA. If the resources are significant, the archaeologist would consult with the project applicant and the appropriate Native American representative to determine whether avoidance of significant archaeological resources is feasible. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through: planning construction to 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD contracts with qualified archaeologist to conduct archaeological testing. 3. If significant resources are identified, PHCD will either avoid the resource or mitigate for loss of the resource if avoidance is not feasible. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. PHCD submits record of archaeological testing results to City; City adds record into project file. 3. PHCD submits documentation of resource avoidance or mitigation to City; City adds to the project file. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 3. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. After demolition of the existing building, and prior to construction of new building. 3. Prior to construction of new building and prior to construction of new building. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 6 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME / DATE) CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate Native American representative, will design and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP), including systematic data recovery, interpretive/public outreach efforts, and recommendation for additional requirements, including archaeological and Native American monitoring during project implementation, as set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL-1b. If archaeological testing reveals no presence of significant archaeological resources, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1c, which calls for the appropriate handling and treatment of archaeological resources that may be accidentally encountered during project excavation and construction. or 4. If no significant cultural resources are identified, construction contractor will Implement CUL-1c. or 4. City reviews construction specifications to verify inclusion. 4. City of Burlingame or 4. Prior to construction of new building. Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Prior to authorization to proceed, or issuance of permits, the project proponent will retain a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist to design and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) to recover important archaeological resources that may be present in the project site. The ARDTP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. The ARDTP will identify what scientific/ historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource, what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. Data recovery, in general, shall be limited to the portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical. The ARDTP shall include the following elements: • Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and operations. • Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system and artifact analysis procedures. 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD will retain a qualified archaeologist to prepare ARDTP plan in consultation with appropriate Native American representative. 3. Project archaeologist will implement ARDTP. 4. Project archaeologist will prepare ADRR report for submittal to appropriate agencies and stakeholders. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City reviews ARDTP plan. 3. City conducts periodic site inspections during implementation to ensure compliance, and adds inspection report to project file. 4. PHCD will submit completed ADRR report to NWIC CHRIS, the City, and other 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 3. City of Burlingame 4. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. After demolition of the existing building. 3. Upon approval of ARDTP. 4. Upon completion of ADRR and prior to ground disturbing activities. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 7 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME / DATE) CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) • Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post-field discard and deaccession policies. • Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive program during the course of the archaeological data recovery program. • Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resource from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities. • Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results. • Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of any recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities. Once the ARDTP is approved, the archaeologist shall implement the data recovery investigation and/or other treatment, consistent with the ARDTP. A Native American representative will be present during all ground-disturbing activities associated with the data recovery effort. Upon completion of the data recovery and treatment efforts, the archaeologist will prepare an Archaeological Data Recovery Report (ADRR). The ADRR shall include: • the archaeological and historical research methods employed in the archaeological data recovery program; • a full artifact catalog, analysis of items collected, and results of any special studies conducted; • interpretations of the resource within a regional and local context; • potential avenues of public outreach including exhibit displays; public lectures or lecture series; site visits to ongoing archaeological excavations; popular-level articles, books, or pamphlets describing area history; news releases to local venues; and/or website updates, website “exhibits,” and interactive websites combined with activities and timelines; and • recommendations for pre-construction archaeological sensitivity training for all project personnel, as well as archaeological and Native American monitoring to the extent deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist who carried out the work. stakeholders; City will add copy of report to project file. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 8 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME / DATE) CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) Once approved, copies of the final confidential ADRR shall be submitted to the appropriate Native American representative Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, the project applicant, the City of Burlingame, and interested professionals. Mitigation Measure CUL-1c: If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered, all construction activities within 100 feet would halt and the City of Burlingame would be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat- affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. A Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist would inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation would be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist would prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Burlingame. Treatment of unique archaeological resources would follow the applicable requirements of PRC Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD requires construction contractor to incorporate specified measure into construction specifications. 1. Cty adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City reviews construction specifications to verify inclusion. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to construction of new building Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 9 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME / DATE) CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the project. The treatment plan would include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event of the discovery of human remains during archaeological data recovery, monitoring, or construction activity, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of within 100 feet of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified by the project applicant and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to State law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD requires construction contractor to incorporate specified measure to be into construction specifications. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City reviews construction specifications to verify inclusion. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permit. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the project applicant shall retain a state certified contractor to conduct pre-demolition surveys of the existing structure for the presence of asbestos and lead- based paint. If these materials are identified to be present in the surveys, they shall be removed by state-certified contractors according to applicable regulations and disposed of as hazardous waste in accordance with the requirements of the state licensed receiving facility. 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD requires construction contractor to incorporate pre- demolition surveys into contract specifications. 3. Implement hazardous materials removal procedures. 1. PHCD adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City reviews construction specifications to verify inclusion. 3. City includes pre- demolition surveys in project file. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 3. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permit. 3. Prior to grading or construction. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 10 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME / DATE) NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The project applicant shall include sound-rated assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) as described in the Environmental Noise Study Draft to achieve acceptable interior noise levels (45 dBA DNL/CNEL) in proposed residences. In addition, an alternative means of providing outside air (i.e., HVAC, Z- ducts) to habitable spaces is required since windows must be closed to achieve the interior criterion in units along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue, where sound-rated windows are required. A qualified acoustical engineer must review the design as it is developed to refine the specific STC ratings once the building design and site layout has been approved. 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD requires specified noise reduction features in project plans. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. PHCD reviews project plans to verify inclusion. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to project plan approval. 3. PHCD’s construction contractor carries out construction pursuant to contract specifications. 3. PHCD conducts site inspections upon completion of construction to ensure compliance, and adds inspection report to project file. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The project applicant shall require construction to comply with the City of Burlingame Municipal Code operational hour limits, specifically restricting construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD requires construction contractor to incorporate specified construction hours into contract specifications. 3. PHCD’s construction contractor carries out construction pursuant to contract specifications. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City reviews construction specifications to verify inclusion. 3. PHCD conducts periodic site inspections during grading and construction to ensure compliance, and adds inspection report to project file. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 3. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permit. 3. Periodically, during construction. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 11 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME / DATE) NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-3: To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project applicant shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: • Equipment and trucks used for project construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques, such as improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically- attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible. • Impact tools (i.e., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust will be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10- dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves will be 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD requires construction contractor to incorporate construction noise reduction measures into contract specifications. 3. PHCD’s construction contractor implements noise reduction measures during construction. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City reviews construction specifications to verify inclusion. 3. City conducts periodic site inspections during grading and construction to ensure compliance, and adds inspection report to project file. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 3. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permit. 3. Periodically, during construction. used where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of 5-dBA. Quieter procedures will be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible. • Stationary noise sources will be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. • Signs will be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number with the City of Burlingame in the event of noise complaints. The project applicant will designate an onsite complaint and enforcement manager to track and respond to noise complaints. Peninsula Health Care District Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 12 ESA / 140126 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME / DATE) TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: The project applicant and its construction contractor(s) will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan will include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible and traffic congestion during construction: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes; • Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area; • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur; and • Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. 1. City incorporates measure as a condition of approval. 2. PHCD requires construction contractor to prepare a construction traffic management plan. 3. PHCD’s construction contractor implements traffic control measures during construction. 1. City adopts condition of approval with project. 2. City reviews construction traffic management plan to verify inclusion of measures. 3. City conducts periodic site inspections during grading and construction to ensure compliance, and adds inspection report to project file. 1. City of Burlingame 2. City of Burlingame 3. City of Burlingame 1. Prior to project approval. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permit. 3. Periodically, during construction. October 24, 2014 Mr. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner Community Development Dept. – Planning Division City of Burlingame, California 94010 RE: 1600 Trousdale PHCD Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility Rubin, Please let this letter serve as a summary of the specific means and methods by which SmithGroup JJR, in coordination with other consultants, along with the collaboration and approval of the owner have responded to the input by the City Council in the hearing of October 20,2014. 1. Sunscreens have been added to both the south and east faces of the building along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Ave. They are of a removable nature if for some reason in the future there is cause for them to be removed. The window frames within EIFS walls on all building sides are recessed 5” from the EIFS. We will include illustration in our drawing submittals that better depicts this depth and the shadowing that occurs. 2. The cornice design has been modified in design to protrude from the face of the building in all of its locations. The detailed design of its structure will be such that it can be removed if deemed necessary in the future along the Trousdale Drive side of the building. 3. The fence along the north property line has been modified in design for the first 60’ starting from the northeast corner of the property to a length of 60 feet westward. If is of a grid like painted steel design that will provide a structure for vines to grow upon, as is the intention for vine growth upon all of the remaining length of the fence that extends westward, as originally designed, to be a chain link fence. The design character of this new section is fence is intended to have the contemporary look similar to the steel work in the driveway entry portal. Photos of a vine covered chain link fence will be included. 4. There was a small discrepancy between the balcony railing detail as depicted in the renderings within the 9.15.14 submittal to Planning with the renderings shown to the City Council on 10.20.14. The railing design was correctly shown in all the exterior building elevation drawings within the 9.15.14 Planning submittal but unfortunately it was not picked up in the renderings within that same submittal. Subsequent minimally refined renderings included in the visual presentation to the City Council on October 20, 2014 included the correct and current railing design. All new drawings being submitted to the Community Development Department will reflect all elements of the current proposed design including those as a result the owner and design team’s design decisions in response to City Council input from the Oct 20, 2014 hearing. These changes will match the design shown in any visual images presented to the City Council in the future. 5. Regarding street trees, PHCD and its team of consultants will follow the lead of the City’s Arborist concerning the selection of species at the front entry and will also collaborate on the root barrier and deep watering system to be installed all street trees as required by the City Arborist. 6. A new additional design revision involves the slight raising in height of the shade canopies at the sidewalk on both street sides of the building. Due to the higher finish elevation of the sidewalk in relation to the elevation of the ground floor as it occurs at the southwest corner of the building along Trousdale, the shade canopy at the ground level must be raised to now be just above the window head rather than at the lower cross member of the windows. This is in order to maintain proper head clearance for pedestrians at this corner location. This raised height then drives the side walk canopies along the entire lengths of both street side building elevations. This design change is shown in elevation drawings and in the renderings Regards, Gabriel Fonseca, AIA, LEED AP Project Manager City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 MEMORANDUM To: Ruben Hurin – Senior Planner From: Bob Disco – Park Supervisor/City Arborist Date: October 28, 2014 Re: 1600 Trousdale Drive As you requested, I was asked to comment on the street tree species, recommend an alternative tree species that would flank the entrance to the proposed building without damaging the sidewalk, and also provide comments on the possible installation of root barriers to prevent future sidewalk damage. The current planting area for this site calls for the installation of tree wells and grates. The City Street Tree List for this type of location is attached for reference. Street Tree Species: There are no tree species that will guarantee not to damage the sidewalk. The Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and St. Mary Magnolia (Magnolia g. ‘St. Mary’) proposed along Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue are on the Official City Street Tree List or recommended in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and have been chosen because they are known to cause less damage to sidewalks than other tree species. Trees at Building Entry: I would suggest the following trees to flank the entrance to the building. These species are on the current Official City Street Tree List and are sidewalk friendly. These trees do well in or around sidewalks with little or no damage. Each will need to be pruned and trained to establish a shape suitable for the front entry of the building. Lagerstromia indica “ Crape Myrtle” Prunus cerasifera ‘Purple Leaf Plum” Koelreuteria bipinnata “Chinese Flame Tree. Root Barriers and Irrigation: Root barriers are an acceptable practice to prevent damage to sidewalks. Studies have shown that roots do eventually grow over or under the barriers in search of water, and for that reason I would recommend installing the irrigation in perforated drain pipe to provide deep watering and encourage the roots to grow down away from the surface and sidewalk. Attached is a detail of the City Standard for trees with bubbler irrigation. I would also recommend that every tree wells have root barriers installed prior to planting. Site Height at Min Botanical Name Common Name Locations Maturity Spacing Description * Acer buergeranum Trident Maple Washington Park Rose Garden 20-25' 25' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; roundish crown; glossy, three-lobed leaves; fall color. Aesculus carnea Red Horsechestnut 2212 Adeline 40' 30' DECIDUOUS: Fast early growth; round headed; dark green leaves; plumes of crimson flowers in spring. ☺ Celtis australis European Hackberry 1108 Cambridge 40-50' 40' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; gray-green, elm- like leaves; upright, round headed form. ☺ Celtis sinensis Chinese Hackberry 2711 Easton 30-40' 25' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth, glossy, dark green , elm-like leaves; upright round form. Suseptable to wooly aphids Craetaegus phaenopyrum Washington Thorn 733 Lexington Way 20-25' 25' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; graceful open limb structure; glossy leaves; foliage turns orange, scarlet or purple in fall. * Geijera parviflora Australian Willow Wells Fargo Bank (Broadway), 117 Bayswater 25-30' 30' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; graceful branches; fine textured leaves; pest free. ☺ Gingko biloba Maidenhair tree 405, 409 Block Bayswater Ave, 1240 Cabrillo 30-50' 40' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth; fan shaped leaves turn yellow in fall; spreading, almost umbrella form. Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree 209 Victoria, 139 Channing 20-35' 35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; clusters of yellow flowers; leaves yellow in fall, drop late. Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Rain Tree 1528 Howard 20-35' 35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; yellow flowers; leaves reddish in spring, dull- green in summer. * Lagerstromia indica Crape Myrtle Pershing Park, 1325 Drake 20-30' 25' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; spring foliage light green tinged bronze red; red flowers July- September; yellow fall color. Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia ‘Samuel Sommer’ 2109 Ray Drive 30' 30' EVERGREEN: Fast growth; upright branches; dark green foliage has a rusty bronze coloring on leaf underside. White flowers in early spring and again late in summer. CITY OF BURLINGAME - PARKS DIVISION, 558-7330 850 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-2858 OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST - 2014 TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS UNDER 4' WIDE AND SELECTED TREES (*) FOR TREE WELLS IN PAVED AREAS * Maytenus boaria Mayten Tree 900 Morrell 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth; pendulous graceful branches. * ☺ Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 2705 Easton, 121 Costa Rica Ave 30-40' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; dark green leaves, brilliant fall color. * Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box 1201 & 1230 Burlingame Ave 30-40' 40' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; fragrant white flowers glossy leaves; round headed. * Prunus cerasifera Purple Leaf Plum 1320 Lincoln, Village Park Eastmoor side, 1320 Lincoln Ave 20' 15' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; coppery leaves; light pink flowers in spring * Pyrus calleryana Flowering Pear ‘Aristocrat’ 617 Howard, 2112 Adeline 25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; upright form; masses white flowers in spring, red leaves in fall. Robinia ambigua Idaho Locust 1446 Capuchino 30-40' 30' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; spring clusters of bright magenta flowers; long leaves divided into oval leaves. Sapium sebiferum Chinese Tallow 2009 Deveraux Drive 35' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; dense, round crown; outstanding fall color * Trees appropriate for tree wells in paved areas ☺ City recommended trees to increase the Urban Forest Canopy 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 3, 2014 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Consideration of Appointments to the Storm Drain Measure Oversight Committee RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council make appointments to fill two vacancies on the Storm Drain Measure Oversight Committee or take other action. BACKGROUND The vacancies are due to expired terms. The vacancies were publicized, and past Committee applicants were invited to apply. Three applications were received by the deadline of September 30, 2014. The following two applicants were interviewed by the full Council on October 27, 2014: Rudy Horak and Kevin Osborne. The third applicant was unavailable. The appointee terms will be for four years, ending on November 3, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT None. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 3, 2014 From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Consideration of Appointments to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council make appointments to fill two vacancies on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission or take other action. BACKGROUND The vacancies are due to expired terms. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. Four applications were received as of the deadline of October 10, 2014. The following four applicants were interviewed by the full Council on October 27, 2014: Nick Akers, Jeff Londer, Christopher Bush, and Russell Selkirk. The appointee terms will be for three years, ending on November 6, 2017. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 3, 2014 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Bill Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Subject: Review of El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue Intersection Safety Improvement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the attached draft comments prepared in response to the El Camino Real (ECR) and Floribunda Avenue Intersection Safety Improvement Project DEIR by Caltrans, and provide feedback. Further, staff recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter with any amendments as the City’s official response to the DEIR. BACKGROUND In 2008, the Town of Hillsborough contacted Caltrans and the City of Burlingame to relay the town’s concerns regarding left-turn collisions at the intersection of ECR and Floribunda Avenue. Between 2008 and 2014, staff from the three agencies met several times to discuss the issues and concerns in greater detail. Since the ECR corridor is within the jurisdiction of Caltrans, it is the State’s responsibility to evaluate the collision data and examine ways to address safety concerns. Caltrans initially drafted some preliminary concept ideas on the feasibility of adding dedicated left- turn lanes to this portion of ECR. These concepts considered widening of ECR, which would likely result in the removal of several existing trees along the corridor. Both the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough objected to these concepts. At that time, Caltrans was also informed that such a project would be greeted with high public resistance. In response, Caltrans determined that it would conduct a formal environmental assessment for the project as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine the project impacts and take next steps. As part of the CEQA process, Caltrans initiated the environmental scoping for the project in November 2013. On November 19, 2013, Caltrans held a public meeting to receive comments on the environmental scoping for the project. During the meeting, Caltrans representatives presented several project alternatives, including the one that would widen ECR to install left turn lanes, which would likely result in the removal of several trees. As predicted, members of the public voiced strong objections to the removal of the trees and supported the concept of improving the Review of El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue Intersection November 3, 2014 Safety Improvement Project DEIR 2 safety of the intersection, while still preserving the trees along ECR and the historic character of the corridor. Caltrans gathered the public comments and concerns, and informed the public that they would include and address them as part of the CEQA process. As part of the CEQA process, Caltrans completed the project environmental studies and released the DEIR on October 16, 2014. Caltrans also scheduled an open-house public event on November 13, 2014, at the Burlingame Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue. This open- house event will be an opportunity for the public to ask Caltrans specific questions about the project and the evaluation process, reiterate concerns, and provide additional written and verbal comments regarding the DEIR. The deadline for submitting public comments for the DEIR is November 30, 2014. Staff has requested that Caltrans extend the deadline to provide comments as the current deadline is too soon and inadequate. DISCUSSION Staff from the City’s Public Works, Community Development and Parks Departments have jointly reviewed the DEIR and offer the following summary of their findings: The DEIR presents only one Build Alternative and a No Build Alternative. The document also identifies nine operational measures that were considered, but ultimately withdrawn by Caltrans for the following reasons. 1. Signal timing adjustments – rejected because signal timing changes were already made and showed no identifiable reductions in left-turn collisions. 2. Left-turn prohibition/intersection closure – rejected because it was deemed impractical from a highway operational and safety perspective. 3. Widen west side of ECR with private right-of-way (ROW) acquisition – rejected because of design infeasibility with worse environmental impacts than the Build Alternative. 4. Widen both sides of ECR with private ROW acquisition – rejected same as No. 3 above. 5. Widen east side of ECR with private ROW acquisition – rejected same as No. 3 above. 6. Signal split-phasing/removal of existing traffic signal – rejected because it would cause vehicle traffic delays and vehicle queuing. Signal removal would increase left-turn collisions. 7. Speed enforcement – rejected because it would reduce the existing speed limit and not address left-turn collisions. 8. Other signal modifications (traffic barriers and delineators) – rejected because of maintenance concerns, private ROW acquisition, reduction in travel lanes, reduction in through-traffic capacity, potential to cause traffic delay and congestion. 9. Intersection lighting improvements – not rejected, but included in the Build Alternative. Review of El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue Intersection November 3, 2014 Safety Improvement Project DEIR 3 No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative calls for a status quo situation with no improvements. The existing roadway and lane configurations would be unchanged, with two lanes in each direction and no dedicated lanes for left-turns. There would be no mitigation to address the left-turn collisions. The Build Alternative The proposed Build Alternative would result in the widening of El Camino Real in the intersection area from its current width of 40 feet to 60 feet, and tapering back to its current 40 feet width at Oak Grove Avenue and towards Bellevue Avenue, with a project length of approximately 500 feet. The project would consist of installing two new, opposing dedicated left-turn lanes on ECR at Floribunda Avenue for northbound and southbound left-turn traffic. The two existing through- travel lanes in each direction (two northbound and two southbound) would be maintained; although they would be shifted outward to accommodate the new opposing left-turn lanes in the center. The vast majority of the work for the Build Alternative is within Caltrans right-of-way. The only exceptions would be at the northeast and southeast corners of the ECR and Floribunda Ave. intersection, where new Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant access ramps would be constructed. Upon thorough review of the DEIR, it is staff’s understanding that the proposed Build Alternative is a significantly scaled-down version of previous concepts, which are presently identified as the Operational Measures listed above (No. 3 “Widening West Side of SR 82 with Private ROW Acquisition”, No. 4 “Widening Both Sides of SR 82 with Private ROW Acquisition”, and No. 5 “Widening East Side of SR 82 with Private ROW Acquisition”). Based on the previous concepts, Operational Measures Considered but Withdrawn, and an earlier Project Study Report produced by Caltrans, dated October 3, 2011, the total number of trees to be removed under the above concepts was cited as being up to 30 trees. Considerable private right-of-way would also have been necessary under these concepts. Under the current Build Alternative, a total of 14 trees are identified for potential removal. Of these 14 trees, nine are non-historic, and five belong on the historic Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row list. Of the five trees that belong to the historic list, four are mature eucalyptus trees and one is a young elm tree. The DEIR proposes to replace these trees with Elm or a similarly approved species. The Community Development staff conducted a review of the environmental and cultural impact portions of the DEIR. After reviewing the pertinent sections, it was determined that the project impacts (i.e. removal of four contributing Eucalyptus trees and one Elm tree) to the Howard- Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows are less than significant, especially in light of the overall impact upon the entirety of the historic resource. The DEIR acknowledges that Caltrans proposes to replace the removed trees with a contributing tree species where possib le. This would be in an effort to return the appearance of the Tree Rows in the vicinity of El Camino Real and Floribunda back to its original appearance over time and when the replacement trees are mature. In addition to, and as part of the City’s formal comments, staff is also strongly urging Caltrans to investigate in greater detail the preservation of three of the 14 trees currently identified in the Build Alternative for removal. The apparent locations of these particular trees are shown to be along Review of El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue Intersection November 3, 2014 Safety Improvement Project DEIR 4 the edges of the curb lines of the proposed Build Alternative alignment. As such, their locations in relation to the curb lines may present an opportunity to further explore preserving these trees. After reviewing the DEIR and analyzing the Build Alternative, No Build Alternative, and the Operational Measures Considered but Withdrawn, Public Works and Community Development staff have drafted comments for Council review and feedback. These comments include specific analyses, questions, and clarifications pertaining to the lack of quantitative information and data contained in the DEIR. Additionally, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission held a special meeting on October 23, 2014 in an effort to review the DEIR and collect public comments prior to the City Council meeting. The comments and concerns from that meeting focused on the aesthetic impact related to the Build Alternative. There were also concerns and questions regarding the level and amount of technical data in the DEIR pertaining to the operational measures that were ultimately withdrawn. These comments are incorporated in the attached draft letter with the Mayor’s signature to be submitted to Caltrans as part of the City’s official response to the DEIR. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: Draft Mayor’s letter to Caltrans with City comments on the DEIR Copy of Executive Summary of DEIR City Arborist Memo regarding trees The City of Burlingame MAYOR MICHAEL BROWNRIGG CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7200 TERRY NAGEL, VICE MAYOR BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 556-9281 ANN KEIGHRAN www.burlingame.org RICARDO ORTIZ JOHN ROOT November 3, 2014 California Department of Transportation, District 4 Yolanda Rivas, Environmental Branch Chief Office of Environmental A nalysis, Mail Station 8B 111 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Email: y olanda_rivas@dot.ca.gov Subject: City of Burlingame Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the State Highway 82 (EI Camino Real) at Floribunda Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements Project Dear Ms. Rivas: The Burlingame City Council would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation and thanks to Caltrans for the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements Project. The City of Burlingame would also like to reiterate our position of support for the efforts of Caltrans to evaluate and implement measures to reduce the number of accidents at this intersection. Aside from a shared concern for safety, another fundamental issue for the City of Burlingame has always been the character of El Camino Real within the limits of the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough. As you are aware, this corridor is uniquely different from the rest of El Camino as it traverses through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Especially for Burlingame, this three-mile stretch of El Camino Real, with its tall trees, sidewalks, and limited commercial frontage, is distinctly tied to the City’s long history and culture. From the outset, the City has always maintained that an evaluation process could be implemented whereby Caltrans would adopt an approach beginning with the least -most invasive interventions and moving forward from there. We see this to be the most cost-effective way of solving the problem for our taxpayers since each successive measure would prove to be Ms. Yolanda Rivas November 3, 2014 Page 2 more invasive and more expensive than the former. The City believes that this approach would also ensure that the most drastic and irreversible solution would be considered last, instead of first. Therefore, the City of Burlingame is disappointed to see that several of the Operational Measures were evaluated and withdrawn by Caltrans in the DEIR. We are further let down that the overall approach of “incremental empiricism”, as was offered by the City in its December 16, 2013 letter, was dismissed by Caltrans. The City still believes that safety improvements may be achieved through combined, and concurrent, implementation of several operational measures. The approach taken in the DEIR to evaluate these measures as isolated, individual actions has led to less than significant results. The City not only believes in the “incremental empiricism” approach, but also believes that safety, historic, cultural, and aesthetic concerns can all be addressed using several actions simultaneously or in close concert, rather than just as individual measures. It is the City’s belief that this approach is better public policy both for California taxpayers as well as for our own city residents. The City has reviewed the DEIR and believes that there are many unanswered questions related to the traffic studies and operational analysis related to the ECR and Floribunda intersection, and has prepared the attached comments (Attachment A) that should be addressed as part of the environmental process. The City of Burlingame continues to look forward to working with Caltrans to arrive at a solution that improves traffic safety at the El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue intersection without causing adverse impacts to the cultural heritage and environment of our community. Michael Brownrigg Mayor c: Burlingame City Council Hillsborough City Council State Senator Jerry Hill State Assembly Member Kevin Mullin Ms. Carol Roland-Nawi, State Historic Preservation Officer Ms. Elizabeth Krase Green, Office of Cultural Resource Studies, Caltrans District 4 Enclosure: Attachment A The City of Burlingame PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD CORPORATION YARD Tel: (650) 558-7230 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Tel: (650) 558-7670 Fax: (650) 685-9310 www.burlingame.org Fax: (650) 696-1598 Attachment A City of Burlingame Draft Comments for SR 82 (El Camino Real) at Floribunda Intersection Safety Improvement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report The City has reviewed the DEIR and believes that it is deficient in providing adequate information about all the project alternatives/measures studied as part of the environmental process. Additionally the City believes that there are many unanswered questions related to the traffic studies and operational analysis related to the ECR and Floribunda intersection, and has prepared the following comments: General Traffic Engineering and Operation Studies: 1. The DEIR does not provide comprehensive traffic collision data at the El Camino Real (ECR) and Floribunda intersection. The document states that there were 22 accidents over a three-year period and does not show year-by-year trends, types, causes, or results/changes from previous improvements undertaken. Please provide a detailed record of collision data by year, type and causes for the last ten-year period. 2. The DEIR states that the ECR and Floribunda intersection has a higher collision rate than the state average. However, the document does not provide the information on what the state’s average collision rate is and the measured time period. Please provide the data on the statewide average collision rate for similar types of intersections and corridors for a fair comparison. 3. The DEIR states that only TASA (Traffic Analysis Study Area) reported accidents were taken into consideration for the purpose of preparing the environmental document. Please clarify why only TASA reported accidents were taken into consideration. 4. The DEIR includes traffic collisions for a three-year period up to 2012. Please provide the total number of traffic collisions/accidents at this intersection after 2012. Please also provide traffic analysis for comparison of that data to previous years’ collision records. 5. The DEIR does not provide collision data about other intersections along the ECR corridor. The City believes it is not only important, but relevant to understand how the Floribunda intersection compares with other intersections along the ECR corridor in terms of traffic safety and Level of Service (LOS). 6. The DEIR does not provide any information about the traffic LOS for the ECR and Floribunda intersection, as well as other intersections in the vicinity under any of the scenarios studied as part of the DEIR. Please provide existing and future LOS for the ECR and Floribunda intersection and other intersections in the vicinity including, but not limited to, Oak Grove Avenue, Bellevue Avenue and Chapin Avenue. In addition, the current and future traffic LOS information should be provided for all other scenarios discussed in the DEIR. 7. The traffic operation analysis for existing and future conditions for all scenarios should include current and projected future traffic volumes. 8. The DEIR states that traffic signal modifications were studied, and it was determined that they would not address the left-turn collision problem at the ECR and Floribunda intersection. However, no analysis and traffic simulation information was included in the document. Please provide detailed technical data including simulation for each of the discarded alternatives. 9. Provide information on what consideration was given if the City were to implement certain traffic measures on Floribunda such as prohibiting all southbound left-turns, limiting hours of operation for southbound left-turns, or designating Floribunda as a one- way street. Build Alternative: 10. The DEIR document identifies a total of 14 trees that may be removed as part of the Build Alternative. The City requests Caltrans to explore reducing the number of trees that may need to be removed for the Build Alternative. 11. Provide a confirmation that there is no right-of-way acquisition required of private properties for the Build Alternative. 12. Please provide the current and future expected southbound and northbound left-turn volumes on Floribunda along with LOS including storage length and queuing. If the traffic simulation model shows that an installation of dedicated left turn lanes will increase the left turn volumes, the City believes that it will likely have an increased traffic circulation impact on local streets. Please provide a detailed study of local impacts to be expected as a result of dedicated left turn lanes at the ECR and Floribunda intersection. Additionally, the DEIR should identify appropriate mitigation measures to address the potential impacts. 13. The DEIR does not provide any information about the anticipated construction timing and related impacts to the nearby residential community, as this intersection is located in a dense residential area. 14. The DEIR states that every attempt will be made to replace trees. Please clarify if new locations for tree replantation have been determined. The City requests Caltrans to consider using larger than 24 inch box trees for replacement, should this Alternative be considered. 15. The DEIR does not provide any information on the health conditions of the trees affected by this alternative. Please provide information on the health conditions of the affected trees. No Build Alternative: 16. The City shares the safety concerns related to left turn collisions at the ECR and Floribunda intersection, and believes that that these concerns should be addressed and the ‘No Build Alternative’ is not an option. The City does believe that an incremental solution to address the problem is warranted. Operational Measures Considered but Withdrawn: Operational Measure No. 1 17. The DEIR document states that certain signal timing changes were made at the intersection; however no data was included in the document regarding the changes and the results. Please provide relevant data to support the analysis. 18. The DEIR does not provide any traffic operations data and LOS. Please provide the current and future LOS at all other intersections along the entire corridor as part of the analysis. 19. The DEIR does not provide any information on traffic volume to quantify DEIR statements about excessive delays, queuing for dismissed Operational Measures. Please provide the data to support the statements. Operational Measure No. 2 20. The DEIR document incorrectly states that Burlingame Police and Fire are in the vicinity of the Floribunda Avenue intersection. Please note that Burlingame Police and Fire are not in the vicinity of the intersection. 21. Please provide information regarding if Central County Fire Department and other emergency services have been notified or consulted regarding service route assumptions in the DEIR. 22. The DEIR does not provide information on traffic volumes that may be redistributed if left turns are prohibited at Floribunda intersection. Operational Measures Nos.3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 23. No comments Operational Measures Nos. 6 and 8 24. The DEIR states that the traffic signal split phasing was studied and determined that it resulted in traffic delays. However, it fails to provide specific information on the traffic queues, increased vehicle emissions, and driver frustrations caused by the delays. 25. The DEIR cites that removing existing signals will divert traffic to other streets. However, no specific information on traffic volumes and LOS has been included in the document. Additionally, the City believes it is unwarranted to remove the existing traffic signal at the ECR and Floribunda intersection. The City requests Caltrans to address all the above comments and provide requested data to support the DEIR analysis. Please contact Engineering Program Manager Augustine Chou at (650) 558-7230 with any questions regarding the City’s comments on the DEIR. 1 SUMMARY The proposed project is a joint project by the California Department of Transportatio n (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and is subject to state and federal environmental review requirements. Project documentation, therefore, has been prepared in compliance with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Caltrans is the lead agency under both NEPA and CEQA. In addition, FHWA’s responsibility for environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable federal laws for this project is being, or has been, carried-out by Caltrans under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 United States Code (USC) 327. Some impacts determined to be significant under CEQA may not lead to a determination of significance under NEPA. Because NEPA is concerned with the significance of the project as a whole, quite often a “lower level” document is prepared for NEPA. One of the most common joint document types is an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA). After receiving comments from the public and reviewing agencies, a Final EIR/EA will be prepared. Caltrans may prepare additional environmental and/or engineering studies to address comments. The Final EIR/EA will include responses to comments received on the Draft EIR/EA and will identify the preferred alternative. If the decision is made to approve the project, a Notice of Determination will be published for compliance with CEQA, and Caltrans will decide whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for compliance with NEPA. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the FONSI will be sent to the affected units of federal, state, and local government, and to the State Clearinghouse in compliance with Executive Order 12372. This project proposes to improve the safety of the intersection of State Route (SR) 82 at Floribunda Avenue, most specifically, to reduce left-turn collisions. There is a need to construct safety improvements at this intersection to significantly reduce the occurrence of left-turn related accidents. The lack of dedicated left-turn lanes and left-turn signals contributes to the occurrence of intersection accidents. The estimated project cost would be approximately $3.6 million, funded from State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds. Construction is estimated to begin sometime in 2018. After public circulation of this DEIR/EA, a Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) would be prepared for this project. Caltrans may undertake additional environmental and/or engineering studies to address comments. The Final EIR/EA will include responses to comments received on the Draft EIR/EA and will identify the preferred alternative. Overview of Project Area State Route (SR) 82 is a California State highway that begins at Interstate 880 (I-880) in San Jose and ends at Interstate 280 (I-280) in San Francisco, forming a central artery through several San Francisco peninsula communities including Palo Alto, San Carlos, San Mateo, Burlingame and Millbrae. Commonly referred to as “El Camino Real” (Spanish for The King’s Highway) it was part of the 600-mile Mission Trail connecting the 21 Spanish Missions from San Diego to Sonoma. SR 82 runs south to north for approximately 42 miles, with 17 miles in Santa Clara County, 25 miles in San Mateo County, and terminates a short distance into San 2 Francisco County at I-280. Throughout San Mateo County, SR 82 serves as a parallel arterial to I-280 and US 101. SR 82 is functionally classified by the Federal government, as a ‘Principal Arterial-Urban.” The proposed project is located at the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue, within the jurisdiction of both the city of Burlingame and the town of Hillsborough in San Mateo County. SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue is a four-lane, undivided highway with two 11-ft. through lanes with uncontrolled left-turn movements in both directions at the signalized intersection with Floribunda Avenue. SR 82 at this location has two bus stops served by the San Mateo County Transit Agency (SamTrans). Floribunda Avenue is a designated bicycle route. Related Plans and Projects Regional Planning In addition to the proposed project there are state, regional and local plans in the vicinity of SR 82 including on State Highway 101 and selected interchanges. At the regional level, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is responsible for regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The MTC’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (Plan Bay Area), adopted July 18, 2013, lists programmed and planned projects throughout the nine counties of the Bay Area. Plan Bay Area is the successor to Transportation 2035, the long-range plan adopted by MTC in 2009. Plan Bay Area will address new requirements flowing from California’s 2008 Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg), which calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cars and light trucks. The transportation sector represents about 40 percent of the GHG pollution that scientists claim is causing climate change.1 State Planning In the summer of 2013 there was an existing Caltrans project completed to improve the drainage system along both sides of SR 82 in the vicinity of Floribunda Avenue to address flooding on the east side of SR 82 that occurs after heavy rainfall. There is a Caltrans America Disability Act (ADA) Sidewalk Safety Project that is programmed for July, 2014 which will repair and improve existing sidewalk pedestrian infrastructure, specifically existing damaged sidewalks along SR82 (SR 82 Boulevard). Please see Section 2.23 Cumulative Impact Assessment, for a more detailed discussion about this project. Local Planning The federal The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of The United States federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), provided the following expenditures on or near SR 82: 1. High Priority project #1942: SR 82 “Grand Boulevard” initiative in San Mateo County. $3,000,000. The Grand Boulevard Initiative is a collaboration of 19 cities, counties, local and regional agencies united to improve the performance, safety, and aesthetics of SR 82 Boulevard. This project has multi-modal streetscape improvement components at locations to the north and south of this safety project at the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue. 1 MTC Bay Area Plan. Retrieved on May 14, 2014 from http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/plan_bay_area/. 3 The San Mateo SMART Corridor project, begun in the summer of 2011, installed equipment on various State Routes and local arterials in San Mateo County to reduce congestion and improve traffic operations. The project included installation of camera and optical fiber cables and conduits along SR 82, including the intersection with Floribunda Avenue. Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to improve intersection safety of SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue to reduce the occurrence and potential for collisions involving left-turn movements. According to state accident monitoring data, the intersection has a higher left-turn related collision rate than the statewide average. There were 22 reported collisions over a three year period, (according to most recent available data) with over 54.5% of those collisions identified as broadside accidents related to left-turns, followed by 13.6% rear end, 9.1% sideswipe, 9.1% head-on and 4.5% auto-pedestrian collisions.2 The proposed project is needed to address the following: vehicles not having enough time or gaps to turn left safely; inadequate sight distance to turn left due to opposing vehicles making left-turns and blocking the view of opposite oncoming through vehicle traffic; no protected green arrow for left-turns vehicles stopping in the SR 82 inner through lanes to make left-turns, creating traffic flow congestion cues during peak hours. Proposed Action Caltrans’ environmental scoping process includes an analysis of reasonable build alternatives. A No Build Alternative is also considered and represents the existing condition. All build alternatives are compared to the No Build. A reasonable range of alternatives were compiled based upon input from Caltrans project development team (PDT), cities of Burlingame and Hillsborough and the public. After a thorough alternatives analysis, Caltrans identified a Build Alternative which is presented in this draft environmental document with the No Build Alternative. The other alternatives considered are summarized under Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn. Alternatives were identified based on meeting the purpose and need for this project to increase traffic safety by reducing left-turn collisions. The No Build and Build Alternatives are described below. 1. Build Alternative: Widen both sides of SR 82 (majority within existing Caltrans right-of-way) The proposed Build Alternative would widen SR 82 at the Floribunda Avenue intersection at Post Mile (PM) 13.69 between Oak Grove Avenue and Bellevue Avenue, to install left-turn pockets and left-turn signals in the northbound and southbound directions. The project is approximately 500 ft. long and 60 ft. wide and includes the north and south approaches to Floribunda Avenue on SR 82. Two existing, through lanes would be maintained in both the north and southbound directions on SR 82. 2 California Department of Transportation Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis Systems (TASAS), Data collected over three year period from 4/1/09 to 3/31/12. 4 The signalized intersection of SR 82/Floribunda Avenue would be widened on both sides of SR 82 to construct a 10 ft. wide left-turn channel along both northbound and southbound of SR 82. A 10-ft. wide, center left-turn lane, including approach tapers would be added, as well as 1.5-ft. shoulders in both directions of SR 82 for the majority of the 500 ft. by 60 ft. project limits. Currently, there is no roadway shoulder at the SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue intersection. The proposed roadway cross-section would consist of two 11 ft. wide travel through lanes in each direction, and 10-ft. wide left-turn pocket in both directions, with 1.5 ft. shoulder and maintain the existing 4 to 5 ft. wide sidewalks. The roadway within the project limits would be approximately 60 ft. wide and the left-turn pocket in the southbound direction would be 50 ft. long with a 50 ft. taper. The left-turn pocket in the northbound direction would be 75 ft. long with a 60 ft. taper. The construction limit length for this alternative would be approximately 500 ft. long by 60 ft. wide. The total Construction Site Area would be 0.87 acres. The total disturbed Soil Area would be 0.32 acres. The majority of work would occur within the state right-of-way except for some minor work at specific points. Partial acquisition of right-of-way from two properties at northeast and southeast intersection quadrants would be required for construction of the curb ramps. Permits to Enter and Construct (PECs) would be required from the Town of Hillsborough and City of Burlingame local streets. This includes a small landscaped portion of Hillsborough's municipal site known as Centennial Park. Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs) would be required on 4 parcels for the grading and construction of driveways. Under the Build Alternative 14 trees would be removed. Of the 14 trees, 9 are non- historic (sweet gum, blue gum, blackwood acacia, and young eucalyptus trees) and (5) five trees (four mature eucalyptus trees and one young elm tree) have been identified as contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, a National Register of Historic Places-listed property. Please see the Cultural Section 2.7.2. A Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) overhead electrical line along the west side of SR 82 is in conflict with the roadway widening. Burying the PG&E electrical line within the State right of way is anticipated. In addition, the PG&E gas line, the AT&T underground line and the City of Burlingame water line on the east side of SR 82 are in conflict and relocating them within the State Right of Way are anticipated. Several existing utility boxes and manholes need to be relocated or adjusted to the finished grade. Potholing will be required to identify the underground utilities and detailed utility verification will be done during the PS&E phase. The existing utilities will be determined during the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) phase of the project. The PS&E phase follows the environmental review and final document public release for the project. The size of utility trenches will be determined by the utility companies. Usually, utility trenches are 2.5 to 3 ft. deep and 1.5 to 2 ft. wide. The need for lane closures and detours will be identified in a Transportation Management Plan (TMP), which will be prepared during the PS&E phase. Figure 3, displays the draft plan for the Build Alternative including the five trees (four mature eucalyptus trees and one young elm tree) that are contributors to the Howard- Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows as well as the nine other non-historic trees that would require removal. Please see Visual/Aesthetic section for more information about trees. 2. No Build (No Action) Alternative 5 The existing facility is a four lane, undivided, conventional state highway, SR 82, approximately 40 ft. wide, consisting of approximately two 11-ft. wide through lanes with uncontrolled left-turn movements in the north and southbound directions. The posted speed limit on SR 82 is 35 miles per hour (mph). In the northbound d irection, toward McKinley Elementary School, 1 block north of Floribunda Avenue, the speed limit is 25 mph when school children are present. While this alternative would not meet the purpose and need, it serves as the baseline to which the Build Alternative can be compared. As traffic volumes on SR 82 increase, it is expected that accidents would increase, including broadside collisions at the intersection with Floribunda Avenue. The No Build Alternative would not reduce the high broadside collision rate involving left-turn traffic movements nor reduce the congestion and traffic flow for left-turning vehicles on SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue. Project Impacts Project impacts that would require avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures as a result of the proposed SR 82 (SR 82) at Floribunda Intersection Safety Improvement Project include impacts to Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Cultural Resources, Visual/Aesthetics, Noise, Paleontological Resources, Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography, Hazardous Waste/Materials, and the Biological Environment. A summary of the avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures for the Build Alternative is included in Table S-1. 6 Table S-1: Build Alternative Project Impacts Resource Area Potential Impacts Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Traffic and Transportation/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Disruption to transportation, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities during construction. Traffic and Transportation: A Transportation Management Plan (TMP), Construction Zone Enhance Enforcement Program (COZEEP), Portable changeable message signs and notification of impacted groups (public transit, bicyclists, pedestrians). Construction Impacts: Construction activities would result in temporary traffic detours and possibly single lanes impacting traffic/transportation, pedestrian circulation and bicycles on the Floribunda Avenue bicycle route. These impacts would be minimized through coordination with the Town of Hillsborough, City of Burlingame and emergency providers. Efforts would be made to concentrate the majority of road closures and construction activity during off-peak hours to reduce traffic impacts. Traffic would be diverted to one side of SR 82 and traffic would be controlled by flaggers stationed at both ends of the closure. Cultural Resources The proposed Build Alternative would remove (5) five contributor trees to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, a National Register of Historic Places listed property, within the 500 ft. project boundary at the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue. Caltrans will make every effort to minimize the impact of tree removal by planting (5) five new contributing Accolade © elm or similar approved trees where space is available within the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows on SR 82.3 Non-contributing trees within the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows may be removed to provide space for the replanting of contributing Accolade © elm or similar approved variety. Caltrans may remove and replace the last Sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), located on the northeast quadrant of SR 82 near Oak Grove Avenue, with an Accolade © elm or similar species to help maintain the integrity of the landscape/visual character of the tree rows. The replacement trees would be Accolade ® elm or similar species and would be 24” box size (6-8 ft. tall and 1.5”-2” caliper trunk). At maturity, in 30 years, it is anticipated the elm 3 Contributing trees are tree species that are considered to be contributing elements of the historic resource and continue to strengthen the integrity of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows as they carry out McLaren’s original design of a landscaped, shaded avenue. These contributing trees include the mature eucalyptus and mature elm trees planted originally between 1873 and 1876. Elms planted as replacements are also considered contributors. Non-contributing trees are trees that do not contribute to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. There are 201 non-contributing trees within the resource which include orange gum (E.bancrofti), desert box gum (E. microtheca), flowering gum (E.ficifolia), Nichol's willow-leaf peppermint, swamp mahogany (E. robusta), swamp gum (E. rudis), silver dollar gum, pink iron bark (E. sideroxylon 'Rosea'), and acacia, as well as redwood, sycamore, horse chestnut and sweet gum trees. 7 Resource Area Potential Impacts Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures trees would grow to 40-60 ft. in height and have a 35-40 ft. wide crown.4 Visual/Aesthetics The Build Alternative would remove 14 (5 historic and 9 non-historic) trees. The proposed project Build Alternative would have a moderate-low impact to the landscape/visual character of the tree rows. Caltrans would make every effort to minimize the impact of tree removal by planting (5) five new contributing Accolade © elm or similar approved trees where space is available within the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows on SR 82. Non-contributing trees within the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows may be removed to provide space for the replanting of contributing Accolade © elm or similar approved variety. Caltrans may remove and replace the last Sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), located on the northeast quadrant of SR 82 near Oak Grove Avenue, with an Accolade © elm or similar species to help maintain the integrity of the landscape/visual character of the tree rows. The replacement trees would be Accolade ® elm or similar species and would be 24” box size (6-8 ft. tall and 1.5”-2” caliper trunk). At maturity, in 30 years, it is anticipated the elm trees would grow to 40-60 ft. in height and have a 35-40 ft. wide crown.5 Noise NEPA conclusion: The federal noise abatement criteria were met or exceeded at 556 and 707 El Camino Real property addresses and McKinley Elementary School Yard with existing noise. CEQA conclusion: Noise levels are not expected to increase above the existing, or baseline, levels. Temporary construction noise. There are no reasonable and feasible abatement measures for existing and future noise that could be implemented. No sound walls required. Construction noise abatement would be implemented as required by Caltrans’ Standard Specification 14-8.02, “Noise Control”. Paleontological Resources Under the proposed Build Alternative, planned ground-disturbing activities within the project foot print could potentially impact paleontological resources. The following mitigation measures for paleontological resources are recommended and in accordance to Caltrans' Standard Environmental Reference Guidelines (Caltrans, 2007). It is recommended that Caltrans implement the following measures: It is recommended that a Paleontological Evaluation Report (PER) be prepared prior to construction to define actual locations where monitoring will be necessary based upon the project design. For budgeting, the PER will provide enough information about the level of effort needed. 4 The Morton Arboretum. Retrieved from http://www.mortonarb.org/trees-plants/tree-plant-descriptions/elm-cultivars, on 6/23/14. 5 The Morton Arboretum. Retrieved from http://www.mortonarb.org/trees-plants/tree-plant-descriptions/elm-cultivars, on 6/23/14. 8 Resource Area Potential Impacts Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Paleontological Resources (cont’d) Based on the findings from the PER, a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) may be recommended to define the specific mitigation measures and methods that will be implemented. These recommendations may include: a. A qualified paleontologist be present to consult with grading and excavation contractors at pre-grading meetings. b. The Principal Paleontologist also have an environmental meeting to train grading and excavation contractors in the identification of fossils. c. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) will be called to recover them. Construction work in these areas will be halted or diverted to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. d. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program will be cleaned, stabilized, sorted, and cataloged. e. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, will then be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections. f. A final report will be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. g. Geology/Soils/ Seismicity For the Build Alternative, excavation, trenching and possible deep foundation work for light signals would be required during construction. Environmental borings show mostly silts, clays and silty sands surrounding the site. A geotechnical investigation should be performed to determine Exploration and Investigations: Field and subsurface exploration, laboratory tests and analysis shall be performed to evaluate foundation designs, and if necessary slope ratios, and to determine soil strengths and mitigation. For each traffic signal location a geotechnical boring should be completed in advance to 9 Resource Area Potential Impacts Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Geology/Soils/ Seismicity, continued stability of excavations and if shoring will be needed. To our knowledge there is no hazardous waste within the project site. Soil properties will be evaluated during geotechnical investigation. determine groundwater levels, soil types and strengths, and structural conditions in rock if encountered. Several investigative methods may be used, including but not limited to: soil borings, rock coring, Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPTs), and geophysical studies. Laboratory testing may be required to determine soil strength, permeability, moisture content, and grain size. Groundwater: Groundwater levels can be determined with borings as part of the Geotechnical Design Report investigation. Groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally and should be monitored through the winter to find the highest levels. CPTs may be used to determine groundwater depth, and subsurface soil types. It may also be useful in locating or characterizing thick, potentially expansive clays. Dewatering: The exploratory drilling during the Geotechnical Design Report phase will discover any areas that will require dewatering. Corrosion: Corrosivity tests shall be conducted where appropriate as part of the drilling program for the any proposed retaining walls. Hazardous Waste/Materials An environmental regulatory database search did not reveal any known hazardous waste sites that could negatively impact the project. Shallow soils to be excavated within the unpaved areas adjacent to the roadway likely contain elevated levels of aerially deposited lead (ADL) from historic vehicle emissions. A site investigation that ascertains the presence and concentrations of metals, particularly lead, in soils will be conducted during the project’s PS&E phase. The findings of the site investigation will be used to prepare the appropriate standard special provisions that address the proper soil handling requirements and worker health and safety concerns. Biological Environment No impacts to listed species are anticipated. Potential impact to migratory bird species nesting. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) avoidance measures shall be implemented including surveys and avoiding nesting periods. (Please see Threatened and Endangered Species Section 2.20.4, Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation, for details on surveys and nesting period avoidance measures.) Coordination with public and other agencies Collaborative efforts have taken place throughout the planning process with the project development team from as early as 2011 when initial conceptual road widening alternatives at the intersection were developed and analyzed. These alternatives were further evaluated and refined to reduce environmental impacts until the recommended Build Alternative was proposed, which reduces environmental impacts including minimizing tree removal. Consultation has occurred with the Town of Hillsborough, City of Burlingame, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Burlingame Historical Society and the Native American Heritage Commission on the proposed project to improve intersection safety. In addition, both Hillsborough and Burlingame 10 are members of the project development team and participated in several meetings and were consulted in the development of the proposed safety improvement project. The Town of Hillsborough’s General Plan Circulation Element has identified this intersection as needing safety improvements and the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue was included in a study Hillsborough completed of the intersection, calling for safety improvements. Under Section 106, consultation is required with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). A Water Pollution Control Plan is required from the U.S. EPA and would be completed before project construction. The following reviews and approvals would be required for project construction: Agency Consultation Agency Permit/Approval Status California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act and PRC 5024.5 SHPO concurrence on the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects was received on April 21, 2014. SHPO consultation and concurrence regarding the Finding of Effect will be completed by the final environmental document. Town of Hillsborough and City of Burlingame Encroachment Permits to enter and construct in Floribunda Avenue. During Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) Caltrans would request permit. Environmental Process The Final EIR/EA evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed project and when warranted, identifies mitigation measures to reduce project effects. After publishing and circulating the Draft EIR/EA for public review and comment, Caltrans followed typical CEQA/NEPA procedures and: Conducted a public scoping meeting (November 19, 2013) on the Notice of Preparation of the EIR/EA and potential project options that would be analyzed for the project. The public was invited to provide comments on the scope and content of the EIR/EA until December 21, 2013. Caltrans will conduct a public “open house” community meeting to present the Draft EIR/EA to the public in October, 2014. A 45 day public comment period will be provided where interested parties submitted written comments on this Draft EIR/EA Caltrans will Identify the preferred Project Alternative with the Project Development Team (PDT) Will prepare and distribute a Final EIR/EA with NOA. This Final EIR/EA will include responses to comments received on the Draft EIR/EA and identify the Preferred Alternative. The next steps will include circulation of the Final EIR/EA and issuance of the CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD). 11 Alternatives Considered but Withdrawn from Further Discussion The following five alternatives summarized below were analyzed but withdrawn from further discussion because they would not meet the purpose and need of the project, were not physically feasible or would have significant environmental and community impacts. Four additional options are discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.4 Alternatives Considered but Withdrawn from Further Consideration including: Other Signal Timing Options, Speed Enforcement, Traffic Barriers (Calming) and Improve Lighting. 1. Signal Timing Adjustment Alternative This alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project. This alternative would not improve safety for left-turn movements from SR 82 to Floribunda Avenue and solely involves signal timing adjustments of the existing traffic signals. Signal timing adjustments have already been made in 2005, 2011 and most recently in January of 2013 at the intersections of SR 82 at Bellevue Avenue, Floribunda Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue. These signal timing adjustments included adding additional green time on SR 82 at Bellevue and Floribunda Avenues. At Oak Grove Avenue the through traffic signal time was shortened, stopping traffic southbound on SR 82 early, thus allowing a gap for the SR 82 northbound traffic to turn left when the green through phase begins. There was no significant improvement for left-turn accidents as a result of the timing adjustment. Although creating a gap for SR 82 northbound left-turn at Floribunda Avenue helps, it is not a long term solution to reducing left-turn collisions at the intersection since it does not address southbound left-turn movements. There would continue to be inadequate sight distance for left turn movements from SR 82 to Floribunda Avenue when vehicles from both directions on SR 82 are attempting to turn left simultaneously, blocking each other’s view of approaching through traffic in the curbside lane. Operationally, the signal modification option would function poorly causing vehicle congestion and pedestrian crossing delay. For example, if a dedicated left-turn signal is installed on SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue without a left-turn lane, the other three legs of the intersection would experience delays to accommodate the left-turn movements and pedestrian crossings. The Level of Service (LOS) and delays for the AM and PM would be C (33.1) seconds and D (48.6) seconds, respectively. Finally, the operation of the intersection would preclude this intersection from being coordinated with other intersections on SR 82 in the middle of the Burlingame system and northbound, southbound signal progression would be negatively affected. Long back-ups or queues may increase the potential for rear-end types of accidents. 2. No Left-turn/Intersection Closure Alternative Prohibiting the left-turn movement from SR 82 onto Floribunda Avenue was considered but was determined to be impractical from an operational and safety perspective as the two local agencies (Town Hall of Hillsborough and City of Burlingame’s City Hall and their fire and police stations) are situated on both sides of the intersection. Fire trucks, police, safety, maintenance and related emergency response vehicles from both local agencies would need to make left-turn movements at the intersection. Prohibiting left- turn movements may delay emergency and public safety response and it is anticipated that there would be enforcement challenges on closure implementation. The prohibition 12 of left-turn movements at SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue would most likely shift the occurrence of left-turn traffic accidents to the intersections of Willow Avenue heading north and to Bellevue Avenue heading south of Floribunda Avenue. 3. Widen West Side of SR 82 (Widened to Caltrans dimension standards) This alternative proposed to install left-turn channelization for both north and southbound direction on SR 82 with protected left-turn signal phase at Floribunda Avenue. Widening would only be on the west side of SR 82, and would require an additional 30 ft. of new right-of-way. SR 82 Right-of-Way (ROW) on the west side would widen by approximately 10 ft.-10 inches to 15 ft.-4 inches, including 5 ft. shoulder (Caltrans standard is 8 ft. shoulder, but with Caltrans design exception it would be 5 ft.). Project length would be approximately 1,024 ft. There would be impacts to Centennial Park, the Hillsborough Police Departments’ parking lot, the Adventist Church (northwest leg of the intersections) and 4(f) historic properties (located along the southwest leg of the intersection). Twenty trees (20), including (16) sixteen eucalyptus trees that are contributors to the Howard- Ralston Historic Tree Rows, a National Register of Historic Places listed property, would need to be removed. There would be no impacts to properties or contributors to the Howard-Ralston Historic Tree Rows located on the east side of SR 82. Retaining walls would be needed on the northwest and southwest sides of SR 82 due to the elevation difference between the roadway and sides. This alternative would require partial right- of-way (ROW) acquisition from the 1615 Floribunda Avenue property and 50 Kammerer Court property. 4. Widen Both Sides of SR 82 (Widened to Caltrans dimension standards) This alternative proposed to install left-turn channelization for both north and southbound direction on SR 82 with protected left-turn signal phase along SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue. There would be widening on both sides of SR 82 Boulevard. ROW on the east side of SR 82 would increase approximately 3 ft.-8 inches. ROW on the west side of SR 82 would widen approximately 10 ft.-9 inches to 11 ft.-1 inch, including 5 ft. shoulder (Caltrans standard is 8 ft. shoulder, but with Caltrans design exception it would be 5 ft.). Project length would be approximately 1,024 ft. There would be no impacts to Centennial Park, the Hillsborough Police Departments’ parking lot, the Adventist Church (northwest leg of the intersections) and historic properties (located along the southwest leg of the intersection). There would be impacts to thirty trees, including sixteen contributors to the Howard-Ralston Historic Tree Rows located on both sides of SR 82. Retaining walls would be needed on the northwest and southwest sides of SR 82 due to the elevation difference between the roadway and sides. This alternative would remove 16 trees that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows and would require partial right-of-way (ROW) acquisition from the 1615 Floribunda Avenue property and 50 Kammerer Court property. 5. Widen East Side Only of SR 82 (Widened to Caltrans dimension standards) This alternative proposed to install left-turn channelization for both north and southbound direction with protected left-turn signal phase along SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue. Widening would only be on the east side of SR 82 Boulevard. ROW on the east side of SR 82 would widen approximately 30 ft. from the existing curb, including 5 ft. shoulder (Caltrans standard is 8 ft. shoulder, but with Caltrans design exception it would be 5 ft.). Project length would be approximately 1,024 ft. After initial analysis of the right-of-way required for this alternative, it was eliminated from further consideration because of its community impacts. To widen SR 82 on the east side only, right-of-way would need to be acquired and 4 large apartment complexes would have to be demolished. It would not be feasible to relocate the community residents of 74 units in 4 apartment complexes 13 located east of SR 82 for this alternative. There also would be impacts to trees. Twenty four trees would need to be removed, including (10) ten trees that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, A National register of Historic places listed property, located on the east side of SR 82. 14 CHAPTER 1 – PROPOSED PROJECT Introduction Caltrans is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Caltrans proposes to address reducing left-turn accidents at the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue by widening the intersection of SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue to construct a left-turn channelized lane in both directions and modify the signal to provide protected left-turn signals on SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue. State Route (SR) 82 is a California State highway that begins at I-880 in San Jose and ends at I-280 in San Francisco, forming a central artery through several San Francisco peninsula communities including Palo Alto, San Carlos, San Mateo, Burlingame and Millbrae. Commonly referred to as “El Camino Real” (Spanish for The King’s Highway) it was part of the 600-mile Mission Trail connecting the 21 Spanish Missions from San Diego to Sonoma. SR 82 runs south to north for approximately 42 miles, with 17 miles in Santa Clara County, 25 miles in San Mateo County, and terminates a short distance into San Francisco County at I-280. Throughout San Mateo County, SR 82 serves as a parallel arterial to I-280 and US 101. SR 82 is functionally classified by the Federal government, as a ‘Principal Arterial-Urban.” An Urban principal arterial primarily functions to provide continuity for through traffic between major centers within an urban area. SR 82 is a conventional facility serving mainly local travel demand and is not included in the Interregional Road System (IRRS) designated by the state. SR 82 allows use by trucks under both the federally-classified STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act) designation, and the California Legal Truck designation (65 ft. maximum length). These allowances enable accommodation of 5+ axle trucks. The posted speed limit on SR 82 is 35 miles per hour (mph). The total length of the proposed project is about 500 ft. The project is located at post mile 13.69 at the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue along the limits of the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough in San Mateo County. SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue is a four-lane, undivided highway with two 11-ft. through lanes and no shoulders, with uncontrolled left-turn movements in both directions at the signalized intersection with Floribunda Avenue. The Town of Hillsborough requested that Caltrans study this intersection because the actual accident rate is greater than the statewide average for traffic involving vehicles with left-turn movements. A total of 22 accidents occurred at the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue within the project limits during the three-year period from April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2012. The following accident rates for this period show the total actual accident rate of 0.86 accidents per million vehicle miles (acc/mvm) is higher than the average accident rate of 0.27 for similar facilities statewide. There are a sufficient number of accidents to warrant the intersection safety improvement project to address this safety and operational concern. Conceptual approval for the funding of this Safety Improvement Project was granted to District 4 on November 5, 2009 by the Headquarters Office of Traffic Safety Program. Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to improve the safety of the intersection to reduce the occurrence and potential for collisions involving left-turn movements. The project is needed to improve safety at the intersection to reduce left-turn related accidents and collisions rates involving left- turn traffic movements at the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue. 15 The State Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) data from April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2012 (most recent available data) identified the intersection as a location of high left-turn related accidents with an accident rate greater than the statewide average rate for similar intersection facilities statewide. There were a total of 22 accidents that occurred at this intersection with 55% of them left-turn broadside accidents. There is a need to construct safety improvements at this intersection in order to significantly reduce the occurrence of left -turn related accidents. The lack of dedicated left-turn lanes and a modified left-turn signal contributes to the occurrence of intersection accidents. The Town of Hillsborough’s General Plan Circulation Element identified this intersection as needing safety improvements.6 The project is funded under the State Highway Operations and Protection Program. Three-year safety and traffic accident data from April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2012 are provided in Table 1. Table 1 - TASAS Accident Rate Number of Accidents/Significance Accident Rate (accidents/million vehicles) Dark 4 Other 7 Wet 1 Actual Average Injuries 10 Fatalities + Injuries 0.39 0.11 Fatalities 0 Fatalities 0.00 0.01 Total 22 Total 0.86 0.27 Source: California Department of Transportation Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis Systems (TASAS) Table 2 below details the accident type, total number of accidents (22) and percentage by accident type. The majority of the accidents occurred under clear weather in daylight (81.8%) and dry roadway conditions (95.5%). No unusual roadway conditions are noted for (90.9%) of the accidents. The highest percentage of accidents was broadside accidents and the primary collision factor of this type of accident was failure to yield to approaching traffic. The proposed project seeks to reduce these types of accidents by creating a left-turn channel and protected left-turn signal at the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue. Table 2 - TASAS Accident Type Type of Accident Number of Accidents Percent% Broadside (Left-Turn) 12 54.5 Rear End 3 13.6 Sideswipe 2 9.1 Head-on 2 9.1 Auto-Pedestrian 1 4.5 Hit Object 2 9.1 Overturn 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Source: California Department of Transportation Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis Systems (TASAS), 4/1/09 to 3/31/12. 6 Town of Hillsborough General Plan, Chapter 3 Circulation Element, Floribunda Avenue/El Camino Real Intersection Safety, 2005. 16 Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Figure 2 - Project Location Project Location º BEGIN PROJECT END PROJECT BURLINGA ME OAK GROVE AVE 17 1.3 Project Description This project is the SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue Intersection Safety Improvement Project located at PM 13.69. The project area is approximately 500 ft. long and 60 ft. wide. Safety improvements would include installing left-turn pockets, protected left-turn signals, upgraded curb ramps at 3 corners and intersection street lighting. 1.3.1 Alternatives This section describes the proposed action and the design alternatives that were analyzed by a multi-disciplinary team. They include the No-Build Alternative, a Build Alternative and Alternatives Evaluated but Withdrawn from Further Consideration. 1.3.2 Build Alternative The signalized intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue would be widened on both sides of SR 82 to construct a left-turn channelization along both northbound and southbo und approached of SR 82 to Floribunda Avenue. A center 10-ft. wide left-turn lane, including approach tapers will be added, as well as 1.5-ft. shoulders in both directions of SR 82 for the majority of the project limits. Currently, there is no roadway shou lder at the SR 82/Floribunda Avenue intersection. The proposed roadway cross-section will maintain both existing travel lanes in each direction as well as existing 4 to 5 ft. sidewalks. The left-turn pocket in the southbound direction would be 50 ft. long with a 50 ft. taper. The left-turn pocket in the northbound direction would be 75 ft. long with a 60 ft. taper. The construction limit length for this alternative would be approximately 500 ft. long. SR 82 would be widened mostly within the existing Caltrans state ROW. There is a designated Class III bicycle route on Floribunda Avenue. There will be no impact to the bicycle route. See Section 2.5 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities for more detailed information. Overhead utilities along the west side of SR 82 in the project area will need to be relocated. Burying the utilities within the State ROW is anticipated. Existing utility boxes, manholes and drainage facilities need to be relocated or adjusted to the finished grade. The existing utilities will be determined during the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) phase of the project. The size of utility trenches will be determined by the utility companies. Usually, utility trenches are 2.5 to 3 ft. deep and 1.5 to 2 ft. wide. The disturbed area for the utility trenching and foundation for the 4 signal lights would be an estimated 3,100 cubic ft.. In addition, excavation will be needed for foundations for traffic signals with intersection street lighting. The estimated ground-disturbing activities for this project would be foundations for 4 traffic signal poles, 12 ft. deep by 3.5 wide. Table 3 (below) presents the estimated quantities of disturbance from construction excavation. Table 3 - Estimated Quantities of Soil Disturbance Excavation Location Depth ft Length ft Width ft Total ft³ Utilities Trenching 3 400 1 1,200 Foundation 4 Signal Light 12 N/A 3.5 1,900 Total estimated cubic ft. 3,100 The majority of work would be occurring within the state right of way except for some minor work at (specific points) and three intersection corners. Partial acquisition of ROW on two 18 properties at northeast (APN 029100220), and southeast (APN 029111010) intersection quadrants would be required for construction of ADA compliant curb ramps. A Permit to Enter and Construct (PEC) would be required from the Town of Hillsborough for two property parcels, a small landscaped portion of Centennial Park (APN 028141090) and entryway of the local street (Floribunda Avenue). Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) would be required on four (4) parcels (APNs 028141080, 029100330, 029111010 and 029111260) for the grading and construction of driveways. Total TCE would be 3,214.72 square ft. and total PEC would be 3,269.09 square ft. Utilities and Other Owner Involvement Overhead PG&E utilities along the west side of SR 82 in the project area are in conflict with the roadway widening. Burying PG&E electrical utilities within the State right-of-way may occur. In addition, PG&E gas line, AT&T underground line and City of Burlingame water line on the east side of SR 82 are in conflict and relocating of them within the State right-of-way are anticipated. Several existing utility boxes, manholes and drainage facilities need to be relocated or adjusted to the finished grade. Potholing will be required to identify the underground utilities and detailed utility verification will be done during the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) phase of the project. The size of utility trenches will be determined by the utility companies. Usually, utility trenches are 2.5 to 3 ft. deep and 1.5 to 2 ft. wide. The need for lane closures and detours will be identified in a Transportation Management Plan (TMP), which will be prepared during the PS&E phase. The following conceptual drawings display the preliminary plan with tree removal and cross section drawing of the preferred build alternative. (see figures 4 and 5). Transportation System and Demand Management (TSM) TSM strategies increase the efficiency of existing facilities; they are actions that increase the number of vehicle trips a facility can carry without increasing the number of through lanes. Examples of TSM strategies include: ramp metering, auxiliary lanes, turning lanes, reversible lanes and traffic signal coordination. TSM also encourages automobile, public and private transit, ridesharing programs, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements as elements of a unified urban transportation system. Modal alternatives integrate multiple forms of transportation modes, such as pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, rail, and mass transit. The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, along with the City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough have policies that encourage Transit System and Demand Management Alternatives such as ridesharing programs, public transit, shuttle programs, rail, bicycle and pedestrian transportation modes. SR 82 has existing traffic signal coordination with the intersections to the north and south of Floribunda Avenue. In addition, SR 82 is served by public transit (SamTrans) and has sidewalks for pedestrian travel. Both cities have Bicycle Plans and Floribunda Avenue is a designated bicycle route. The City of Burlingame has completed projects to improved pedestrian lighting and bicycle facility improvements. Although TSM measures alone could not satisfy the purpose and need of the project, the following TSM pedestrian improvement measures have been incorporated into the proposed Build Alternative for this project: Upgraded pedestrian curb ramps Upgraded pedestrian traffic signals Intersection traffic street lighting Installation of left-turn traffic signals 19 Painted crosswalks Installation of painted medians as part of left-turn channelization lane 1.3.3 No Build Alternative The no build alternative would leave the current intersection configuration intact, with no left-turn storage to accommodate conflicting movements. Potential safety benefits would not be realized. The existing facility is a four lane, undivided, conventional state highway, (SR 82) consisting of approximately two 11-ft. wide through lanes with uncontrolled left-turn movements in the north and southbound directions. The posted speed limit on SR 82 is 35 miles per hour (mph). In the northbound direction, toward McKinley Elementary School, 1 block north of Floribunda Avenue, the speed limit is 25 mph when school children are present. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need of this project. It would not reduce the potential for collisions involving left- turn traffic movements nor reduce congestion and improve traffic flow. 20 Figure 3 – Proposed Build Alternative Figure 3 – Continued, Proposed Build Alternative (Enlarged) 21 22 Figure 4 – Proposed Build Alternative Cross Sections (All facing south on SR 82) 23 1.3.4 Operational Measures Considered but Withdrawn The Caltrans project development team analyzed several traffic operational measures instead of the proposed Build Alternative, including examining suggestions received from the public. The following summarizes the signal timing adjustments and traffic operational measures analyzed and the reasons why they were eliminated from further consideration. 1. Signal Timing Adjustments Caltrans evaluated several signal timing modifications to determine if they would adequately address the left-turn collisions at the intersections of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue. Signal timing adjustments would not provide left-turn channelization and solely involve signal timing adjustments of the existing traffic signals on SR 82 in the project vicinity. Signal timing adjustments have been made in 2005, 2011 and most recently in January of 2013 at the intersections of SR 82 at Bellevue, Floribunda and Oak Grove Avenues. Despite these signal timing adjustments left-turn collisions have continued to be a problem at this intersection. The Signal timing adjustments were evaluated to adjust signal timing at SR 82 at Bellevue, Floribunda, Oak Grove and Chapin Avenues to create gaps in the traffic flow on SR 82 to improve the opportunities for northbound drivers to make a left-turn by adjusting signal timing at Oak Grove Avenue. This signal modification however, would not increase the opportunity for southbound SR 82 left-turn and these timing adjustments have not reduced the pattern of left-turn collisions at the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue. Another possibility was to adjust signal timing at Chapin Ave. similarly as was done at Oak Grove Ave. However, this signal adjustment would not create an opportunity for SR 82 southbound left-turn or have much benefit for the following reasons: The distance between Chapin Ave. and Floribunda Ave. is considerably much further than Oak Grove Ave. and Floribunda Avenue and therefore gaps will occur naturally. There are multiple access points to SR 82 which includes Bellevue Ave. and driveways which are not signal controlled. In addition, alternative signal timing adjustments at Floribunda Ave. were explored to provide extra time at the beginning of the green interval for vehicles to make left-turns. Two options were evaluated to create gaps for southbound left-turners at the beginning of the green or the end of the green at Floribunda. LT at Beginning of Green: Would allow left-turns at beginning of green interval. However, after the beginning green interval ended, drivers would continue to desire to make a left-turn at any point during the green interval for SR 82. Once the "improved" opportunity has passed we would be left with the existing situation of no or small gaps in traffic and drivers trying to “dart” into left-turns. Additionally, the models do show left-turns predominantly during the middle of the green interval. LT at End of Green: Southbound drivers would be provided an improved opportunity to make a left-turn towards the end of the green interval for the southbound direction. Before this happens, a yellow and red will be displayed for northbound drivers. However, this would give northbound drivers a false sense of security that 24 the southbound drivers are also stopping which would lead to a yellow trap7 situation and is highly undesirable. Despite Caltrans implementation of these signal timing changes, left-turn traffic collisions have continued over the years and there is no direct evidence that these signal timing changes have led to changes in the left-turn collision patterns at the intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue. In addition, if a left-turn signal were installed at SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue the other three legs of the intersection would experience delays. The Level of Service (LOS) and delays for the AM and PM would be C (33.1) seconds and D (48.6) seconds. The operation of the intersection would preclude this intersection from being coordinated with other intersections on SR 82 in the middle of the Burlingame system and northbound, southbound signal progression would be negatively affected. Long back-ups or queues may increase the potential for rear-end types of accidents. Signal timing adjustment is performed on an as-needed basis to improve intersections and for the San Mateo County Smart Corridors Project (SMART) corridor signal progression operations based on changing traffic conditions on SR 82. The SMART Project is an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) project designed to improve cross jurisdictional day-to-day traffic signal operation and facilitate naturally diverting traffic off Highway 101 during an incidents on the highway system. SR 82 between I-380 and the Santa Clara County line is designated or identified as the primary diversion route for Highway 101. The Project enables Caltrans and its stakeholders, San Mateo cities and County, to implement traffic management strategies through the deployment of ITS elements such as signal timing adjustments, directional signs, fixed or pan-tilt-zoom, closed-circuit television cameras, communications (conduit, fiber, copper, wireless, software, and associated equipment), arterial changeable message signs, vehicle detection systems, communications between San Mateo County Hub and District 4 Traffic Management Center and power supply line and equipment along state routes and major local streets.8 Therefore, signal timing adjustments are part of a toolbox to facilitate through movements on ECR, and not a stand-alone alternative. Signal timing adjustments have been implemented within the past 10 years at the intersections of SR 82 at Oak Grove Avenue and at Floribunda Avenue. Timing changes were made to Floribunda during this 10-year period but the intent of the timing changes were to improve signal progression on SR 82, not to facilitate left-turn movements. No changes in the pattern of left-turn traffic collisions were observed as a result of these signal timing adjustments. In conclusion, the signal timing adjustment option, to address left-turn collisions, was rejected because signal timing changes have already been made at SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue, there has been no identifiable reduction in left-turn collisions at the intersection of SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue. 7 The "yellow trap" is a potentially adverse safety situation inherent in some signal phasing sequences involving lagging left turns in one direction. A left-turning driver, in the intersection waiting for gaps in oncoming traffic in order to turn left on a permissive green signal indication, sees the signals change from green to yellow and mistakenly assumes that oncoming through traffic also has yellow signals at the same time and will be soon coming to a stop. This mistaken assumption "traps" the permissive left turner into thinking it is OK to safely complete the turn when in reality it is not safe, because the opposing traffic continues to move on a green indication along with a lagging left turn, and a severe crash can be the result. Section 4D.05, paragraph 03, item B.4 prohibits the "yellow trap" sequence except in rare and unusual cases and then only with a W25-1 or W25-2 sign to warn drivers of the condition. U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, retrieved from http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm#tcsfq3, on 9/2/14. 8 San Mateo County SMART Corridor Project, retrieved from http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/ on 3/11/14. 25 2. No Left-turn/Intersection Closure This option would prohibit the left-turn movement from SR 82 onto Floribunda Avenue in both north and southbound directions to address the left-turn collisions. This option was rejected because it was determined to be impractical from an operational and safety perspective. Specifically, this option would be impractical for the following reasons: The two local agencies (Town Hall of Hillsborough and City of Burlingame’s City Hall and their fire and police stations) are situated on both sides of the intersection. Fire trucks, police, safety, maintenance and related emergency response vehicles from both local agencies would need to make left-turn movements at the intersection. Prohibiting left-turn movements would delay emergency and public safety response and it is anticipated that there would be enforcement challenges on closure implementation. The prohibition of left-turn movements at SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue may shift the occurrence of left-turn traffic accidents to the intersections of Willow Avenue heading north and to Bellevue Avenue heading south of Floribunda Avenue. These streets would see increased traffic by vehicles turning left from SR 82 and reduce direct access to downtown Burlingame and its City Hall or the Town of Hillsborough. Finally, a left-turn prohibition may lead to an increase in cut through traffic into adjacent neighborhoods via the cross streets north and south of SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue intersection. 3. Widen West Side of SR 82 with Private ROW Acquisition This alternative proposed to install left-turn channelization for both north and southbound direction with protected left-turn signal phase along SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue. Widening would only be on the west side of SR 82 Boulevard. The project length would be approximately 1,024 ft. The SR 82 highway would be widened approximately 30 ft. on the west side. The alternative was rejected because of design infeasibility (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1)) and would have worse environmental impacts then the Build Alternative. There would be right-of-way impacts to Centennial Park, the Hillsborough Police Departments’ parking lot would lose parking spaces, loss of access to the Adventist Church (northwest leg of the intersections) and impacts to 4(f) resource historic properties (located along the southwest leg of the intersection). There would be no impacts to properties or contributor trees to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows located on the east side of SR 82 however, 16 trees on the west side of SR 82 that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows would be removed. The design would also impact 4(f) resources by requiring partial right-of-way (ROW) acquisition from the 1615 Floribunda Avenue property and 50 Kammerer Court property, two historic properties. 4. Widen Both Sides of SR 82 with Private ROW Acquisition This alternative proposed to install left-turn channelization for both north and southbound direction with protected left-turn signal phase along SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue. Project length would be approximately 1,024 ft. There would be widening on both sides of SR 82. The design would widen the highway to 10-ft. left-turn channel, 11-ft. through lanes with 5-ft. shoulders, including 4-ft. sidewalks and utility relocations. There would be widening of approximately 15 ft. additional on both sides of SR 82, compared to the existing roadway configuration. 26 The alternative was rejected because of design infeasibility (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1)) and environmental impacts worse than the Build Alternative. There would be right-of-way impacts to Centennial Park, the Hillsborough Police Departments’ parking lot, the Adventist Church (northwest leg of the intersection) and historic properties (located along the southwest leg of the intersection). There would be impacts to contributor trees to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows located on both sides of SR 82. This alternative would remove 16 trees that are contributors to the Howard- Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows and would require partial right-of-way (ROW) acquisition from the 1615 Floribunda Avenue property and 50 Kammerer Court property. 5. Widen East Side of SR 82 with Private ROW Acquisition This alternative proposed to install left-turn channelization for both north and southbound direction with protected left-turn signal phase along SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue. Widening would only be on the east side of SR 82 Boulevard only. ROW on the east side of SR 82 would widen approximately 30 ft. Project length would be approximately 1,024 ft. The alternative was rejected because of design infeasibility (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1)) and environmental impacts worse than the Build Alternative. The alternative would require Caltrans purchase ROW consisting of several apartment complexes and relocate the community residents of 74 units in 4 apartment complexes located east of SR 82. After relocation of residents Caltrans would demolish the apartment complexes to widen SR 82 on the east side only. This alternative would also adversely impact three apartment driveways with access to tenant parking. The alternative would remove 10 trees on the east side of SR 82 that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. 6. Other Signal Timing Modifications These signal timing modifications function to create protected left-turn signals, without changing the lane configuration, for northbound and southbound drivers on SR 82 to make left-turns onto Floribunda Avenue. The following summary describes the signal timing modification and the reasons why they were eliminated from further consideration. a. At SR 82 and Floribunda Ave., maintain existing SR 82 configuration but split the main line with a left-turn signal. Protected left/split phase signal. This signal modification would cause vehicle traffic delay at the intersection in all directions due to the signal phase allowing left-turns in the northbound and southbound directions. It would also cause disruption of SR 82 signal timing progression on SR 82 corridor leading to increased vehicle emissions from idling vehicles and driver frustration due to delays. Queues would extend southbound and northbound during AM/PM peaks. b. Remove the existing traffic signal at SR82 and Floribunda Avenue. The removal of a signal would likely increase left-turn related accidents. This would make the existing left-turn problem worse and does not meet the purpose and need of the project to improve safety at the intersection. A signal warrant study would be needed to remove a signal and the existing high traffic volumes on SR 82 indicate that a traffic signal would be required for safety reasons. 7. Speed Enforcement 27 This measure would reduce the existing 35 mph speed limit on SR 82 to improve safety at intersection of SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue. This measure was eliminated from further consideration for the following reasons: Reducing speeds on SR 82 would not address left-turn collisions and visibility issues (opposing left-turning vehicles blocking visibility of through traffic) at SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue intersection. A 25 mph posted speed limit sign on SR 82 has already been added for McKinley Elementary School Zone. 8. Traffic Barriers (Calming) These measures include installation of traffic calming devices such as speed humps, delineators (plastic safe hit posts), Bott’s dots (Bott’s dots are small, protruding, reflecting ceramic tiles used on some roads instead of painted lines to mark lanes), and zebra striping on roadway pavement to make it appear narrower (road diet), to reduce speeds. These measures were eliminated from further consideration for the following reasons: Speed humps are a speed reduction measure and do not address left-turn collisions. There is a maintenance issue (cost) with installing delineators (plastic safe hit posts) because based on experience they would be constantly knocked down by vehicles. There is also a safety and maintenance issue with delineators being knocked down by vehicle drivers merging out or into the center lane. Botts’ dots would increase noise to adjacent residents by vehicles, especially buses and trucks, driving over them on SR82. There is no space in the SR 82 roadway to install these types of devices, there is no highway shoulder. Installation of these types of devices would require private property acquisition to install. This measure was eliminated from further consideration because it would essentially be a through lane reduction and would reduce through traffic capacity on SR82 causing traffic delay and congestion. Vehicles wanting to proceed through the intersection and caught in the center left-turn delineated lane on SR 82 would be delayed. There is also a safety and maintenance issue with delineators being knocked down by vehicle drivers merging out or into the center lane. Reducing the two lanes on SR 82 approaching the Floribunda Avenue intersection with zebra pavement striping (road diet) would essentially reduce SR 82 to a single lane in both directions and vehicle left-turn movements would occur in the through lane. This was eliminated from further consideration because it would reduce SR 82 to a single lane in both directions at Floribunda Avenue which would increase traffic delays, congestion and vehicle emissions on SR 82. 9. Improve Lighting The improvement of intersection street lighting at SR 82 and Floribunda Avenue would be included in the proposed Build Alternative with the installation of new traffic signals and pedestrian signals. 28 1.3.5 Comparison of Alternatives Typically the environmental process includes a range of reasonable build alternatives. A no Build Alternative represents the existing condition. All other alternatives are compared to the No Build. For this document, several alternatives were studied and rejected including: No Build, Signal Modification Only, Left-turn Prohibition/Closure, Widen Both Sides (Majority within State Right-of-way), Widen West Side of SR 82 Only, Widening on Both Sides SR 82 and Widen on East Side of SR 82 Only. After initial studies, the PDT determined that the signal modification and left-turn prohibition alternatives were not reasonable alternatives. The last three widening alternatives were categorized as Alternatives Considered but Withdrawn from Further Consideration based on having greater environmental and community impacts, operational and traffic issues, costs, and constructability/unfeasibility issues. For these reasons this is why there is only one build alternative presented as reasonable build alternative. The principle criteria used for evaluating the alternatives included: whether the alternative met the purpose and need of the project to improve safety by reducing left-turn collisions and improving traffic operations at the intersection, engineering geometric feasibility, cultural resource impacts, Individual 4(f) Resources impacts, right-of-way impacts, cost, visual and biological impacts. The summary Table 4 on next page offers a comparison of the alternatives. 29 Table 4 - Project Alternatives Comparison ALTERNATIVE Description Geometric Standards Cultural Resources Section 4(f) Resources Right-of-Way (ROW) Impact Paleontology Community Impacts Meets Project Purpose and Need 1.No Build Alternative The no build alternative would leave the current intersection configuration intact. Potential safety benefits would not be realized. Does not meet purpose and need of project. Existing: Four-lane undivided highway, with two, approximately 11- ft through lanes, and no shoulders with uncontrolled left-turn movements in both directions at signalized intersection. No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts No impacts No impacts No 2.Build Alternative: Widen Both Sides SR 82 (Within State right-of-way) Left-turn channelization for both north and southbound direction on SR 82 with protected left- turn signal phase at Floribunda Avenue. Majority of construction within the existing Caltrans right-of- way. 500 ft. long project length. Four-lane undivided highway with two 11 ft. through lanes and north and southbound, 10 ft., left-turn channel and 1.5 ft. shoulders. This alternative reduces the length and width of geometrics for the project. Removal of (5) five trees that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows Potential indirect visual impacts to 1615 Floribunda Avenue property Removal of (5) five trees that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. Potential indirect visual impacts to 1615 Floribunda Avenue property The majority of work will be done within the State right-of-way. Right-of-way encroachment permit would be needed from Hillsborough and Burlingame for the three curb ramps at the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of SR 82 – Floribunda intersection. Temporary Construction Easements would be needed for two driveways – one at the church on the west side of SR 82, and one at an apartment on the east side of SR 82. No retaining or sound walls needed. Utility relocation required. No impacts No impacts Yes ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED AND WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION 1.Signal Adjustments Only Maintain existing SR 82 highway configuration but add through and left-turn lane signals on SR 82 at Floribunda Avenue. Four-lane undivided highway, with two, approximately 11-ft through lanes, and no shoulders with signalized through and left-turn movements in both directions at Floribunda Avenue. No left-turn pocket. No impacts No impacts No Impacts No impacts No impacts No 2.Left-turn Prohibition/ Closure Prohibit Left-turn movements from SR 82 onto Floribunda Avenue. Maintain existing four-lane undivided highway with no shoulders. No impacts No impacts No Impacts No impacts No impacts No 3.Widen West Side of SR 82 Only with Private ROW Acquisition Widen west side only. Install left- turn channelization for both NB and SB directions on Rt. 82 with protected left-turn signal. Road widening to current Caltrans standards. Proposed 11 ft. through lanes, 10 ft. left-turn lanes and 5 ft. shoulders. Approximately 900 ft. from southern to northern project boundary. -Removal of 16 trees that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. -Partial ROW acquisition from 1615 Floribunda Avenue property. - Partial ROW acquisition from 50 -Partial ROW acquisition from 1615 Floribunda Avenue property. -Removal of 16 trees that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. - Partial R/W acquisition from 50 Kammerer Court property.10 -3 trees and hedge vegetation on East side of Centennial Park would be impacted. Partial right-of-way acquisition in the NW and SW quadrants of the intersection. Total ROW take = 8,710 sq. ft. (0.20 acres) -Utilities, traffic signals, signs and lighting impacts in the NW and SW quadrants. -Church driveway will be partially impacted. -Town of Hillsborough Police Dpt. parking lot wall and (7 parking spaces) would be Based on the Paleontologic al Identification Report, High Potential for fossils based on the geologic characteristic s of the site -Church driveway will be partially impacted. -Potential loss of 10 parking spaces behind the Town of Hillsborough Police Department. -3 trees and hedge vegetation on East side of Centennial Park would be impacted. Yes 30 ALTERNATIVE Description Geometric Standards Cultural Resources Section 4(f) Resources Right-of-Way (ROW) Impact Paleontology Community Impacts Meets Project Purpose and Need Kammerer Court property.9 impacted. -Retaining walls needed on southwest and northwest sides of SR 82. on an alluvial fan with potential fluvial deposits. 4.Widen on Both Sides of SR 82 with Private ROW Acquisition Widen both sides of SR 82. Install left-turn channelization for both NB and SB directions with protected turn signal. Road widening to current Caltrans standards. Proposed 11 ft. through lanes, 10 ft. left-turn lanes and 5 ft. shoulders. Approximately 900 ft. from southern to northern project boundary. -Removal of 16 trees that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. -Partial ROW acquisition from 1615 Floribunda Avenue property. Partial ROW acquisition from 50 Kammerer Court property.11 -Partial ROW acquisition from 1615 Floribunda Avenue property. -Removal of 16 trees that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. - Partial R/W acquisition from 50 Kammerer Court property.12 -3 trees and hedge vegetation on East side of Centennial Park would be impacted. Partial acquisition in the NW and SW quadrants o the intersections. Total ROW take = 8,000 sq. ft. (0.18 acres) -Utilities, traffic signals, signs and lighting impacts in the NW and SW quadrants. -Retaining walls needed on NW and SW sides of ECR -Church driveway would be partially impacted. -Town of Hillsborough Police Dpt. parking lot wall and (7 parking spaces) would be impacted. Based on the Paleontologic al Identification Report, High Potential for fossils based on the geologic characteristic s of the site on an alluvial fan with potential fluvial deposits. -Church driveway will be partially impacted. -Potential loss of 10 parking spaces behind the Town of Hillsborough Police Department. -3 trees and hedge vegetation on East side of Centennial Park would be impacted. Yes 5.Widen on East Side of SR 82 Only with Private ROW Acquisition Widen on east side only. Install left-turn channelization for both NB and SB directions with protected turn signal. Road widening to current Caltrans standards. Proposed 11 ft. through lanes, 10 ft. left-turn lanes and 5 ft. shoulders. Approximately 900 ft. from southern to northern project boundary. Removal of 10 trees that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. Removal of 10 trees that are contributors to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. McKinley Elementary School. There would be impact to the school yard. ( the school yard is considered a 4(f) resource because it is a “recreation facility.” -Partial acquisition in the NE and SE quadrants of the intersection. Relocation of residents and demolition of 4 apartment complexes on eastside of SR 82 Boulevard north and south of Floribunda Avenue. -Utilities, traffic signals, signs and lighting impact in the NE and SE quadrants. -Total ROW take = 15,590 sq. ft. (0.36 acres) Based on the Paleontologic al Identification Report, High Potential for fossils based on the geologic characteristic s of the site on an alluvial fan with potential fluvial deposits. 4 apartment complexes with 76 units would be physically impacted with this widening in addition to 3 apartment driveways to tenant parking. Possible impact to McKinley elementary school playground located north of Oak Street on east side of SR 82 requiring partial acquisition of right-of-way and construction of sound wall. Yes 10 Ibid. 9 The 50 Kammerer Court property was outside of the Area of Potential Effects for the current study but appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places based on previous evaluations. 11 Ibid. T 12 Ibid. 31 After comparing and weighing the benefits and impacts of all of the alternatives, the Project Development Team has identified the Build Alternative to widen both sides of SR 82 (majority within Caltrans right-of-way), as the alternative with the least environmental impacts, impacts to 4(f) resources (historic trees) and design feasible, subject to public review. Final identification of a preferred alternative will occur after the public review and comment period. The No Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project to reduce the left-turn collisions and improve intersection safety. After the public circulation period, all comments will be considered, and Caltrans will select a preferred alternative and make the final determination of the project’s effect on the environment. In accordance with the CEQA, Caltrans will certify that the project complies with CEQA, prepare findings for all significant impacts identified, prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts that will not be mitigated below a level of significance, and certify that the findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been considered prior to project approval. Caltrans will then file a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse that will identify whether the project will have significant impacts, if mitigation measures were included as conditions of project approval, that findings were made, and that a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. Similarly, if Caltrans, as assigned by the FHWA, determines the NEPA action does not significantly impact the environment, Caltrans will issue a FONSI in accordance with NEPA. 1.4 Permits and Approvals Needed Table 5 - Agency Permits and Approvals Agency Permit/Approval Status California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Individual and under the CEQA Public Resources Code (PRC) 5024.5 SHPO concurrence on the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects was received on April 21, 2014. SHPO consultation and concurrence regarding the Finding of Effect will be completed by the Final Environmental Document Town of Hillsborough and City of Burlingame Encroachment Permits to enter and construction in Floribunda Avenue. During Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) Caltrans would request permit. City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 MEMORANDUM To: Augustine Chou From: Bob Disco – Park Supervisor/City Arborist Date: 10/30/2014 Re: ECR/CalTrans trees between Bellevue and Oak Grove As requested, I was asked to comment on the 14 trees on El Camino between Bellevue and Oak Grove proposed for removal by CalTrans. I have not evaluated or tested any of these trees but only visually inspected them from a distance to provide the following comments. The 14 trees include: 5 Liquidambar trees 4 historical Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees 2 Eucalyptus microtheca 1 Accolade Elm 2 volunteer trees. The Liquidambars are a species that have shown to damage sidewalks and infrastructures and for that reason they are not recommended by the City of Burlingame as street trees. The Eucalyptus microthecas were planted years ago and have not reached their full potential due to lack of maintenance and water. The microtheca’s are not of protected size, and will never reach their intended size as replacement for the historical eucalyptus that they were intended to replace. The 4 Blue Gum Eucalyptus (2 on the southbound side belong to Hillsbourgh) have been maintained by the CalTrans and are visually in fair to good condition. A full evaluation on health and structure should be provided by CalTrans to obtain a complete understanding of the conditions of these trees. The Accolade Elm was planted several years ago as the new replacement tree for ECR. This particular tree is well established and in excellent condition. It is not a protected size tree with a 3-4 in caliper trunk. The volunteer trees also belong to Hillsbourgh and are not of significant size or species. If any removal should occur, replacement will be required as per the understanding with CalTrans and City of Burlingame. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 3, 2014 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Subject: Revisions to Land-Use Restrictions for the Broadway Commercial District and General Follow-up Regarding Broadway Community Meeting RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the City Council provide direction to proceed with preparation of amendments to the land-use restrictions applicable to the Broadway Commercial District as they relate to food establishments and health service uses. BACKGROUND The City recently held a very successful community meeting to discuss issues related to the vitality of the Broadway Commercial District. Comments received during the October 18, 2014 meeting, as well as from the more than 1,000 survey respondents, revealed that there is an interest in loosening, or eliminating, the food establishment quota in the district and eliminating the conditional use permit requirement for health service uses above the ground floor. These two items represent “low-hanging fruit” that staff can move forward with in a fairly short time -frame if City Council direction is provided. DISCUSSION If the City Council directs staff to proceed with work on these two items, it is important to note that loosening the restrictions on food establishments and eliminating the conditional use permit requirement for health service uses alone will not completely eliminate potential roadblocks to establishing more of these uses within the district; adequacy of onsite parking supply will remain an issue. Therefore, in addition to directing staff to proceed with the necessary zoning code amendments related to these uses, the Council may also wish to consider providing further direction to re-evaluate the parking standards for the district in light of its appeal as a local- serving business district that people walk to. Staff estimates the cost for a parking study to be in the realm of $50,000 to $75,000. The City received a number of other suggestions during the Broadway Community Meeting and via the survey referred to above. Staff is in the process of analyzing all of the comments and suggestions and will return to the City Council in the near future with a report out on next steps. Broadway Commercial District Land-Use Restrictions November 3, 2014 2 FISCAL IMPACT There will be no fiscal impact related to revisions to the land-use restrictions. However, if the City Council authorizes work to proceed with a parking analysis for the district, staff will return to the City Council in the future to secure project funding, possibly through a transfer of funds from the City’s General Fund balance. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 3, 2014 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Downtown Burlingame Avenue Sidewalk Paver Cleanliness Update RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the current maintenance efforts for the upkeep of the newly constructed sidewalk pavers as part of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Project, and provide feedback. BACKGROUND The completion of the first phase of the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Project brought a heightened awareness of spills and cleanliness on the newly constructed sidewalk pavers. As a result, in January of 2014, staff expanded its maintenance program to address the cleanliness concerns expressed by the community. In addition to the normal quarterly power washing and daily trash pickup by a dedicated downtown maintenance crew, staff implemented additional power washing of the sidewalk pavers on a monthly basis by an outside contractor. This action was in addition to the existing ongoing maintenance such as street sweeping; trash removal, parking lots litter pickup, etc. The increased power washing of sidewalk pavers improved the condition; however there were still cleanliness issues due to food and beverage spills. In order to address the issue, staff further increased the power washing frequency to a bi-weekly basis. By comparison, the Broadway Business District sidewalks are cleaned quarterly, along with daily trash pickup, parking lots cleanup and periodic street sweeping. Beginning in August of 2014, the power washing program for Burlingame Avenue had to be reduced in order to comply with the new statewide drought emergency regulations. The new regulations prohibit the pouring of potable water for cleaning hard surfaces such as sidewalks and driveways. This placed an additional challenge on staff to keep the sidewalk pavers free of food and beverage stains and litter. Staff adopted an alternate method of cleaning the sidewalks while complying with the state regulations by performing “spot cleaning” of pavers, which is similar to mopping. The “spot cleaning” of pavers is now performed three times a week. Despite these aforementioned efforts, keeping the sidewalk pavers clean continues to be a challenge. Staff is continuously evaluating the City’s efforts and modifying the maintenance program for Burlingame Avenue. Recently, staff purchased new mechanical scrubber equipment, which will be used in lieu of power washing the sidewalk pavers and is expected to significantly improve the cleanliness of the pavers. The scrubber equipment is eco-friendly and will be more effective in cleaning the pavers, while using significantly less water to comply with state regulations. Burlingame Avenue Paver Cleanliness Update November 3, 2014 2 Additionally, staff is implementing the issuance of special encroachment permits to restaurants and food and beverage-related businesses that use their frontage sidewalk for placement of tables and chairs. The permits require that businesses keep their sidewalk frontages clean. Businesses that fail to do so are subject to termination of their permits and/or administrative fines. Staff is working cooperatively with the restaurants to keep the sidewalks clean. As of this date, seven new special encroachment permits for tables and chairs have been issued, and 12 are being processed. Further, staff added several trash bins along Burlingame Avenue, which include cigarette trays. Also, street signage has been installed along the sidewalks to advise the public to not throw trash/litter or spill food/beverage on the sidewalks and to pick up after dog waste. In summary, the ongoing approach to keep the sidewalk pavers clean is as follows: Continue conducting outreach to the Burlingame Avenue businesses/merchants and property owners to seek their cooperation in keeping their frontage sidewalk areas clean. Require restaurants and food and beverage-related businesses to clean and maintain their frontage sidewalk areas as part of the Special Encroachment Permit conditions for tables and chairs. Perform bi-weekly scrubbing of the sidewalk with the new scrubber equipment. Continue to perform increased spot cleaning of the pavers. Perform quarterly cleaning of the parking lane pavers. Continue evaluating the maintenance program and make adjustments as necessary. FISCAL IMPACT The City Council approved $50,000 in the FY2014-15 budget to pay for the increased cleanliness efforts for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue. The scrubber equipment was purchased from these funds. Additionally, there are ongoing staff costs related to working with the businesses and property owners to keep their frontage clean. Exhibits: Tennant Scrubber equipment information Pictures of street signage on Burlingame Avenue. Copy of the letter to businesses and property owners to keep their sidewalk frontage clean Creating a Cleaner, safer, healthier world. T16 BaTTeRY-PoWeRed RideR ScRUBBeR Achieve up to 20% lower cost of ownership with Tennant’s quality construction and innovative technologies Clean anytime, anywhere with the quiet T16 at 68 dBA enhance productivity and safety with unparalleled user-friendly design and Touch-n-go™ controlseQUiPMenT leSS exPenSIVe TO OPeRATe AnD MAInTAIn The T16, equipped with Tennant’s exclusive scrubbing technologies, is engineered to be up to 20% less expensive to operate and maintain than traditional scrubbing methods based on acquisition cost, consumables, and maintenance. The highest quality materials and parts go into every T16 to ensure solid construction and extend the performance life of the machine. QUIeT OPeRATIOn The quietest machine in our industrial rider scrubber line, the T16 allows unobtrusive cleaning anytime of the day and anywhere in the building. Operating at just 68 dBA, the T16 won’t disturb customers, employees, students, patients or visitors in noise-sensitive areas. enHAnCeD OPeRATOR SAFeTy, COMFORT, AnD eASe OF USe The T16’s unparalleled design provides an intuitive and operator-friendly experience. Simple patent-pending Touch-n-go™ control module on steering wheel instills confidence and allows the operator to safely focus on keeping both hands on the wheel even while changing scrub functions. exceptional visibility and outstanding operator comfort offer enhanced control and safety. loWeR YoUR coST of oWneRShiP, USing innovaTive cleaning TechnologY ThaT iS veRSaTile and eaSY To MainTain – The T16 haS iT all TennanT TechnologieS SUSTainaBle SolUTion The T16 is available with three sustainable technologies. Tennant’s ec-H2O™ technology is totally chemical-free. The technology electrically converts water into an innovative cleaning solution that: n Cleans effectively without chemicals n Saves money and improves productivity n Increases safety and promotes a healthy environment n Reduces environmental impact* Because it requires no chemicals, ec-H2O poses no harm to the environment or the people using the technology. And, the T16 with ec-H2O technology can pay for itself with chemical cost savings over its lifetime. MAxIMIze CleAnIng TIMe With an all-new design, the T16 delivers the latest in cleaning technology. The scrubbing side brush provides a 45 in / 1145 mm scrub path, and a large 50 gal / 190 l solution tank is engineered for maximum cleaning performance and productivity. With ec-H20 and FaST® technologies, clean up to three times longer with a single tank of water. The patented Dura-Trak™ Parabolic Squeegee system also provides excellent water and residue pick up. ES® Extended Scrubbing productivity enhancement system recycles cleaning chemicals to increase uptime and improve productivity by scrubbing floors using 66% less chemicals than traditional cleaning methods. FaST® Foam Scrubbing Technology uses up to 70% less water and 90% less chemicals to improve floor traction as certified by nFSI, helping reduce the risk of slip and fall accidents. addiTional exclUSive TechnologieS All technologies increase scrub time up to three times using a single tank of water. * Based on a study by ecoForm™. Visit www.tennantco.com for more information. e e B A D C F inSide TheT16 A Reduce operator fatigue and effort with controls placed in the center of the steering wheel for easy access. B Improve handling of debris in the cleaning process with an optional dry sweeping system that captures dust in a self-contained filter bag for easy disposal. C Extend component life and reduce maintenance cost with the AC brushless propelling motor that operates more efficiently than traditional DC motors. D Reduce operating costs with robust machine construction that stands up to severe environments, but is also designed to prevent damage to walls and fragile fixtures. E Improve cleaning results by equipping the T16 with the scrub head that best suits the application. F Reduce slip/fall and maintenance costs with the Dura-Trak™ parabolic squeegee system that provides excellent water recovery and can be changed easily without tools. Build your own T16 online at www.tennantco.com/T16. Effectively clean along edges with the scrubbing side brush that expands cleaning path for maintenance cleaning productivity. Bring high performance spill recovery to hard-to- reach areas with the in-line telescoping vac wand. Reduce repair costs and protect the rear squeegee when backing up with the rear squeegee protection kit. Protect operators from falling objects with the overhead guard and protect the T16 from contact damage with the severe environment front bumper. Touch-N-Go™ Control Module with 1-Step™ Button – enhance safety with intuitive controls located right in front of the operator, eliminating the need to remove hands from the steering wheel to change scrub settings. Easy to identify maintenance Touch Points ensure daily maintenance items are checked and your investment is properly maintained and protected. Keep the operator compartment neat and tidy to achieve new levels of productivity. The side cargo net and removable tool caddy help the operator stay organized and keep the compartment free of debris. OPTIMIze CleAnIng PeRFORMAnCe WITH TennAnTTrue ® Maximize the uptime and life of your Tennant equipment with TennantTrue parts and service. Benefit from the unmatched knowledge of our team of over 400 factory trained and certified Tennant Service Reps. Improve productivity with quality parts and supplies that are designed to enhance equipment results. Depend on TennantTrue to help you maximize the effectiveness of cleaning operations.Key AVAIlABle FeATUReSinnovaTionS incReaSe PRodUcTiviTY and RedUce coSTS eQUiPMenTSeeIng IS BelIeVIng For a demonstration or additional information, call +1.800.553.8033 or email info@tennantco.com Tennant 701 north lilac Drive Minneapolis, Mn 55422 USA USA/Canada: +1.800.553.8033 Quebec: +1.800.361.9050 Overseas: +1.763.540.1315 www.tennantco.com info@tennantco.com T16 BaTTeRY-PoWeRed RideR ScRUBBeR SCRUBBIng SySTeM Cleaning path 36 in / 910 mm With scrubbing side brush 45 in / 1,145 mm With sweeping side brush (cylindrical only) 46 in / 1,170 mm With dual side sweep brushes (presweep only) 46 in / 1,170 mm BRUSH DRIVe SySTeM Disk scrub head Brush motor (2) 1.0 hp / 0.75 kW Brush RPM 300 rpm Down pressure weight (variable to) 250 lb / 114 kg Brush diameter (2) 18 in / 460 mm Cylindrical scrub head Brush motor (2) 1.0 hp / 0.75 kW Brush RPM 500 rpm Down pressure weight (variable to) 200 lb / 91 kg Brush diameter (2) 8 in / 205 mm SOlUTIOn DelIVeRy SySTeM Solution tank 50 gal / 190 l Solution capacity with eS® 75 gal / 280 l ReCOVeRy SySTeM Recovery tank 60 gal / 225 l Demisting chamber 10 gal / 38 l Vacuum fan 0.75 hp / 0.56 kW Speed 14,000 rpm Water lift 65 in / 1,650 mm PROPellIng SySTeM Propel speed forward (variable to) 5.6 mph / 9 km/h Propel speed reverse (variable to) 2.5 mph / 4 km/h Propel motor 1.6 hp / 1.2 kW gradeability Transport at gross weight 8˚ / 14.1% Working (scrubbing) 4˚ / 7% MACHIne SPeCIFICATIOnS length 74 in / 1,880 mm Width 41 in / 1,040 mm Rear squeegee (hard width) 42 in / 1,070 mm Height 58 in / 1,475 mm With overhead guard 82 in / 2,080 mm Weight 1,100 lb / 500 kg With standard 235 AH batteries 1,900 lb / 860 kg Minimum aisle turn 83 in / 2,110 mm Sound level (operator’s ear) Disk: Mode #1 68 dBA Cylindrical: Mode #1 71 dBA (Sound pressure level tested per ISO 11201 as recommended by the AACeM and OSHA) WARRAnTy See your local representative for warranty information. Specifications subject to change without notice. 1.008.001.am.en T16 Brochure 5/13 ©2013 The Tennant Company logo and other trademarks designated with the symbol “®” are trademarks of Tennant Company registered in the United States and/or other countries. Tennant Company’s products are sold and serviced through subsidiaries of Tennant Company and distributors. enviRonMenTal STeWaRdShiP ec-H2O™ and FaST® technologies are NFSI (National Floor Safety Institute) Certified. nFSI certified products must pass a 2-phase wet slip resistance process and have been shown to reduce the potential for slip-and-fall accidents. ec-H2O and FaST technologies are registered by NSF International. nSF International is an independent, not-for-profit organization that ensures formulation and labels on these products meet appropriate food safety regulations. ec-H2O and FaST technologies may contribute to LEED or LEED-EBOM (Existing Building: Operations & Maintenance) points, provided other appropriate criteria are met. For more information on obtaining leeD points, please contact your sales rep or refer to the USgBC website at: www.usgbc.org. FaST is a Green Seal (GS-37) Certified Detergent. green Seal evaluates and certifies cleaning products based on criteria such as the toxicity of the product, skin and eye irritation, skin sensitization, combustibility, toxicity to aquatic life, and packaging. Reduce noiseIncrease Safety Conserve Resources Reduce Detergents Improve Air Quality Choose GE Capital or U.S. Bancorp, our leasing providers, for simple, quick financing with flexible upgrade options. City of Burlingame, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 PLEASE HELP US KEEP YOUR DOWNTOWN BEAUTIFUL Dear Business and Property Owners: 2014 Thank you for your patience and cooperation in dealing with the construction for the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape and Utilities project. We hope you are enjoying the newly completed streetscape improvements in front of your business. The City Council and community want to ensure that the quality of the downtown improvements endures for many years to come. For these reasons, we need your help and assistance in maintaining our new downtown. The City Council recently approved aggressive sidewalk pavers cleaning program, which includes power washing/spot cleaning, and use of mechanical cleaning equipment. While the frequency of cleaning has been increased, the City Council hopes that you will join in a partnership to keep the sidewalk in front of your business or property clean. This includes daily sweeping, washing or mopping of the sidewalk, and spot cleaning of spills. For your efforts the City would like to provide some recommendations. 1. Please use cold or warm water, a soft scrub or a mop, or a green product such as Simple Green to clean the sidewalk pavers, benches, planters, light poles, etc. Do not use any bleach, solvents or chemical solutions for cleaning. Detergent soap should not be used as it flows into the storm drain ultimately contaminating the Bay. 2. Please do not use sharp instruments to remove gum as they can damage the pavers. A simple putty knife will usually work. 3. Businesses should not have sidewalks power washed; power washing and steam cleaning will be done by professional companies that specialize in these cleaning techniques. A pavement sealer was used on the pavers and needs to be maintained or it will wear off prematurely. The City will be responsible for the pavement sealer. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding maintenance and cleaning, please contact the Burlingame Public Works Department at (650)558-7230, or email streetscape@burlingame.org. Thank you again for your cooperation and assistance in keeping our downtown beautiful. City of Burlingame Public Works Department