HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2014.10.20City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, October 20, 2014
STUDY SESSION - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A
Burlingame Aquatic Center
Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the
non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7.
Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and
hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is
optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in
light of the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
There are no presentations.a.
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.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/20/2014
October 20, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014a.
10-6-14 Unapproved MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Reduction of the Parking Rate for City Parking
Lot H
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
Location Map
Long Term Parking Lots Revenue Bart Chart
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Expenditure of Funds to Purchase an
Automated Materials Handling System (AMHS) through the Peninsula Library
Automated Network (PLAN)
c.
Staff Report
Resolution
Price Quote
Attachments:
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
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Attachments:
Update on Trust Account with California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) as
of June 30, 2014
e.
Staff Report
CERBT Account 6-30-14
CERBT Account 09-30-14
Attachments:
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
f.
Staff Report
Resolution
Wohlford - Proposal for CAP and User Fee Study
Colgan - Proposal for Development Impact Fee Study
Attachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/20/2014
October 20, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
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
a.
Staff Report
Ordinance
Area Map
Attachments:
Request for a Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity (PCN) Pursant 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 Tottenheim Wines & Spirits
International, LLC, DBA Prestige Wines & Liquors/The Wine Stop, 337 Primrose Road
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
ABC Application, including Floor Plan
Memorandum from Captain Eric Wollman, Burlingame Police Department
Attachments:
Consideration of Applications Related to a Proposal for Construction of a Five and
Six-Story, 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility at 1600 Trousdale Drive,
as follows:
1.Introduction and Public Hearing Regarding an Ordinance Amending the Trousdale
West (TW) Zoning District Standards;
2.Consideration of Requests for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design
Review and Conditional Use Permits Related to the Proposed Project
c.
Staff Report
Ordinance
City Arborist Memorandum
September 22, 2014 PC Minutes Excerpt
September 22, 2014 PC Report
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Hearing Notice
Attachments:
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Vote on the Appointment of a New City Councilmembera.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/20/2014
October 20, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Setting the Mayoral Rotation for the Second Meeting in
December
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
Resolution117-1999
Attachments:
Authorization to Form a Task Force to Review Creative Financing Options for Bayview
Park and the Carriage House
c.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Amending the City of Burlingame Conflict of Interest Code to
Revise the List of Designated Officials and Employees
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
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:Traffic, Safety & Parking, August 14, 2014a.
Department Reports: Finance, August 2014b.
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 - Special Meeting, Monday, October 27, 2014 - Traffic,
Safety & Parking Commission Interviews; Next Regular City Council Meeting - Monday,
November 3, 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 10/20/2014
Burlingame City Council October 6, 2014
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 6, 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
Led by Bobbi Benson.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Keighran, Nagel, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
CA Kane advised that Council met in Closed Session, direction was given and there was no reportable action
at this time.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATION
a. PRESENTATION BY BURLINGAME AQUATICS CLUB
Burlingame Aquatics Club (BAC) Executive Director Suze Gardner gave a presentation about the club and
reviewed its agreement with the City of Burlingame. Ms. Gardner commented on the community accounts
and how the programs have increased since 2012. She also reviewed the BAC revenue and expenses.
The City Council commended BAC for all their great work in turning the programs around and involving all
ages of the community with the programs that they provide.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Burlingame resident Bobbi Benson spoke about the lack of bike racks on Burlingame Avenue. Burlingame
residents Cynthia Cornell, Cynthia Wukotich, Sonia Jhao spoke about the high cost of rents in Burlingame.
Burlingame City Council October 6, 2014
Unapproved Minutes
2
Donna McMorrow of Our Lady of Angels spoke about the need for a crossing guard at Hillside and Cortez.
There were no further comments from the floor.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked if any Councilmembers wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar,
and Councilmember Ortiz removed 8c.
Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to adopt items 8a, b, d, 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 SEPTEMBER 15,, 2014
CC Kearney requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes of September 15, 2014.
b. APPROVE EXTENSION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
APPLICATION DEADLINE
CM Goldman requested that Council extend the application deadline to November 7, 2014 for the Parks &
Recreation Commission.
c. AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE CROSSING GUARD SERVICES TO OUR LADY OF
ANGELS
CM Goldman requested Council authorize the City to split the cost with Our Lady of Angels School for a
crossing guard at the intersection of Hillside and Cortez.
Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Keighran commented how dangerous it is at that intersection and
Councilmember Ortiz pointed out that Our Lady of Angels is paying half the cost of the proposed crossing
guard at Hillside and Cortez.
Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt item 8c; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion was
approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH HATCH, MOTT, MACDONALD FOR CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATED TO THE BURLINGAME WATER AND
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS IMPROVMENTS FOR THE U. S. HIGHWAY
101/BROADWAY INTERCHANGE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution No.84-2014.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO TIMBERLINE TREE
SERVICE, INC. FOR TREE PRUNING AND STUMP REMOVAL AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXCUTE THE AGREEMENT
P&RD Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution No. 85-2014.
Burlingame City Council October 6, 2014
Unapproved Minutes
3
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH URS CORPORATION FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED
TO THE PREPARATION OF THE BROADWAY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
STUDY REPORT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT
DPW Murtuza reviewed the staff report and advised that this overall project scope includes a comprehensive
and well defined project study report. Mr. Murtuza further advised that the project will take approximately
18 months.
Council questions and discussion followed and Council reminded the public that this project is completely
funded by San Mateo County Measure A. Council requested that staff talk to the neighboring cities of
Millbrae and San Mateo. They also stressed that there be community outreach so the public has the
opportunity to weigh in on this issue and these studies.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment and there were no public comments.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 86-2014; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel.
The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0.
b. DISCUSS NEXT STEPS REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL VACANCY AND SET
DATE FOR INTERVIEWS
CM Goldman reviewed the staff report and requested Council consider October 15 or October 25 to conduct
the City Council vacancy interviews of the eight applicants. Council discussion followed concerning those
dates and Council agreed to October 15, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. with the interviews taking place in the Council
Chambers. Council also requested that the applicants wait in conference room A and there would not be any
electronic devices allowed in the conference room.
Council further agreed that the individual interviews be approximately 25 minutes, and the applicants were
welcome to stay in the Council Chambers after their interview. Council preferred to vote on the appointment
of a new Councilmember at the October 20, 2014 City Council meeting rather than immediately following
the interviews on October 15. It was decided that the order of applicants’ interview would be a random draw
by the City Manager. Council preferred to use ballots as the voting mechanism for the new Councilmember
appointment at the October 20th meeting. CA Kane advised that the existing resolution outlining the
appointment procedure would need to be revised to reflect the use of ballots.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment and there were no comments.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City.
Burlingame City Council October 6, 2014
Unapproved Minutes
4
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Brownrigg requested a discussion of forming a subcommittee to review creative financing options for
funding smaller projects.
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Library, August 19, 2014
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. in memory of former Pacifica Councilmember Jim
Vreeland.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Ellen Kearney
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Reduction of the Parking Rate for
City Parking Lot H
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a reduction of the
parking rate for City Parking Lot H, from the current rate of $3 for 10 hours ($3 per day) to a new
rate of $1 for 10 hours ($1 per day).
BACKGROUND
The City has 19 public parking lots located within the Burlingame Avenue downtown area. Of
these, 11 lots are for short-term parking (1 - 4hrs), and eight lots are for long-term parking (9 -
10hrs). The short-term lots have the same hourly rate as on-street parking, $1 per hour. The
daily parking rate for the long-term lots is currently set at $3 per day.
Lot H is designated as a long-term parking lot, and is located on the west side of El Camino Real,
between Ralston Avenue and Burlingame Avenue, and across El Camino Real from the Safeway
complex, Walgreens pharmacy, and Lot K. Prior to 2010, the City provided free public parking in
Lot H to encourage downtown employees and long-term parkers to park away from the downtown
core area, thereby freeing up short-term spaces to allow for more turnover of parking in the core.
The free parking strategy in Lot H worked in the beginning. However, in the long run, it caused
problems related to people leaving their cars in the parking lot for extended periods of time.
Additionally, it created disparity between Lot H and the other long-term lots, since Lot H was free
and other lots were not. In order to address these issues, in 2010, the City terminated the free
parking in Lot H and implemented a $1 per day parking rate. Subsequently, in 2012, as part of the
overall parking rate changes in the downtown area, the City increased all long-term parking lot
rates to $3 per day.
Before 2010 when parking was free in Lot H, the occupancy rate was observed to be between
90% and 100%. After the implementation of the $1 per day parking rate, the occupancy was
observed at about 80%. However, the occupancy rate dropped significantly to 20% when the rate
was increased to $3 per day. As of October of this year, the occupancy rate has slowly risen to
37%. Staff has learned that when the new Safeway complex was completed in 2012, a new
group of employees was hired that chose not to park in Lot H, but rather chose to take advantage
Resolution for Parking Lot H Rate Reduction October 20, 2014
2
of free and unrestricted parking in the nearby residential streets. Similarly, employees of
Walgreens and other businesses in the area also preferred to park for free in the nearby
residential streets, as opposed to parking in Lot H at $3 per day.
DISCUSSION
A review of the last two years of parking revenue data shows that Lot H has the lowest annual
revenue for any of the long-term parking lots in the Burlingame Avenue downtown area. Staff
believes that the low revenue in Lot H is attributable to the low occupancy rate, and is primarily
the result of employees working at nearby Walgreens and/or the Safeway complex not using the
lot even though it is in close proximity to the businesses. Staff had discussions with the store
managers, and it was established that if the parking rate was lower in Lot H, it would provide
more of an incentive for employees to park there. It would also improve the utilization of the
parking lot and significantly help in addressing the parking problem in the nearby residential
streets. Additionally, with the completion of the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape project, the
construction trailer currently in place there will be removed, and Lot H will regain all of its
available parking spaces. Based on the above analysis and feedback from the store managers,
staff is recommending lowering the parking rate in Lot H from the current $3 per day to $1 per
day.
As part of a multi-pronged strategy to improve the parking conditions in the downtown area, staff
is working with the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) to implement various other
measures to maximize parking utilization in the downtown area. These measures include
improved signage, modifications to the business parking permit system, and additional way-
finding efforts. The reduction of the parking rate for Lot H and the other downtown parking
measures mentioned above were presented to the TSPC at their August 14, 2014 and
September 11, 2014 meetings. The TSPC supported staff’s recommendation of lowering the
parking rate in Lot H, as well as further exploration of strategies to improve parking utilization.
FISCAL IMPACT
For fiscal year 2013-2014, the annual revenue for Lot H (with $3 per day rate) was $16,668,
which translates to about 25% occupancy. If the current occupancy rate of 37% were applied to
the entire fiscal year of 2014-2015, the anticipated annual revenue is projected to be
approximately $14,000 assuming a cost of $1 per day. While reducing the parking rate to $1 per
day will result in lower revenue per space, staff believes it will increase the parking lot utilization
over time and will result in a net increase in revenue. An exact increase in revenue will be difficult
to forecast at this time, as it will vary depending on the occupancy levels. However, for purposes
of illustration, if the annual average occupancy rate increases to 70% of the total number of
available spaces, the estimated annual revenue would be approximately $18,000.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Location Map
Long-term Parking Lots Revenue Bar Chart
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING A REDUCTION OF THE PARKING RATE FOR
CITY PARKING LOT H
The City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Burlingame (the “City”) does resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Title 13 of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides the framework for
regulating all of the City’s parking lots; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has from time to time established regulations for time
limitations and rates for vehicle parking in various City parking lots; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has conducted field surveys about parking
occupancy of Lot H in order to address the business and community concerns regarding
parking improvements; and
WHEREAS, the field surveys demonstrate that parking occupancy in Lot H has dropped
significantly in response to the imposition of the current parking rate of $3 for 10 hours; and
WHEREAS, based on discussions with nearby downtown businesses and store
managers, it is established that lowering of the parking rate in Lot H, from the current rate of $3
for 10 hours to $1 for 10 hours will provide more of an incentive to downtown employees to park
in Lot H, thereby improving its utilization and addressing the concerns of the downtown
businesses, and will also likely reduce downtown employee parking in the residential
neighborhoods;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE
COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS:
1. No person shall park any vehicle in City Parking Lot H for longer than the designated
period, and after the coin box has expired or without placing required amounts in the
coin box.
2. The time limitation of 10-hour parking and coin box rate of $1.00 for 10 hours is hereby
adopted and shall supersede any and all such limitations and hours adopted by prior
resolutions of this Council.
3. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed to procure and install
appropriate signs giving notice of the provisions of this resolution.
4. Limitations and charges set forth in this resolution shall be operative upon the installation
of such signs; existing limitations and charges shall continue in effect until changed.
5. Any and all previous resolutions inconsistent with this resolution are hereby repealed.
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 held on the 20th day of
October, 2014 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
EVA EMAGNILRUBEVA DRAWOHPR IMRO SE R D
PA R K R D
LORTO N A V E
H IG H LA N D RD AINROFILAC
RD AINROFILAC NL HTRONNL TSAE NL TSEWNL HTUOSDNALWENEVA SLAER ONIMAC LEIPAHCEVANBELLEVUEAVEODNNELLYAVE
RALSTONAVEHTRON ot toNelacSTOLATOL1-KTOLKTOLHTOLLTOLJTOLWTOLGTOLFTOLNTOLETOLMTOLCTOLDTOL3-ATOL1-BTOLB TOLO TOLVdereteM sseL ro ruoH enOdereteM ruoH 2dereteM ruoH 01)ylppa yam stimil emit( gnikraP eerFGNIKRAP TEERTS-NOgnikraP dereteMgnikraP yalpsiD-dna-yaP)gnikraP mreT-gnoL(STOL GNIKRAP10 - H R10 - H R10 - H R1 0 - H R
2 - H R 1 0 - H R 10 - H R2 - H R2 - H R2 - H R2 & 1 0 - H R
2 - H R2 - H R2 - H R2 - H R2 - H R2 - H R2 - H R 4 - H R
9 - H R4 - H R10 - H R4 - H R&&&&4HourMeteerd9 - H R&&4 - H RA V E
10 - H R
$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000LOT BLOT FLOT GLOT HLOT KLOT NLOT OLOT WFY 12‐13$30,188 $52,870 $28,771 $13,338 $39,842 $68,390 $61,200 $27,321FY 13‐14$33,628 $56,416 $27,666 $16,668 $44,889 $66,369 $60,274 $27,944Annual RevenueAnnual RevenueLong‐term City Parking Lots
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: Patricia Harding, City Librarian – (650) 558-7401
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Expenditure of Funds to
Purchase an Automated Materials Handling System (AMHS) through the
Peninsula Library Automated Network (PLAN)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the expenditure
of funds to purchase a 3M automated materials handling system (AMHS) as part of the second
phase of the implementation of the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology project.
This action relates to the system upgrades associated with the Burlingame Public Library
Millennium Remodel Project. The cost for the AMHS is $337,501.66.
BACKGROUND
The first phase of the PLAN RFID project began in early 2011 when all library items were tagged,
and the self-check system was converted to read RFID. Phase two of the RFID project is the
selection and implementation of an RFID AMHS to automatically check-in library materials. RFID
has been proven to increase staff productivity and reduce repetitive stress injuries. It will also
speed up turn-around time, so patrons will have access to materials sooner. RFID helps with
inventory control and improves security. The AMHS has been included in the Library Millennium
Project.
DISCUSSION
Several libraries in the Peninsula Library System (PLS) were interested in purchasing an AMHS.
In 2012 PLS and PLAN staff put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to selected vendors who
were known in the USA and were midsize to large companies. The RFP was distributed to five
vendors (3M, Bibliotheca, Envisionware, TechLogic, and ITG); during the RFP process,
Bibliotheca merged with ITG, leaving four vendors.
A committee of six members of PLS, including two Burlingame staff, reviewed the RFP responses
and eliminated TechLogic because of its high cost. Presentations and demonstrations of the
remaining three vendors’ products were set up, and committee members evaluated the products,
hardware and software, and customer support. In addition, the three vendors made site visits to
all of the PLS libraries. In evaluating the three vendors’ products, the committee looked at a
variety of factors including cost, noise level, sorting systems, and customer support.
Library Automated Materials Handling System Contract October 20, 2014
2
After several presentations, demonstrations, site visits, meetings, and discussions, the committee
made an official recommendation to PLS’ Administrative Council to approve 3M as the AMHS
vendor. 3M was the only vendor who met all the requirements on the RFP, and its product is
developed and manufactured in the USA. 3M lowered the overall cost from the original response,
and offered a bundled warranty and fire suppression for exterior inductions at no cost.
Burlingame’s cost is $337,501.66 and is part of the PLS group purchase. The $337,501.66
includes six years of maintenance when purchased as part of the PLS group purchase.
FISCAL IMPACT
The AMHS is part of the Library’s Millennium Project. The estimated cost for the AMHS included
in the Millennium Project budget was $300,000. The $337,501.66 cost for the system includes
six years of maintenance for $78,360. Purchasing six years of maintenance up front saves
$39,000 on maintenance over the six-year time period. The $78,360 will be pre-paid and spread
out over six years in the Library’s operating budget.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Price Quote
cc: PLAN
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO PURCHASE AN AUTOMATED MATERIALS
HANDLING SYSTEM THROUGH THE PENINSULA LIBRARY AUTOMATED NETWORK (PLAN)
WHEREAS, in 2011, the Burlingame Library began the first phase of a radio frequency
identification (RFID) conversion project; and
WHEREAS, in 2012 PLAN began the second phase of the RFID project by putting out a
request for proposals for a group purchase of an AMHS for Peninsula Library System libraries; and
WHEREAS, PLAN and a committee of six members of the Peninsula Library System
reviewed proposals of four vendors, including 3M, Bibliotheca, Envisionware, and TechLogic; and
WHEREAS, 3M was selected for purchase by the committee based on cost, noise level,
sorting systems, and customer support;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED that the bid of PLAN for
said project in the amount of $337,501.66, is accepted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the expenditure of funds for
the performance of said work.
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 held on the 20th day of
October, 2014, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
Peninsula Library System selected 3M as the RFID vendor of choice in 2010 which includes all self
checks, gates, and Sorting Systems (AMH). PLS is responsible for all purchases, warranty renewals, and
support of all 3M RFID equipment.
Cost for Burlingame Public Library’s AMH
3M Intelligent Return and Sorter System $246,257.00
Five additional years of maintenance when
prepaid at system purchase $78,360.00
Kingsley Bins $12,884.66
Grand Total:$337,501.66
To: Patricia Harding
Burlingame Public Library Director
From: Monica M. Schultz
PLS IT Director
Subject: Burlingame Public Library AMH Project Cost
Date: October 2014
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: 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
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution modifying voting procedures for
Council vacancies, permitting sitting Council members to vote by ballot rather than voice when
voting on whom to appoint to the remainder of an uncompleted term for an empty Council seat.
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the Council adopted Resolution 63-2005, governing procedures for how to fill the
unexpired term of an empty Council seat. With the recent departure of Jerry Deal from the
Council, the Council reviewed the 2005 resolution and elected to proceed with an appointment to
fill the vacancy, rather than an election. The resolution in question provides that, should the
Council decide to appoint to fill the empty seat, the vote will be taken by voice vote, with each
Council Member announcing his or her choice. At its last meeting, the Council noted its
preference to change this procedure to match that for appointing members of the City’s boards
and commissions. Under that procedure, the Council Members vote on a written ballot during the
meeting, and the votes are then read into the record by the City Clerk. The Clerk will announce
the Council Member’s name and their vote. If successive ballots need to be taken in order to
secure a majority for one potential appointee, the Council Members may discuss the decision
between rounds of voting.
DISCUSSION
Adoption of the attached resolution would clarify the voting procedure for selection of a Council
appointee to the unexpired remainder of a term of an empty Council seat. The proposed
resolution brings that procedure in line with other Council appointments.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Resolution No. ___________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MODIFYING VOTING PROCEDURES
FOR THE SELECTION OF A COUNCIL APPOINTEE TO SERVE THE REMAINDER OF AN UNEXPIRED TERM FOR
A COUNCIL VACANCY, PROVIDING FOR WRITTEN BALLOTS
WHEREAS the City Council adopted Resolution 63-2005, providing for procedures to govern the
methods for filling a vacancy in an unexpired term for a Council seat; and
WHEREAS that resolution provides that, if the Council determines to appoint rather than hold an
election to fill the seat, the Council Members must cast their votes by voice; and
WHEREAS the voice vote procedure is inconsistent with existing mechanisms for other Council
appointments, whereby the Council Members’ votes are recorded on written ballots during the agenda
item and are then read into the record by the City Clerk who announces the Council Member’s name
and his or her vote; and
WHEREAS the orderly conduct of public meetings and the creation of a clear record are served
by using written ballots read into the record by the City Clerk;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby resolves as follows:
1. The vote to appoint an individual to the remainder of an unexpired term for a Council
vacancy shall be taken on written ballots during the corresponding public meeting agenda
item.
2. The votes thus provided shall be passed to the City Clerk, who shall read each vote into the
record, stating, by name, each Council Member and his or her vote.
3. If a majority is not achieved in the first round of voting, the Council may take successive
rounds of voting in the same manner until a majority emerges.
4. If successive rounds of voting are necessary, Council Members may discuss the vote
between them.
5. All other provisions of Resolution No. 63-2005 shall remain in full force and effect.
_____________________________
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 held on the 20th day of October,
2014, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Update on Trust Account with California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust
(CERBT) as of June 30, 2014
RECOMMENDATION
This report provides an update on the trust account established with the California Employers’
Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) last year in order to begin prefunding of the City’s retiree medical
obligations.
BACKGROUND
After a thorough RFP process to aid in the selection of an Other Post-Employment Benefits
(OPEB) trust administrator for the City, staff recommended establishing a trust account with the
CalPERS-administered CERBT for an initial period of three years. In October 2013, the City
transferred $6.6 million to the CERBT account; this amount had been set aside as a General
Fund reserve specifically for this purpose. This was the only contribution made to the City’s
CERBT account for the 2013-14 fiscal year. A “moderate performance” strategy was selected for
the account (as opposed to a “moderately conservative” or “conservative” strategy), as the short-
term goal is to develop a growing asset base for the first years of the City’s investment in the trust
fund.
DISCUSSION
As can be seen by the CalPERS statement attached to this staff report, as of the quarter ended
June 30, 2014, the balance in the City’s CERBT account totaled $7,334,774.49. Total earnings
for the fiscal year (with an initial contribution of October 10, 2013) were $741,425.98, and
administrative expenses were $6,651.49. This equates to an annual yield of over 15 percent, net
of fees.
However, it should be noted that the financial markets lost ground in this most recent (third)
quarter of calendar year 2014. The balance in the account as of September 30, 2014 was
$7,146,032.69. This is more truly reflective of the earnings for a full year – approximately 8.27
percent, net of fees.
The City plans to make further contributions to the CERBT account periodically. All operating
funds are charged an “OPEB contribution” - a percentage of payroll costs – into the City’s OPEB
Update on Retiree Medical Obligations Trust Fund October 20, 2014
2
Internal Service Fund. These departmental contributions, along with a relatively small amount of
interest earnings, are the only revenues to the OPEB fund. Expenses of the fund include
amounts paid toward retiree medical premiums, and for the cost of third party administration of
this program. Amounts remaining in the City’s internal OPEB fund at the end of each month are
sent to the CERBT account.
FISCAL IMPACT
Prefunding of the City’s retiree medical obligations in a qualified trust significantly decreased both
the City’s unfunded liability and its ongoing annual costs by increasing the yield assumption
earned within the fund. As the fund matures and cash flow needs change, staff will continue to
evaluate the appropriateness of a more conservative investment strategy, and perhaps even a
change in post-employment benefit trust solutions. For the time being, however, the CERBT trust
account will hold the City’s periodic contributions for the purpose of growing the City’s initial
investment, and eventually providing for retiree medical benefits in excess of the OPEB’s internal
service fund revenues.
Exhibits:
CERBT Quarterly Statement, for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2014
CERBT Quarterly Statement, for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2014
City of Burlingame
CERBT Strategy 1
Entity #: SKB0-1429123533-001
Quarter Ended June 30, 2014
Please note that the Grand Total is your actual fund account balance at the end of the period, including all accrued Contributions and Distributions. Please review your statement promptly. All information contained in your statement will be considered
true and accurate unless you contact us within 30 days of receipt of this statement. If you have questions about the validity of this information, please contact CERBT4U@calpers.ca.gov.
555,077.839 555,077.839
$7,334,774.49 $7,334,774.49 13.21395713.213957Period Ending Unit Value
12.612691Period Beginning Unit Value
0.000
555,077.839
0.000
0.000
0.000
555,077.839
Year to DateCurrent Period
Ending Units
Unit Sales for Withdrawals
Unit Purchases from Contributions
Beginning Units
Unit Value Summary:Market Value Summary:
$7,334,774.49$7,334,774.49Grand Total
0.00
(6,651.49)
0.00
741,425.98
6,600,000.00
$0.00
0.00
(2,221.71)
0.00
335,971.12
0.00
$7,001,025.08
Year to DateCurrent Period
Ending Balance
Distribution
Admin Expense
Other
Investment Earnings
Contribution
Beginning Balance
QTD Fiscal QTD Fiscal
YTD Accrual 0.00 0.00
Transfer In
Transfer Out
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unit Transfer In
Unit Transfer Out
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1
Statement of Transaction Detail for the Quarter Ending 06/30/2014
City of Burlingame
Entity #: SKB0-1429123533-001
No Transactions for the Period
If you have any questions or comments regarding the new statement format please contact CERBT4U@CalPERS.ca.gov
Client Contact:
CERBT4U@CalPERS.ca.gov
2
City of Burlingame
CERBT Strategy 1
Entity #: SKB0-1429123533-001
Quarter Ended September 30, 2014
Please note that the Grand Total is your actual fund account balance at the end of the period, including all accrued Contributions and Distributions. Please review your statement promptly. All information contained in your statement will be considered
true and accurate unless you contact us within 30 days of receipt of this statement. If you have questions about the validity of this information, please contact CERBT4U@calpers.ca.gov.
555,077.839 555,077.839
$7,146,032.69 $7,146,032.69 12.87392912.873929Period Ending Unit Value
13.21395713.213957Period Beginning Unit Value
0.000
0.000
555,077.839
0.000
0.000
555,077.839
Year to DateCurrent Period
Ending Units
Unit Sales for Withdrawals
Unit Purchases from Contributions
Beginning Units
Unit Value Summary:Market Value Summary:
$7,146,032.69$7,146,032.69Grand Total
0.00
(2,117.68)
0.00
(186,624.12)
0.00
$7,334,774.49
0.00
(2,117.68)
0.00
(186,624.12)
0.00
$7,334,774.49
Year to DateCurrent Period
Ending Balance
Distribution
Admin Expense
Other
Investment Earnings
Contribution
Beginning Balance
QTD Fiscal QTD Fiscal
YTD Accrual 0.00 0.00
Transfer In
Transfer Out
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unit Transfer In
Unit Transfer Out
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1
Statement of Transaction Detail for the Quarter Ending 09/30/2014
City of Burlingame
Entity #: SKB0-1429123533-001
No Transactions for the Period
If you have any questions or comments regarding the new statement format please contact CERBT4U@CalPERS.ca.gov
Client Contact:
CERBT4U@CalPERS.ca.gov
2
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute Contracts for (1) a Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study with
Wohlford Consulting, and (2) a Development Fee Study with Colgan
Consulting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City
Manager to negotiate and execute contract(s) for development of a cost allocation plan (CAP)
and a user fee study with Wohlford Consulting. In addition, the resolution authorizes the City
Manager to negotiate and execute a contract for a development impact fee study with Colgan
Consulting.
BACKGROUND
In establishing the City’s goals for the 2013-14 fiscal year, Council agreed to five overarching
goals, including the goal to “Sustain long-term financial strength with increased and diverse
revenue sources”. One of the strategies to achieve this goal was to institute cost-control
measures and recover more costs. And a task in support of this strategy was “Update City’s Cost
Allocation Plan to inform the establishment of fees for all City services; begin development of
Cost Recovery Policy”. The most recent Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study for the City
were last prepared in fiscal year 2007-08. The structure of the City’s organization and the
manner in which services are provided have changed significantly over the past six years as a
result of the stresses that the economic downturn placed on all City resources. A fresh study is
needed to ensure that the City keeps fees current. A current cost allocation and fee study will
allow the City to assess the true cost of services when establishing fees, and prevent the
subsidization of individual services with tax dollars.
Staff began to develop an RFP for a Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) and Fee Study early in the 2013-
14 fiscal year. However, other priorities in the Finance Department resulted in this process being
extended through February 2014. Since the results of the CAP and fee studies would not be in
time for the annual update of the Master Fee Schedule and the preparation of the 2014-15
budget, the project was put on hold during the Spring and Summer months. The RFP was
updated to include a development impact fee study, as this had last been performed in 2008. In
August, the RFP was finalized and sent out to an initial vendor listing of eight firms specializing in
Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee and Development Impact Fee Studies October 20, 2014
2
the area of cost recovery mechanisms and rate studies. The RFP was also posted to the City’s
web page, as well as the CSMFO (California Society of Municipal Finance Officers) “Resources”
web page. Responses to questions, clarifications to the RFP and additional documents were
compiled and distributed via the same mechanisms early in September. Proposals were due on
September 26, 2014. Proposals were allowed to include any or all of the three components of the
RFP; many of the consultants responding to the RFP partnered with another firm in providing a
proposal for all three components.
DISCUSSION
The City was fortunate to receive six quality responses to its request for proposals (RFP). Staff
evaluated the proposals based on their scope of work, budget, project team staffing references
and other criteria. In addition, three of the proposing firms were allowed to further present their
approach for these studies in a final interview. These interviews also allowed staff to get any
clarifications needed on the proposals, and discuss any concerns about the project timeline and
implementation.
All the firms interviewed proved to be more than qualified to provide the City with an equitable,
defensible CAP and a comprehensive user fee study within the time frame required. In addition,
the four proposals that included the development impact fee study were responsive to the City’s
need for a quality analysis of the City’s impact fees, and would provide findings and
recommendations to address any issues or opportunities identified in the study. The consultants
specified which staff would be assigned to the project; all were qualified with years of experience
in providing cost and fee studies to municipal customers.
However, staff preferred the approach provided by the partnership of the two consulting firms of
Chad Wohlford and Joseph Colgan. These two sole proprietors are highly experienced
government cost experts who focus on providing cost allocation plans and user fee studies (Chad
Wohlford) and development impact fee studies (Joseph Colgan). The principals will manage the
respective projects from beginning to end, as opposed to assigning various parts of the projects
to other staff. Their hands-on approach in designing the studies, gathering data, analysis, and
communication of status and results up and down the City’s chain of command provides some
assurance that the studies will be completed as consistently and efficiently as possible, without
the delays caused by miscommunications or varying project contacts. Because the need for
consultant services for annual updates to the studies may vary, these costs will not be included in
the contracts, but budgeted separately in future fiscal years.
As seen in their proposals (attached to the accompanying resolution), Wohlford Consulting and
Colgan Consulting have many municipal references of clients for whom they have performed
services that are similar in nature to those requested by the City of Burlingame. Staff contacted
several of these references that attested to the personalized, yet professional and highly technical
work provided by these consultants in recent years. The contracts negotiated and executed by
the City Manager will be substantially the same format as provided to the proposers in the original
RFP, also attached as an Exhibit to the accompanying resolution. Wohlford and Colgan have
asked for a partial waiver of the City’s standard insurance requirements, whereby the consultants
would carry $1 million per claim and aggregate insurance rather than the standard $1 million per
Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee and Development Impact Fee Studies October 20, 2014
3
claim and $2 million aggregate. Staff believes that, given the nature of the work contemplated for
this project, that adjustment is appropriate and retains adequate protection for the City.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for the scope of work for both contracts is nearly $78,000 ($14,000 for the Cost
Allocation study, $31,000 for the user fee study, and $33,000 for the development impact fee
study). A General Fund budget amendment in the amount of approximately $30,000 will be
required, as the cost estimate from the 2013-14 budget was low, and did not include a study of
the City’s development impact fees. The Finance Department will include a more accurate
budget request with the City’s mid-year analysis and report.
The study will recommend a fee schedule that provides full cost recovery of applicable services
performed by the City, which is anticipated to increase fee revenue for some services in future
fiscal years.
Exhibits:
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract for a Cost Allocation Plan and
User Fee Study with Wohlford Consulting, and Development Impact Fee Study with Colgan
Consulting
o Proposals from Wohlford Consulting and Colgan Consulting
o Professional Services Contract (Template)
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE
CONTRACTS WITH WOHLFORD CONSULTING FOR A COST
ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY, AND COLGAN
CONSULTING FOR A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously emphasized the desire for cost-
control measures and the recovery of more costs for certain City services; and
WHEREAS, City staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant
services for the development of a cost allocation plan, user fee study and development
fee study; and
WHEREAS, the City received proposals from six (6) firms meeting minimum
qualifications, and evaluated them initially on the basis of the written proposals and then
through follow-up questions, interviews and reference checks; and
WHEREAS, Wohlford Consulting was selected as the best qualified to provide
the needed services for a cost allocation plan and user fee study, and Colgan Consulting
was selected as the best qualified to provide a development fee study for the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
The City Manager is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute agreements
with Wohlford Consulting for a Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study, and
Colgan Consulting for a Development Impact Fee Study, substantially consistent
with the sample professional services contract attached to the Request For
Proposals (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and reflecting the terms in the written
proposals submitted by Wohlford Consulting and Colgan Consulting (attached
hereto as Exhibits B and C).
_____________________________
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 Burlingame City
Council held on the 20th day of October, 2014, and was adopted thereafter by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
____________________________
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: 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
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing to introduce 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, specifically between the addresses of 1500 and 1541, by:
1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the attached ordinance.
2. By motion, waiving further reading and introducing the proposed ordinance.
3. Conducting a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
4. Discussing the proposed ordinance and determining whether to bring it back for second
reading and adoption.
5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before
proposed 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.
Introduction of an Ordinance to Establish 2-Hour Parking Restriction on October 20, 2014
the 1500 block of Cypress Avenue between the addresses of 1500 to 1541
2
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.
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-hourr 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. Upon Council approval 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: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255
Subject: 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 Tottenheim Wines & Spirits International,
LLC, DBA Prestige Wines & Liquors/The Wine Stop, 337 Primrose Road
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should:
Conduct a public hearing and consider all information within the staff report, as well as
any written and oral testimony, and following closure of the public hearing;
Consider adoption of the following resolution, by title only:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
WOULD BE SERVED BY THE CALIFORNIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTROL BOARD’S TRANSFER OF TYPE-21 AND TYPE-42 ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE SALES LICENSES FOR PRESTIGE WINE & SPIRITS/WINE STOP
TO ITS NEW LOCATION AT 337 PRIMROSE ROAD”
BACKGROUND
A request has been submitted to the City for a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity
related to Tottenheim Wines & Spirits International LLC’s (dba Prestige Wines & Liquors/Wine
Stop) application for transfer of its Type-21 (Off-Sale – wine, beer and distilled spirits) and Type-
42 (On-Sale – wine tasting) alcoholic beverage licenses from its current premises at 1300
Burlingame Avenue to its new location at 337 Primrose Road. The zoning of the new location is
Donnelly Avenue Commercial (DAC). Within the DAC zone the retail sale of alcoholic beverages
for off-site consumption with ancillary wine-tasting is a permitted use; no discretionary land-use
entitlements are required for the relocation of the business.
PCN for Prestige Wine & Spirits/Wine Stop – 337 Primrose Road October 20, 2014
2
DISCUSSION
Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity: Pursuant to Section 23958.4 of the California
Business and Professions Code, in instances where the number of licenses for alcohol sales
within a census tract exceeds the maximum number allowed within that tract as set by the ABC
(constituting an “overconcentration”), a “finding of public convenience and necessity” is required
of the local jurisdiction before the ABC will consider the license request.
Prestige Wine & Liquors/Wine Stop, located at 1300 Burlingame Avenue, is situated within
Census Tract 6055; within this census tract the maximum number of licenses allowed by ABC is
eight. Currently, 48 on-sale licenses and seven off-sale licenses exist within the census tract.
The new location for the business is situated within the same census tract; therefore, approval of
the license transfer by ABC will not increase the number of licenses within the area. Because
the number of licenses within the census tract exceeds the maximum permitted by ABC, the
agency’s rules require the applicant to seek a “finding of public convenience and necessity” from
the City before the agency will complete processing of the license transfer. Adoption of a finding
of public convenience and necessity by the City is, in essence, a determination that based upon
analysis by the City, transfer of the licenses is necessary to ensure that adequate opportunities
exist for the public to purchase alcohol products, and to weigh-in on whether or not the public
health, safety and welfare are potentially affected by the issuance of additional licenses beyond
the ABC’s threshold.
Police Department Review: The Burlingame Police Department has reviewed Tottenheim’s
request for transfer of the ABC licenses. The findings of this review are attached to this report
(see memorandum from Captain Eric Wollman, dated September 2, 2014). To summarize, the
Department supports a finding of “public convenience and necessity” and transfer of the licenses
to the new location at 337 Primrose Road. The Police Department bases its recommendation, in
part, upon the following findings:
Prestige Wines & Liquors/Wine Stop has operated in the area for over 30 years.
A review of the police-related calls at the current premises shows that requests for police
assistance have been minimal over the years.
On-site consumption will be limited to a small, separate section of the retail space and
limited to wine tasting only.
The proposed license transfer is within the same census tract; thus, it will not increase
the number of ABC licenses within the area.
The new location for the business is located within Downtown Burlingame; there are no
parks, schools, or residences within close proximity to the new business location.
Though the Police Department supports a finding of public convenience and necessity, Captain
Wollman recommends that the following conditions be forwarded to the ABC for its
consideration prior to issuance of the license:
PCN for Prestige Wine & Spirits/Wine Stop – 337 Primrose Road October 20, 2014
3
1. Sales, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 12:00 p.m. and
5:00 p.m. on Sundays.
2. Noise shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee, as defined
on the ABC-257 (licensed premises diagram).
3. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the
premises over which they have control.
4. Graffiti shall be removed from the premises under the control of the licensee within 72
hours of application. If the graffiti occurs on a Friday or weekend day, or on a holiday, the
applicant shall remove the graffiti within 72 hours following the beginning of the next
weekday.
5. The interior lighting within the premises shall be maintained in a condition and at intensity
sufficient to permit the observation of the appearance and conduct of all persons and
patrons in that portion of the premises where alcoholic beverages are sold, served,
delivered or consumed.
6. The exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to
illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or
about the premises. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal
privacy and use of any nearby properties.
7. Loitering (loitering is defined as “to stand idly about; linger aimlessly without lawful
business”) is prohibited on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premises
under control of the applicant, as depicted on the ABC-257.
8. Electronic video surveillance shall be maintained on the premises and shall specifically
cover all entrances and exits. Recorded footage shall be retained for a minimum of 30
days.
9. The sale of distilled spirits in sizes smaller than 200 ml is strictly prohibited.
10. Malt beverages with alcohol content greater than 5.7% by volume shall not be sold on the
premises, with the exception of “Dinner Wines” which have been aged two years or more
and maintained in corded bottles.
11. The applicant shall not make structural changes to the premises interior without written
approval of the Burlingame Police Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
PCN for Prestige Wine & Spirits/Wine Stop – 337 Primrose Road October 20, 2014
4
Attachments:
Resolution – Adoption of a Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity
ABC Application, including Floor Plan
Memorandum from Captain Eric Wollman, Burlingame Police Department
1
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DETERMINING
THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WOULD BE SERVED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD’S TRANSFER OF TYPE-21 AND
TYPE-42 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES LICENSES FOR PRESTIGE WINE &
SPIRITS/WINE STOP TO ITS NEW LOCATION AT 337 PRIMROSE ROAD
WHEREAS, Tottenheim Wines & Spirits International LLC’s (dba Prestige Wines &
Liquors/Wine Stop) has applied to the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) for
transfer of its Type-21 (Off-Sale – wine, beer and distilled spirits) and Type-42 (On-Sale – wine
tasting) alcoholic beverage licenses from its current premises at 1300 Burlingame Avenue to its
new location at 337 Primrose Road; and,
WHEREAS, the number of businesses with alcoholic beverage sales licenses in the City’s
downtown area exceed the number of such licensed businesses permitted by the ABC for that
census tract area (“overconcentration”); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 23958.4, an
applicant for a beverage sales license in an area of “overconcentration” of alcoholic beverage
sales licenses can request the local governmental agency to determine that the public
convenience and necessity would be served by the issuance of the alcohol beverage sales license
and, if the local agency so finds, the ABC will issue the license; and,
WHEREAS, Tottenheim Wines & Spirits International LLC’s (dba Prestige Wines &
Liquors/Wine Stop) has applied to the City for a finding of public convenience and necessity to
obtain ABC approval of the license transfer; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department has reviewed this application, investigated the number
of alcohol-related incidents in this census tract and reviewed the names and locations of
businesses with alcoholic beverage sales licenses in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area;
and
WHEREAS, the Police Department, after determining that no facts or circumstances exist
which would prevent the City’s determination of public convenience and necessity, recommends
that the City Council adopt a finding of public convenience and necessity, based upon the analysis
contained within its September 2, 2014 memorandum attached to the City Council staff report,
dated October 20, 2014;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame as
follows:
a. All of the facts recited above and in the staff report and in all of the attachments thereto,
are true and correct.
Resolution No. ______
2
b. The City Council determines that the public convenience and necessity would be served
by transfer of Tottenheim Wines & Spirits LLCs Type-21 (Off-Sale – wine, beer and
distilled spirits) and Type-42 (On-Sale – wine tasting) alcoholic beverage licenses from its
current premises at 1300 Burlingame Avenue to its new location at 337 Primrose Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, based upon the Burlingame Police Department’s
review of the matter, the City Council suggests that the ABC consider the following conditions as
part of the ABCs transfer of the licenses:
1. Sales, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 12:00 p.m. and
5:00 p.m. on Sundays.
2. Noise shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee, as defined
on the ABC-257 (licensed premises diagram).
3. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the
premises over which they have control.
4. Graffiti shall be removed from the premises under the control of the licensee within 72
hours of application. If the graffiti occurs on a Friday or weekend day, or on a holiday,
the applicant shall remove the graffiti within 72 hours following the beginning of the next
weekday.
5. The interior lighting within the premises shall be maintained in a condition and at
intensity sufficient to permit the observation of the appearance and conduct of all
persons and patrons in that portion of the premises where alcoholic beverages are sold,
served, delivered or consumed.
6. The exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to
illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or
about the premises. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the
normal privacy and use of any nearby properties.
7. Loitering (loitering is defined as “to stand idly about; linger aimlessly without lawful
business”) is prohibited on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premises
under control of the applicant, as depicted on the ABC-257.
8. Electronic video surveillance shall be maintained on the premises and shall specifically
cover all entrances and exits. Recorded footage shall be retained for a minimum of 30-
days.
9. The sale of distilled spirits in sizes smaller than 200 ml is strictly prohibited.
Resolution No. ______
3
10. Malt beverages with alcohol content greater than 5.7% by volume shall not be sold on
the premises, with the exception of “Dinner Wines” which have been aged two years or
more and maintained in corded bottles.
11. The applicant shall not make structural changes to the premises interior without written
approval of the Burlingame Police Department.
____________________________________
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 20th day of October, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
___________________________________
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Consideration of Applications Related to a Proposal for Construction of a
Five and Six-Story, 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility at
1600 Trousdale Drive, as follows:
1. Introduction and Public Hearing Regarding an Ordinance Amending
the Trousdale West (TW) Zoning District Standards;
2. Consideration of Requests for Approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Design Review and Conditional Use Permits Related to
the Proposed Project.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should:
1. Introduce the following ordinance by title only, waiving further reading: “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 Height and Lot Coverage, related to
building heights within the Trousdale West (TW) Zoning District”.
2. Conduct a public hearing and consider all public testimony related to the ordinance
amendment and all other aspects of the project’s entitlement package.
3. Following conclusion of the public hearing, provide direction to staff regarding any
desired changes to the proposed ordinance amendment, mitigated negative declaration
and the project design.
4. Direct staff to place adoption of the proposed ordinance on the November 3, 2014
regular meeting agenda of the City Council; and further, move to continue action
regarding the mitigated negative declaration, design review and the conditional use
permits until the meeting of November 3, 2014.
1600 Trousdale Drive – 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility October 20, 2014
2
BACKGROUND
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).
Amendment to the TW Zoning Regulations: Amendment of the TW zoning regulations
to clarify measurement of building heights on corner properties along Magnolia Avenue,
Ogden Drive and 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.
Overview of Proposed Amendment to the TW Development Standards: A full analysis of the
proposed amendment to the TW development standards is included in the September 22, 2014
Planning Commission staff report. The following table summarizes the existing standards as well
as the standards proposed in the amendment:
1600 Trousdale Drive – 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility October 20, 2014
3
Existing Text – Section 25.40.060 (b) Proposed Text – Section 25.40.060 (b)
(b) Maximum Allowed Height.
(1) Residential Structures 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.
(a) Mixed commercial and residential structures
with a lot front on Trousdale Drive shall have a
maximum height of seventy-five (75) feet.
(b) Mixed commercial and residential structures
with a lot front on Magnolia Avenue shall have
a maximum height of sixty (60) feet.
(3) Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive, Murchison
Drive, and Magnolia Drive. No structure with a
lot front on Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive,
Murchison Drive, or Magnolia Drive shall
exceed sixty (60) feet in height.
(b) Maximum Allowed Height.
(1) Residential Structures 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
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.
(3) Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive, Murchison
Drive, and Magnolia Drive. No structure with a
lot front on Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive,
Murchison Drive, or Magnolia Drive shall
exceed sixty (60) feet in height, except as
provided in Section 25.40.060 (b) (2) (c).¹
¹ Clarification was provided by staff after Planning Commission review.
1600 Trousdale Drive – 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility October 20, 2014
4
Existing Text – Section 25.40.060 (b) Proposed Text – Section 25.40.060 (b)
(4) The maximum height on any parcel may be
exceeded by a mechanical penthouse with a
maximum height of ten (10) feet as measured
from the adjacent roof surface and covering no
more than five (5) percent of the roof area.
(5) On corner lots, the maximum height allowed for
the lot front shall be the maximum height
allowed for the entire structure.
(4) The maximum height on any parcel may be
exceeded by a mechanical penthouse with a
maximum height of ten (10) feet as measured
from the adjacent roof surface and covering no
more than five (5) percent of the roof area.
(5) On corner lots, the maximum height allowed
for the lot front shall be the maximum height
allowed for the entire structure, except as
provided in Section 25.40.060 (b) (2) (c).¹
¹ Clarification was provided by staff after Planning Commission review.
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 the 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.
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.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
1600 Trousdale Drive – 132-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility October 20, 2014
5
Exhibits:
Ordinance – TW District Amendments
City Arborist Memorandum
September 22, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt
September 22, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Hearing Notice
Project Plans – 1600 Trousdale Drive
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, 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
Date: October 7, 2014
To: 0 Engineering Division 0 Fire Division
(650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600
0 Building Division 0 Stormwater Division
(650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727
x Parks Division 0 City Attorney
(650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for comments on 1600 Trousdale Drive tree planting and the
possibility of allowing smaller scale street trees in front of the main
entry along Trousdale Drive so that the entry can be more visible.
Staff Review:
Project Comments
Smaller trees at the main entrance is something that can be considered as an
alternative to the larger maples and would provide an opportunity to add some color
and texture to the landscape. 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, 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.
Consideration should be made knowing what the front entrance will look like
with signage, address, stairs, lights, etc. and will the smaller trees block these from
being visible.
Reviewed by: B Disco Date: 10/7/14
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 22, 2014
c.1600 Trousdale Drive, zoned TW – Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Design Review, Conditional Use Permits and Amendments to the TW Zoning
Regulations for construction of a new 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility
(Joel I. Roos, Pacific Union Development Co ., applicant; Gabriel Fonseca,
SmithGroupJJR, architect; Peninsula Healthcare District, property owner) (67 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissoner Loftis indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding
Agenda Item 8(c) - 1600 Trousdale Drive, as he is a former employee of the architectural firm that
prepared the project plans. He left the City Council Chambers.
Commissioners Yie, DeMartini and Bandrapalli noted that they had met with the project applicant and /or
corresponded via e-mail. All Commissioners had visited the property.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
Commission questions/comments:
>Is the parking requirement for a residential facility similar to that for purely residential projects, or are
they different for projects that include bundled services? (Hurin - described the different methods of
parking for pure residential projects versus assisted living facilities. Meeker - noted that in the past,
parking for assisted living facilities has been determined based upon parking analyses since the Zoning
Ordinance doesn't specifically address the use.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Lawrence Cappel, Peninsula Health Care District; Werner Maassen, Smith Group JJR; Joel Roos,
Project Manager; and Todd Murch, Eskaton; represented the applicant.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>Why was the stone base changed? The current proposal is a bit dated; the prior material was a bit
more modern. (Maassen - were attempting to find something with a richer finish.)
>With respect to the "Gettysburg" grey color on the lower portion of the building; asked if that color
carries throughout the base of the building? Be certain that the texture follows through in construction .
(Maassen - yes, it will.)
>Is the parking in the garage intended to accomodate the entire project? (Maassen - yes.) There is a
gate at the bottom of the ramp; how will visitors access the parking? (Maassen - there will be a card
reader and intercom to permit access.)
>The parking study concluded that the parking supply is sufficient for the project? (Roos - yes.
Looked at other Eskaton projects and past experience to determine the appropriate parking standard .
Memory care patients are not included in the parking equation. There are twenty -five works, not all
drive. Fehr and Peers felt that the spaces were adequate.)
>Does Eskaton have a local hiring program? (Murch - encourage hiring locals.)
>Will there be an effort to apply for the loading zone along Trousdale? (Roos - will be seeking a
loading zone.)
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2014
September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Has there been any outreach to the American Red Cross and the Monks to discuss impacts? (Roos
- have been several outreach efforts over the past year.)
>In looking at the incremental impact from the existing building to the new building, considered the
maximum potential of the existing building? (Paul ?, Fehr and Peers - noted that the increment is small
enough that there will not be a significant impact.)
>What is the reasoning for having the courtyard on the north side of the building? (Maassen - a lot of
seniors don't like to be in the sun, but may like natural daylight. Materials will provide a lot of reflective
light. Roos - also considered prevailing winds and protection of patients. Maassen - many of the
common areas and activity rooms face to the exterior of the project, not to the north.)
>What happened to the green roof opportunity? (Roos - could be considered in the future for an SFO
outlook, though not in the current budget. May be built out over time.)
>With respect to water harvesting, is this being done with the exception of the foundation? Is the plan
to harvest all water on the site? (Roos - when the geotech studies were completed, found that there was
no groundwater on the northwest. Not seeing much of a need to pump water out of the area. Some of
the water that is harvested will be used for purposes in the building.)
>Have described the EFAS as stucco; has there been any study of using true stucco? (Maassen -
waterproofing issues with EFAS have been resolved. Provides insulation benefits. Is a fundamental
part of the efforts to make the wall assemblies meet Title 24. The appearance is a matter of
craftsmanship.)
>Noted the chain link fence to be placed on two sides of the property to serve as a space for
vegetation to grow. Is hoping that another material could be used other than a chain link fence. (Roos -
have evaluated alternatives. Wood will not last over time. Once the vegetation grows on the fence, it
will work well. Has been used in other projects with fast-growing materials.)
>Is construction planned on Sundays? (Roos - typically not done due to union requirements. May be
done periodically, but not with a full work force.)
>Likes what has been done to the design on the street faces. His issues have related to the
proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Believes the design has been developed in a manner that
it does appear like a mixed -use project, but doesn't imagine anything doing well as a retail use on the
ground floor.
>Still has a concern regarding floors three through six, comparing the last design to the current
design; not certain that there is much of a difference. if the building is painted another color in the future,
could affect the residential appearance of the building. What specific changes have been made?
(Maassen - are subtle changes, have modified where the wood is installed and introduced a different
window type - the windows have a heavier vertical bar. The balconies are more transparent than before
- this is a nicer effect. The biggest change is the color.)
>Placing the wood on the balcony is a noticeable change - this will not likely be painted.
>Agrees that the proposed new stone material does appear somewhat dated. Believes that the prior
material that was proposed would work. (Maassen - were trying for a warmer, more tactile finish. Will
look at reverting to the prior material.)
>On the west elevation, the glazing of the windows; why were the windows designed so narrow?
(Maassen - limited openings because the walls are sheer walls. The sheer walls are inboard on the east
elevation.)
>Feels that the composition of solid materials and voids (windows) works well on the west elevation.
>What happens with the entry statement when the street trees on Trousdale Drive are fully grown?
(Roos - the move to a deciduous tree in planters will limit the height to a maximu of 40-feet. The trees
will grow to the roughly the mid -height of the building.) Could the trees flanking the entry be of a smaller
scale? (Meeker - could request that the City Arborist consider smaller scale trees at the location.)
>Will artificial plant materials be plced on the third floor above the entry? (Maassen - yes.)
>Ensure that any large trucks delivering to the facility does not occur during high school traffic times .
(Roos - Magnolia is the primary truck entrance.)
>Likes the design; the cornice feature enhanced the design.
Public comments:
>There were no public comments.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2014
September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Could there be an issue with having smaller trees at the entry with an odd number of trees? (Hurin -
suspects that as the trees grow, the difference will not be noticed.)
Terrones, Yie to consider a smaller species tree flanking the entry (5-0-1-1)
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to recommend to the
City Council the trees flanking the Trousdale Drive entry to the building be of a smaller scale.
Chair Bandapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes:
Nayes:
Recused:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to recomend approval
of the project to the City Council. Chsir Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2014
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.
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 TOREMAIN
(E) TRAFFICSIGNAL LIGHTPOLES TO REMAIN (E) UTILITIES TOREMAIN
(N) LIGHT POLELOCATION
BIKE RACK,TYP OF 3
GENERATOR
VALLEY GUTTER
STAINLESS STEEL WIRE CABLETRELLIS FULL HEIGHT OFCONCRETE 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 CURBCONFIRGURATION. 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 COURTYARDPER LANDSCAPE PLANS.
20'-0" MIN.
WHITE ZONE PASSENGER LOADING/UNLOADING
6" CONCRETE CURB
RIGHT TURN ONLY SIGNONTO 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 ANDPROTECTED OPENINGS, AN ALLOWABLE AREA CALC IS"NOT REQUIRED".30'-0" FROM OUTERMOST PORTION OF BUILDING FACEINDICATED BY BOLD DASHED LINE.
15' - 0"
SERVICE DRIVEWAY
20' - 0"20' - 0"30' -0 "30' - 0"30' - 0"
11' - 0"
22' - 0"
ELECTRICALTRANSFORMER
SCREENED GATE AT UTILITIES.SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
STAINLESS STEEL WIRE CABLE TRELLIS FULLHEIGHT 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 GRADEWHERE 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 NONCONV.
246
STUDIO
223
OPEN TO BELOW
LIBRARY
227
1 BDRM CONV.
226
STUDIO
228
1 BDRM NONCONV.
230
1 BDRM NONCONV.
232
TEL/DATA/ELEC
T2-1
JAN
C2-1 BALCONYDUMBWAITER
KITCHEN EXHAUST
LAUNDRY CHUTE
1 BDRM NONCONV.
208
1 BDRM NONCONV.
225
1 BDRM NONCONV.
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 NONCONV.
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 FLOOREL +39' - 0"
FLOOR 2EL +52' - 4"
FLOOR 3EL +62' - 6"
FLOOR 4EL +72' - 8"
FLOOR 5EL +82' - 10"
FLOOR 6/DECKEL +93' - 0"
ROOFEL +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 TROUSDALEEXTERIORFINISH CODE DESCRIPTION COLOR FINISH
WATERFALLEIFS
MOONLIGHTWHITE
WOOD PANEL SYSTEM WITH INTEGRALRAINSCREEN RUSTIK
STONE VENEER BASE LEXINTON GREY ANTIGUA
LYMESTONE
FINISH
LYMESTONE
FINISH
LYMESTONEFINISH
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 5EL +82' - 10"
20"
51"
PER 2013 CBC 1029.2
MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING: 5.7 SFMIN. 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 FLOOREL +39' - 0"
FLOOR 2EL +52' - 4"
FLOOR 3EL +62' - 6"
FLOOR 4EL +72' - 8"
FLOOR 5EL +82' - 10"
FLOOR 6/DECKEL +93' - 0"
ROOFEL +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 FLOOREL +39' - 0"
FLOOR 2EL +52' - 4"
FLOOR 3EL +62' - 6"
FLOOR 4EL +72' - 8"
FLOOR 5EL +82' - 10"
FLOOR 6/DECKEL +93' - 0"
ROOFEL +103' - 2""6 - '3"2 - '01"2 - '01"2 - '01"2 - '01"2 - '01"4 - '31ASKEW
T.O. PARAPETEL +106' - 8"
PL
EXTERIOR
FINISH CODE DESCRIPTION COLOR FINISH
WATERFALLEIFS
MOONLIGHTWHITE
WOOD PANEL SYSTEM WITH INTEGRAL
RAINSCREEN
RUSTIK
STONE VENEER BASE LEXINTON GREY ANTIGUA
LYMESTONEFINISH
LYMESTONEFINISH
LYMESTONEFINISH
LIMESTONE
EX-1 EIFS GETTYSBURGGREY
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 ORPOWDERCOATSANDY HOOK GRAY
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND
GROUND FLOOREL +39' - 0"
FLOOR 2EL +52' - 4"
FLOOR 3EL +62' - 6"
FLOOR 4EL +72' - 8"
FLOOR 5EL +82' - 10"
FLOOR 6/DECKEL +93' - 0"
ROOFEL +103' - 2"
GARAGE FLOOREL +28' - 6"
RAMP DOWN INTO PARKING, SHOWN IN FOREGROUNDAS DASHED LINE
GARAGE DOOR
OPEN TOGARAGE
PL PL
T.O. PARAPETEL +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 24' - 0"R 24' - 0"MACH. RM.
359
35
14LAUNDRY
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 COLOREDCONCRETE 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 EMERGENCYELEC 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
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Vote on the Appointment of a New City Councilmember
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council vote to fill the City Council seat left vacant by the
resignation of Councilmember Jerry Deal.
BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2014, Councilmember Jerry Deal announced his intention to resign from the City
Council, effective September 21, 2014. His term of office expires in 2015.
DISCUSSION
On October 15, the City Council interviewed eight Burlingame residents who applied for the
vacant City Council seat. Those eight applicants are:
Ross Bruce
Russ Cohen
John Eaton
Pat Giorni
John Martos
John Root
Laurie Simonson
Eric Storey
On October 6, the Council directed staff to draft a resolution changing the voting procedure
included in the 2005 Council vacancy resolution to more closely resemble the procedure used for
Commission appointments. Assuming the new procedure is adopted on October 20 before this
item is heard, the vote is to be taken using paper ballots. If no candidate receives a majority of
the votes in the first round, then the City Council may choose to discuss the candidates prior to
engage in subsequent rounds of voting.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Setting the Mayoral Rotation for the Second
Meeting in December
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution setting the Mayoral rotation for
the second meeting in December.
BACKGROUND
In the City of Burlingame, as in most cities in San Mateo County, the Mayor’s office is filled by a
member of the City Council on a rotating basis. Each Mayor serves for a year at a time.
DISCUSSION
Resolution 117-1999, adopted in November 1999, sets forth the policy on rotation of Council
officers. Under the resolution, which is attached, “Rotation of the office of Mayor and Vice Mayor
shall occur annually at the second City Council meeting in November of each year.”
Under the City’s current practice, however, the Mayoral rotation occurs at the second meeting in
November in even-numbered years, and at the first meeting in December in odd-numbered years.
The change was likely made to allow time for the City to receive the certified results of the City
Council election, held in November of odd-numbered years. In recent elections, it has taken the
County Registrar of Voters almost the full time permitted by law to certify the results of the
election. In 2013, the County had until Tuesday, December 3, to certify the results. The City
Council meeting was held on Monday, December 2; the City received the certified results less
than two hours prior to the start of the meeting. This tight timing may continue to be a problem in
the future.
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 election results, staff proposes that
the City Council amend its policy to hold the swearing in and rotation during the second meeting
of December in all years. Should the City Council approve the resolution, staff would endeavor to
make this meeting purely ceremonial each year. If the second meeting in December falls late on
the calendar, such as during Christmas week, then the City Council could vote to hold a special
meeting earlier in the month.
Mayoral Rotation October 20, 2014
2
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibit:
Resolution Amending the Mayoral Rotation policy
Resolution 117-1999
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SETTING THE
MAYORAL ROTATION FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN DECEMBER
WHEREAS, in the City of Burlingame, as in most cities in San Mateo County, the
Mayor’s office is filled by a member of the City Council on a rotating basis, with each Mayor
serving for a year at a time; and
WHEREAS, City Resolution 117-1999, adopted in November 1999, sets forth the policy
on rotation of Council officers; and
WHEREAS, under the resolution, the Mayoral rotation is supposed to occur annually at
the second City Council meeting in November of each year; and
WHEREAS, under the City’s current practice, the Mayoral rotation occurs at the second
meeting in November in even-numbered years, and at the first meeting in December in odd-
numbered years; and
WHEREAS, the change was likely made to allow time for the City to receive the certified
results of the City Council election, held in November of odd-numbered years; and
WHEREAS, in recent elections, it has taken the County Registrar of Voters almost the
full time permitted by law to certify the results of the election, thereby making it difficult to ensure
that the results will be received in time for the City Council meeting in early December.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The Mayoral rotation and swearing in of Councilmembers will occur during the
second meeting of December in all years.
2. If the second meeting in December falls late on the calendar, such as during
Christmas week, then the City Council may vote to hold a special meeting earlier in
the month.
____________________________
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 held on the 20th day of
October, 2014, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
____________________________
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Authorization to Form a Task Force to Review Creative Financing Options
for Bayview Park and the Carriage House
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the formation of an ad-hoc Task Force, comprised
of two members of the City Council and two members of the Parks and Recreation Commission,
to seek creative ways to fund the Bayview Park and repairs to the Carriage House.
BACKGROUND
During the Future Agenda items discussion at the end of the October 6 Council meeting, Mayor
Brownrigg recommended forming a Task Force to look into creative finance options for small
infrastructure projects. The City Council agreed to review the request at a future meeting.
DISCUSSION
On September 15, 2014, the City Council confirmed its priorities for tackling the City’s long list of
unfunded infrastructure projects. The downtown parking garage ranked first, followed by the
Community Center, City Hall improvements, and Bayview Park. During the discussion, the City
Council agreed to seek public-private partnerships for the parking garage and the City Hall
improvements, and to look to other financing mechanisms, including those requiring voter
approval, to fund the Community Center and Bayview Park.
There may be opportunities to seek private funding to assist with Bayview Park and other, smaller
projects. In order to maintain the ad-hoc nature of the Task Force, staff recommends that the City
Council limit the scope of the Task Force’s work to exploring private funding for funding Bayview
Park and the Carriage House, a building managed by the Parks and Recreation Department that
is in need of repair.
Under this scenario, the Mayor would appoint the City Council members of the Task Force, while
the Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission would appoint that body’s participants.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 20, 2014
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the City of Burlingame Conflict of
Interest Code to Revise the List of Designated Officials and Employees
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution amending the City of Burlingame
Conflict of Interest Code to revise the List of Designated Employees and Disclosure Categories.
BACKGROUND
California Government Code §87306.5 requires that each local agency review and, if necessary,
revise its Conflict of Interest Code in every even-numbered year. The City’s Conflict of Interest
Code details who in the City organization must file a Statement of Economic Interests, known as
Form 700. The City of Burlingame has adopted a Conflict of Interest Code that incorporates by
reference the Fair Political Practice Commission’s (FPPC) Standard Model Conflict of Interest
Code contained in 2 California Code of Regulations §18730. While this Code is automatically
updated whenever the model code is changed, the City is required, in even-numbered years, to
review and, if necessary, revise its list of “Designated Employees” (those employees, elected and
appointed officials required to file the Form 700) and its “Disclosure Categories” (the economic
interests which must be disclosed on the Form 700).
The last review and revision to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code occurred in 2012. New
positions, minor omissions on the prior list, and revised job titles require revision to the list of
“Designated Employees and Disclosure Categories.” Certain positions that are required to lodge
the Form 700 with the State (City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Chief Financial Officer,
etc.) are by law not included in the attached list of designated employees.
DISCUSSION
Adoption of an updated Conflict of Interest Code is required by state law. Attached to this report
is a resolution providing for an amended list of Designated Employees and Disclosure
Categories. Council should review the list and adopt the resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Conflict of Interest Code Amendment October 20, 2014
2
Exhibits:
Resolution Amending the City of Burlingame Conflict of Interest Code to Revise List of
Designated Employees
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
TO REVISE THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 and following, requires the
City to adopt a Conflict of interest Code for the City; and
WHEREAS, in every even-numbered year, the Political Reform Act requires each local agency to
review and, if necessary, amend its Conflict of Interest Code; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 47-80 adopted a City Conflict of Interest Code, and the list of designated
employees required to file statements of economic interests was subsequently amended by Resolutions 19-87,
51-92 and 90-96; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 12-98 adopted an amended conflict of interest code pursuant to the Political
Reform Act, and the list of designated employees was further amended by Resolution Nos. 32-98, 1 02-00,
23-2001, 99-2002, 14-2003, 80-2008, 82-2010, and 64-2012; and
WHEREAS, amendments are necessary to add additional employees to the designated employee list,
to revise employee title changes, to delete positions no longer existing and to reflect additional organizational
changes;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES
AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council hereby affirms its adoption by reference, as its Conflict of Interest Code, 2 California
Code of Regulations section 18730; a copy of said code is available for review in the Office of the City
Clerk.
2. The City Council hereby amends the City of Burlingame Conflict of Interest Code to add the revised List of
Designated Employees contained in Exhibit A attached and incorporated herein.
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 held on the 20th day of October, 2014, and
was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
APPENDIX A
LIST OF DESIGNATED OFFICERS/EMPLOYEES AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
The following City officers and employees are designated for filing statements of economic interests
pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code and the Political Reform Act:
Disclosure
Category
Disclosure
Category
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HUMAN RESOURCES
Beautification Commission I Human Resources Director I
Library Board of Trustees I Human Resources Analyst II
Parks & Recreation Commission I LIBRARY
Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission
I City Librarian I
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Circulation Supervisor II
Code Compliance Officer I Librarian III*** II
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Library Assistant II – Acquisitions II
City Clerk I Library Technology Services Manager II
CONSULTANTS PARKS & RECREATION DEPT
Design Review Consultants to City
Planner/Planning Commission
I Parks & Recreation Director I
Water Quality Treatment Plant
Contractor
Recreation Supervisor II
Plant Manager I City Arborist II
Environmental Compliance Officer I Parks Supervisor II
Storm Water Coordinator I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
Information Technology Service I Community Development Director I
FINANCE DEPT I Planning Manager I
Finance Director/Treasurer I Senior Planner I
Deputy Treasurer I Associate Planner I
Administrator/Information Services
Manager
I Planning Technician I
Financial Services Manager I Chief Building Inspector I
Assistant Deputy Treasurer I Senior Building Inspector I
POLICE DEPT Building Inspector I
Chief of Police I PUBLIC WORKS DEPT
Captain I Director of Public Works I
Administrative Secretary to Chief II Assistant Director of Public Works I
Senior Civil Engineer I
Transportation Engineer I
Public Works Superintendent
Assistant Streets & Sewers Superintendent I
Assistant Water Superintendent I
Assistant Facilities Superintendent II
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor I
Water Supervisor II
Fleet Manager
Public Works Inspector I
Sr. Public Works Inspector I
Management Analyst I
Associate Civil Engineer I
Streets and Sewers Supervisor II
Program Manager II
***Employees designated for "purchasing only"
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES:
I Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category I shall include:
a) Investments and business positions in any business entity;
b) Income; and
c) Interests in real property
within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability.
Designated employees in Category I shall complete Schedules A through F
II Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category II shall include:
a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; and
b) income
within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability.
Designated employees in Category II shall complete Schedules A, C through F.