The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2019.08.12Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, August 12, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft July 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft July 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Draft July 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. Draft July 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. 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 Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 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 Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 August 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 709 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a previously approved first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling (previous approval expired - no changes proposed to project). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Guerse, designer; Luai Kaileh, applicant; Ibrahim and Maha Kaileh, property owners) (134 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 709 Plymouth Way - Staff Report 709 Plymouth Way - Attachments 709 Plymouth Way - Plans Attachments: 1669 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a commercial recreation business. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Craig Ranier Gadduang, applicant; 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLC, property owner) (28 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi - THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DATE TO BE DETERMINED b. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 920 Bayswater Avenue, zoned MMU & R-3 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multifamily Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development. (Fore Property Company, applicant and property owner; Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP) (325 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon a. 920 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 920 Bayswater Ave - Attachments 920 Bayswater Ave - Plans 920 Bayswater Ave - Elevator Shop Drawings Attachments: 725 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Stavoy, applicant and architect; Heather and David Sanchez, property owners ) (138 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 725 Plymouth Way - Staff Report 725 Plymouth Way - Attachments 725 Plymouth Way - Plans Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 August 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 2601 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company | Architects, applicant and architect; Liz and Debanjan Ray, property owners) (90 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi c. 2601 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2601 Easton Dr - Attachments 2601 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: 2918 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new detached garage in front of an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Leslie Jones, Jones Street Design, applicant and designer, Brent and Stephanie Jenkins, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz d. 2918 Adeline Dr - Staff Report 2918 Adeline Dr - Attachments 2918 Adeline Dr - Plans Attachments: Adoption of the Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan and Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff Contacts: Andrea Pappajohn and Kevin Gardiner e. Staff Report MIG Memorandum - Response to Comments 2030 CAP – Revised Public Review Draft EIR Addendum Resolution - EIR Addendum Resolution - 2030 CAP Update and GP Amendment Public Notice Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 August 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 812 Linden Avenue (vacant lot adjacent to 816 Linden Avenue), zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots, Design Review and Special Permit for one new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 812 Linden Avenue (vacant parcel next to 816 Linden Ave). (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; 812 Linden LLC and 816 Linden LLC, property owners) (148 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 812 and 816 Linden Ave - Staff Report 812 and 816 Linden Ave - Attachments 812 and 816 Linden Ave - Plans Attachments: 503 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition and Special Permit for a new attached garage to an existing single family dwelling. (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Joseph and Judith Hamilton, property owners) (120 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz b. 503 Howard Ave - Staff Report 503 Howard Ave - Attachments 503 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: 1509 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; Ljs LLC, property owner) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz c. 1509 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1509 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1509 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications 615 Airport Boulevard - Update regarding the progress of the development of the site (Anza Parking). a. 615 Airport Blvd - Memorandum & AttachmentsAttachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on August 12, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on August 22, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $1,045, which includes noticing costs. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 August 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 8, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, and LoftisPresent4 - Sargent, Kelly, and TerronesAbsent3 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Loftis, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis4 - Absent:Sargent, Kelly, and Terrones3 - a.Draft June 10, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 10, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 9a has been continued to a future Planning Commission meeting - date to be determined. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN – Update of a previously approved office /life science development ("Burlingame Point"). (Facebook, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 24, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 300 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 300 Airport Blvd - Attachments Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 July 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Mandy Spain and Janet Woo, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Will the surface parking lot be open to the public? (Spain: Yes, some of the spaces in the surface lot will be dedicated to the retail outlet.) >Will there be fixed directional signage for the retail space? (Spain: There will be blade signage on building, as well as A-board signs on the site for wayfinding.) >Will future 2,000 SF expansion space sit empty for now? (Spain: No, will be used as part of the dining area on the first floor, but can be converted in the future.) >If you did get a lot of interest in using the expansion space for retail when the building is occupied, would you consider using it for retail? (Spain: Yes, if there was sufficient interest. However, right now the intent is to use it as dining space.) >How did you come to choose this corner of the building? (Spain: There is a double-door that leads out onto the promenade and allows for visibility from the trail as well as from the parking area. Felt like it would be an active corner and that the proximity to the parking would make it attractive to a vendor.) >This proposal represents itself better than what was proposed in the FYI application. >Concerns were that it wasn't answering the call that we had given to this project initially. >Original discussion was about not being a ghost town on weekends; idea was to get reasons for people to be out in this area. >Would encourage 2,000 SF reserve space to be used now when the building opens, instead of waiting. >This is much less than what I had hoped for when project was initially approved. >Want to make sure space is visible, accessible and encouraging for the public to use, especially for people using the Bay Trail. >Encourage uses on weekends, like pop-ups and food trucks, to get people out there. >Would have expected to see a more complete package to be able to review more thoroughly. >Is a nice location within the complex as it relates to views and proximity to the Bay Trail. >Would like to see outdoor spaces used on weekends and in evenings with pop -up events and gatherings; is an ideal space that many residents can use and will want to use. Encourage coming up with ideas to extend uses out towards the water and engage the public. >Feel this corner will be quiet with parking area; would have liked to see space located in interior of complex. Since this was an informational item, which included providing “FYI” clarifications to the Planning Commission’s direction and suggestions for a previously approved project, there was no action taken by the Planning Commission. b.150 Park Road (Lot F), zoned HMU & R-4 – Update of a previously approved 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development. (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Pacific West Architecture, architect) (376 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 July 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 150 Park Rd - Staff Report 160 Lorton Ave - Attachments 150 Park Rd - Revised Plans 150 Park Rd - Previously Approved Plans Attachments: Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Chris Grant, represented the applicant. Public Comments: Dennis Gayle: Live immediately adjacent and to the south of the project in a condominium community . Have great interest in what happens next door. Wondering if developer has a break ground date anticipated yet? Developer previously noted that May 2019 was the anticipated construction start date . Would appreciate it if developer could provide an update. Cost of construction has escalated, is this a factor that is slowing this project down? Warren Gish, 110 Park Road: Have questions regarding the design, proposed construction methods and how the project will fit in with the community. Where is garbage and recycling to be collected within the building and gather by sanitation workers? Rendering shows that the proposed five -story building and adjacent six-story building are about the same height, wondering if rendering is presenting an accurate view. Would like to know how wide the passage way is between the two buildings, who will have access to it and if the gate will be locked or unlocked. Concerned about safety and activity in pathways. Will there be a reduced schedule for use of noisy construction equipment? Will pilings be installed; concerned about integrity of building at 110 Park Road. Proposed units facing north and east may be concerned with noise from the airport and train. Will roof be adequately built to accommodate any activities on the roof? Concerned about what is happening with the contaminated earth from the previous underground tank. City Attorney Kane noted that contamination on the site is currently being remediated; anticipate being completed this season, its a seasonal work because it has to do with the groundwater table height and when rains come; can't work on remediation when it's raining and the groundwater has to drain to a certain point before remediation work can occur. It's a commingled plume from a number of different places and we are close to completing the work, however if it cannot be completed this season, there are other locations where we can move that processing so that it is off the construction area. Project is currently in negotiations with the City; City Council recently adopted an amendment to the disposition and development agreement, there will be additional technical updates completed in August. The anticipated break ground date for the housing development is Spring 2020; construction of the public parking garage is anticipated to start first since there is no subterranean grading. Chris Grant provided the following responses to the questions raised: >Garage pickup will occur in southeast portion, or right side of the building, and will be accessed through an opening in the building. >Ambition is to maintain control of the pathway and that it not be an open sidewalk through the site; pathway is approximately four feet wide. Pathway will be retained and overseen by the property management team; the Fire Department will also have access. >Fully endorse the notion of maintaining security on the site. >Would be happy to meet with neighbors to discuss any questions they may have about the project. >Perspective of rendering is causing proposed building to look as tall as the neighboring building, in reality the proposed building is slightly lower. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 July 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Comments/Direction: >You stated that you thought the proposed window is more in keeping with this design, in what respect do you mean that? (Grant: The lack of muntins is more compatible with the modern design.) >The color of the window changed as well, correct? (Grant: Window color is on the color board that was submitted. Is more of a neutral color, not trying to highlight the windows.) >Where there darker green color options for the awnings that worked well with the palette? (Grant: Felt that a darker color would not be enough color, trying to present an aged copper color for the project.) >Will stucco be painted or will it be a color coat stucco? (Grant: Expectation is that it will be a color coat stucco, but paint may be applied depending on what the architect calls for in the specifications.) >Will the siding have integral color or will it be painted? (Grant: Will have integral color rather than repainting, so that it ages well over time.) >Will corner boards be same color as siding? (Grant: Yes.) >Think all of the changes have improved the project and are more sophisticated. >Would encourage you to continue to pursue placing a bench outside. Since this was an informational item, which included providing “FYI” clarifications to the Planning Commission’s direction and suggestions for a previously approved project, there was no action taken by the Planning Commission. c.160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N), zoned R-4 - Update of a previously approved five-level parking garage. (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Watry Design, Inc ., designer) (298 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 160 Lorton Ave - Staff Report 160 Lorton Ave - Attachments 160 Lorton Ave - Revised Plans 160 Lorton Ave - Previously Approved Plans Attachments: Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Chris Grant, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Don't think architectural screen will be manufactured as a single piece, so will they be built as tall thin strips? (Grant: Will be part of the shop drawing process; cannot say how they will be configured, but assume there will be several sections installed so that if one is damaged it can be easily removed and repaired.) >Have some concerns because we don't know how the screen will be built. If screen is split into too many pieces, it may potentially not look so good. >Unable to assess this because of the nature of what is being proposed and the lack of information about how screening is being put together. It could go really well or really poorly. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 July 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Scale of screen is beautiful and elegant, however the 6x8 horizontal members are large and chunky, so there is a big scale difference between these components. Don’t know what mediates between those two elements. Did see that there are details that show an L -bracket and a capture, so that it appears that the screen is hanging from the L -bracket at the top, but don ’t know what happens in between, unless it ’s captured in an edge capture strung between two L-brackets, and how it’s kept tight. >Surprised at how malleable the screen is and how easily it can be reshaped, concerned that it can be easily damaged. >Concerned about wear and tear in the real world. >Would be helpful to see connection and finish details on the edges and how panels would join together. >Would be helpful to see photographs of this installation on other buildings. Since this was an informational item, which included providing “FYI” clarifications to the Planning Commission’s direction and suggestions for a previously approved project, there was no action taken by the Planning Commission. Additional details requested by the Planning Commission will return as an FYI item in the future. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.16 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Variance for parking off -site at 12 Park Road for a personal training studio. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Philip Levi, applicant; Park Road Properties, LLC, property owner) (197 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 16 Park Rd - Staff Report 16 Park Rd - Attachments 16 Park Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Philip and Liz Levi, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Unclear on how the parking area will be striped and how landscape areas will be delineated. >Will there be curbs within the parking area as shown on the plans? (Levi: No, curbs will not be installed. Intend to install raised planters or planter boxes.) >Do you intend to install a wheel stop at every parking space? (Levi: Yes.) Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 July 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >At the rear of the site beyond parking space #10, is that an additional parking space? (Levi: No, that area will be used as part of the turnaround space for vehicles exiting the site.) >How will the radius markings for the vehicle turnaround area end up on the site? (Levi: We tested applying paint to the ground, but that required more maintenance. Had more success using nylon strips spiked into the ground. They are bright green and are highly visible to drivers. Nylon strips would also be used to mark the parking stalls.) >Concerned with execution of what is shown on the plans. >Trying to think of a solution without having to pour concrete curbs that seem to be indicated on the plan. >Could use railroad ties, would clearly show where visitors should be parking. Could be helpful to have numbers on them. >Should add "No Parking" and "Turnaround Only" signs in back -up area at the rear of the site, otherwise someone will park in that area. >A landscape plan would be very helpful, like idea of planting along the front of the site to screen the parking area. Need to see more details for all planting areas on site, parking area now is stark. >Nylon strips don’t seem to last very long with wheels turning on them, and don't think painting gravel will hold up very well. >Don't think lines need to be permanent, but parking spaces somehow need to be obvious to drivers. >Don’t see nylon strips as ideal arrangement. >Like how workout areas are designed, feel industrial, rustic and organic. Could come up with creative way to designate parking spaces to tie in with the design of the workout areas. See an opportunity to aesthetically tie in the parking lot with the building and business. >Add plants to soften look and feel of the parking lot. >Can make findings for exceptional circumstances for the requested Parking Variance; functions as a single property, has been used like this for a long time, either property would have a difficult time operating without allowing this symbiotic relationship, and is beneficial to the public by taking cars off the street and providing on-site parking. >Uncomfortable approving what is before us because the details aren't clear. Would be simple enough for applicant to come back with a basic landscape plan and indicating railroad ties spiked into the ground to delineate parking stalls. Railroad ties will form triangle -shaped areas near the property line where plants could be installed; will help to soften stark parking lot and may provide privacy. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that the applicant shall submit revised plans or photos of installed features that accurately show the proposed markers for the parking stalls (including wheel stops and barriers such as railroad ties and a no parking sign in the turnaround area at the rear of 12 Park Road) and the landscaping details (such as plant species); the update shall be presented as an FYI item to the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis4 - Absent:Sargent, Kelly, and Terrones3 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.812 Linden Avenue (vacant lot adjacent to 816 Linden Avenue), zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots, Design Review and Special Permit for one new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 812 Linden Avenue (vacant parcel next to 816 Linden Ave). (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; 812 Linden LLC and 816 Linden LLC, property owners) (148 noticed) Staff Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 July 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Contact: Erika Lewit THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DATE TO BE DETERMINED Item 9a was continued to a future Planning Commission meeting - date to be determined. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.920 Bayswater Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to elevations to a previously approved Design Review project for 128-unit apartment development. 920 Bayswater Ave - Memorandum and Attachments 920 Bayswater Ave - Plans Attachments: Called up for review by the Planning Commission - plans are small and difficult to read/ floor plans not provided/concerned with changes to the elevator tower. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on July 8, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 18, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $1,045, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 22, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and TsePresent4 - Kelly, Gaul, and LoftisAbsent3 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft June 24, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 24, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse4 - Absent:Kelly, Gaul, and Loftis3 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8a has been continued to a future date. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Amendments to Interim Zoning Standards for the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) and Rollins Road Mixed Use Zones (RRMU). Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DATE Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 July 22, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes TO BE DETERMINED This item has been continued to a future date. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.725 Plymouth Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. (James Stavoy, applicant and architect; Heather and David Sanchez, property owners) (138 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 725 Plymouth Way - Staff Report 725 Plymouth Way - Attachments 725 Plymouth Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Paragraph D of Code Section 25.26.075(b)(3) is merely qualifying the exemption in paragraph B, not the Declining Height Envelope requirements, or whether a Special Permit is allowable, correct? (Keylon: Correct.) >Why is a protected tree permit required for a Pittosporum, since it's a shrub and not a tree? (Keylon: It is based on the size of the shurb. It is multi -trunked species .)(Kane: It is the circumference measurement.) Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Jim Stavoy represented the applicant, with property owner David Sanchez. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why is the tree removal associated with the project? Is it necessary for the project? (Stavoy: Addition would be close enough to the drip line to necessitate removal of the tree.) >Did you look at any other options that further articulated the west elevation? It is a little flat. (Stavoy: Thought this design would flow with the look of the structure.) >How was the grid pattern articulation of the windows around the house determined? Should extend the grids all around the house. (Stavoy: Based on discussion with staff, and owners' preference.) > Why not use the Declining Height Envelope exemption for the window over the stairwell? (Stavoy: Was not aware of that possibility.) >Did you consider a lower plate height on the second story to reduce the encroachment into the Declining Height Envelope? (Stavoy: It's at 6 feet so it is already very low.) >There is a 6-inch setback on the right side shown on the plans. Is the entire right side moving 6 inches away from property line? (Stavoy: Indicating from the survey that the house is within 6 inches of the 4-foot setback.) >Why does the the second floor match the existing nonconforming setback, rather than set back to the required 4 feet? (Stavoy: Thought that was allowed as part of the special permit.) >To staff: Why is a variance not required for the second floor, since it is proposed to be built above the existing non-conforming setback? (Keylon: Will need to review the particulars of the Code and get back with a response.) >Has the window alignment on the second floor been considered? (Stavoy: Believes there are not Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 July 22, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes windows looking into neighbor's house. Can frost some windows.) Public Comments: Jeannie Bosley, 729 Plymouth Way, to the right of the subject property: Submitted letter and photos, and letter from realtor. Opposes the project as presented. Concern with non -compliance with Declining Height Envelope; bookend metaphor is interesting but should not be applied here. Does not believe the Code allows for a Declining Height Envelope encroachment in this instance. Also objects to extending from the original footprint of the home. Shiela Jambekar and Sean Moran: Lives across the street. Supports the quality of the design, keeps with the character of the community. Will be a nice view. Keeps a look that is consistent with the neighborhood. There are a lot of remodels in the neighborhood. Cheri Meyers, 438 Cumberland: Lives diagonally across from the property. Supports the project. Plan is consistent with the neighborhood, and reflects themes that make Burlingables special. David Sanchez (property owner): Respects the perspective of all of the neighbors, including the adjacent neighbor. Believes this will be an investment in the neighborhood and community. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Design guidelines emphasize adding the second story into the roof structure so it minimizes impact to the neighbors. This does more of that than most. >West elevation is very blank and flat. Perhaps change the dormers or add more detail. Stepping the all in might add some nice detail. >Should revisit the window grids. >Would want to see what would be involved in an addition that did not involve the declining height envelope. >Has allowed special permits in similar instances. However sees some revisions in terms of the design guidelines. Special permits are to accommodate particular architectural treatments. Front faceprint is typical of the neighborhood. Side elevation is more typical of a driveway elevation but does not have the relief of the driveway width. >Needs to clarify the setback of the second story, whether it needs a variance. >Front facade is consistent with the neighborhood, but side elevation needs attention. >This is not the only way to design the house. Should look at a less impactful declining height encroachment. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse4 - Absent:Kelly, Gaul, and Loftis3 - b.2601 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling with an attached garage. (Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company | Architects, applicant and architect; Liz and Debanjan Ray, property owners) (90 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 July 22, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2601 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2601 Easton Dr - Attachments 2601 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Gary Diebel represented the applicant, with property owners Liz and Debanjan Ray. Commission Questions/Comments: >Massing is well articulated and broken down. Why are all the roofs hip roofs? Why no gables? (Diebel: Studied both. Hip roofs seemed to work the best, minimizes the mass.) >Rear elevation has a lot of charm, front seems a bit bare. Some gable roofs would allow more decorative elements. >Have you considered a stained wood door for the garage door to provide depth? (Diebel: That has been proposed, both on the garage door and entry door.) >Would like more of the decorative items in the front. >Is the face of the proposed garage in the same plane as the current garage? (Diebel: Many are built at 15 feet since it is a steep hill. This garage is at about 25 feet.) >On left elevation where there are a couple of cantilevered sections, there is a window over the shower in the center section of the elevation that is offset, almost calling attention for more detail or decoration since it is a projection. Maybe the window should be centered or balanced somehow. >How large is the deck off the kitchen? (Diebel: Approximately 20' x 19'.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Steep slope indicates a need for declining height envelope relief. >Look at adding more charm to the front elevation. >Busy roofline, almost every part of the house has its own roof form. Could simplify. Also consider some gable roofs. >Note on plan indicates wood or stucco brackets; should specify wood. >Tree removal is supportable given it is growing into the house. >Existing front elevation is simple but has nice details; should try some of those types of elements on the new house. >Would like some reference to neighbors, particularly those on the left, to make sure they are OK and windows are not aligned. >Garage is set back so is not in the face of the neighbor. >Cognizant of the deck being close to the neighbors. Assumes entertaining since it is from the kitchen. Suggest some shrubbery to screen for the neighbors. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 July 22, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse4 - Absent:Kelly, Gaul, and Loftis3 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.4 La Mesa Court - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review application. 4 La Mesa Ct - Memorandum and Attachments 4 La Mesa Ct - Plans 4 La Mesa Ct - Renderings Attachments: This item was pulled since there was a written request from a member of the public. Commissioners cited concern with enlargement and additions of any windows. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on July 22, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on August 1, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $1,045 which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2019 REF. DW REF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DW1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" SOUTH-EAST / FRONT / BAYSWATER AVE. ELEVATION (PROPOSED CHANGES)1A SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" SOUTH-EAST / FRONT / BAYSWATER AVE. ELEVATION (ENTITLEMENT)1B SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN PARTIAL 01 2 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN PARTIAL 01 3 1A, 1B MYRTLE ROAD BAYSWATER AVE.NORTH920 BAYSWATER AVE., BURLINGAME, CA 94010 FORE PROPERTY COMPANY A300a PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO See response 1c See response 1c See response 1b LIVING/ DINING ROOM BEDROOM ROOM LIVING/ DINING ROOM BEDROOM ROOM See response 1aSee response 1a See response 1b See response 1c See response 1a See response 1a See response 1a See response 1b See response 1c See response 1a REF.DW REF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF. DW REF.DWREF.DWREF.DW REF.DW REF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DW REF.DWREF.DWREF.DW REF. REF. DW 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" SOUTH-WEST / SIDE / MYRTLE ROAD BUILDING ELEVATION (PROPOSED CHANGES)1A SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" SOUTH-WEST / SIDE / MYRTLE ROAD BUILDING ELEVATION (ENTITLEMENT)1B SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN PARTIAL 02 2 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN PARTIAL 02 3 1A, 1B MYRTLE ROAD BAYSWATER AVE.NORTH920 BAYSWATER AVE., BURLINGAME, CA 94010 FORE PROPERTY COMPANY A300b LIVING/ DINING ROOM See response 2h PATIOPATIO See response 2fSee response 2c LIVING/ DINING ROOM See response 2d LIVING/ DINING ROOM BEDROOM ROOM See response 2e LIVING/ DINING ROOM See response 2i See response 2i See response 2hSee response 2gSee response 2eSee response 2cSee response 2a See response 2dSee response 2b See response 2f See response 2hSee response 2eSee response 2cSee response 2a See response 2dSee response 2b See response 2f See response 2g See response 2i DDDREF.DW REF.DWREF.DWDDDDWDWREF.DW DW1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINET.O.CURB +29.47' SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" NORTH-WEST / REAR BUILDING ELEVATION (PROPOSED CHANGES)1A SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" NORTH-WEST / REAR BUILDING ELEVATION (ENTITLEMENT)1B SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN PARTIAL 2 2 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN PARTIAL 03 3 1A, 1B MYRTLE ROAD BAYSWATER AVE.NORTH920 BAYSWATER AVE., BURLINGAME, CA 94010 FORE PROPERTY COMPANY A300c See response 3bSee response 3bSee response 3a PATIOBATHPATIO See response 3dSee response 3cSee response 3a GARAGE VEHICULAR ENTRANCE DOG WASH RM BATH See response 3a See response 3c See response 3bSee response 3b See response 3d See response 3a See response 3c See response 3bSee response 3b See response 3d D D A REF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.DW REF.DWREF.DW D D A 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINET.O.CURB +29.47' 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESCALE: 1" = 10'-0" NORTH-EAST / SIDE BUILDING ELEVATION (PROPOSED CHANGES)1A SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" NORTH-EAST / SIDE BUILDING ELEVATION (ENTITLEMENT)1B SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN PARTIAL 1 2 MYRTLE ROAD BAYSWATER AVE.NORTH1A, 1B 920 BAYSWATER AVE., BURLINGAME, CA 94010 FORE PROPERTY COMPANY A300dSee response 4dSee response 4cSee response 4bSee response 4a See response 4a See response 4cSee response 4b See response 4d See response 4a See response 4cSee response 4b See response 4d 920 Bayswater Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 FORE PROPERTY COMPANY 920 Bayswater Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 FORE PROPERTY COMPANY 920 Bayswater Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 FORE PROPERTY COMPANY TRFFFTR FFF F F TRK K K K K K KK HH H HH HS SRRHL UUIJ NNN III PP I OOMMMM I JH K L J T V VSTAIR #1 ELEV. #1 STAIR #3 DS-1 STAIR #216' - 1 1/4"47' - 6 3/4"50' - 2 1/2"48' - 6" 38' - 11"all ideas, designs and plans represented by this drawing are the exclusive property of withee malcolm architects, llp and shall not be reproduced in whole or in part without the express prior written permission of said architects, any unauthorized reuse of these plans other than for the project and location shown is prohibited.job no. drawn submittal owner: date SHEET TITLE SHEET No 2251 West 190th Street Torrance, Ca 90504 t. 310.217.8885 f.310.217.0425 W I T H E E M A L C O L M A R C H I T E C T S, L L P consultant: Plot Date:Local File:Consultant File Background Info: revision 18 Park Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 950301st Plan Check Submittal 02/05/2019 2nd Plan Check Submittal 04/12/2019 3rd Plan Check Submittal 06/07/2019 LICEN S E D A RCHIT E CTST A TEOFCA L IF O RNIAR EN.2-2 8 -21DAN R .WITH E ENo. C-9049 7/25/2019 10:55:37 AM C:\Users\vnguyen\Documents\B6079_Composite_2019_vnguyenNY2FV.rvt B6079 A026 ROOF PLAN HEIGHT EXHIBITBAYSWATER920 Bayswater AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010FORE PROPERTY COMPANY3RD P.C. SUBMITTAL 06/07/2019 ROOF BUILDING HEIGHT EXHIBIT 1 SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 0 8'16'32'48'NORTH C:\Program Files\AutoCAD To PDF\Process Folders\DWGsToConvert\85ss_3500_150_PLAN 2 DATA_SEISMIC.dwg, 11/8/2012 3:41:48 PM DRAWNDATEJOB NUMBERREV.SHEET NO.OFDATESYM.REVISIONBYFOR: XDO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWINGCHKD.CHKD.THIS DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTYOF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.33OVERHEAD VIEW LHF/RHR SEISMIC 3500 LB. CAPACITY PLAN 2P.U. = PICK UPD.S. = DRIVE SHEAVEAABX/XX/XXXB X7'-10 3/4" HOISTWAY CAR RAILS CWT.4'-0 5/16"3'-6 7/8"CAR D.E.C3'-3 1/4"CWT P.U. & D.E. HITCHCHITCHCAR P.U. & D.E. HITCH3'-11 3/8" CWT P.U.4'-7 15/16" 5'-11 11/16" CWT D.E. HITCH 1'-3 3/4" SHV.3'-6 7/8"CAR P.U.C7 5/16" GOV.FRONTCAR8'-8"RS-S 3500 LHF/RHR SEISMIC4'-1 1/4"C C C C3'-7 9/16" GOV.C:\Program Files\AutoCAD To PDF\Process Folders\DWGsToConvert\85ss_3500_150_PLAN 2 OH_LH_SEISMIC.dwg, 11/8/2012 3:42:15 PM DRAWNDATEJOB NUMBERREV.SHEET NO.OFDATESYM.REVISIONBYFOR: xDO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWINGCHKD.CHKD.THIS DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTYOF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.RS-S SEISMIC 3500 PLAN 2 LHF/RHR34x/xx/xxx xPLAN 2 : HOISTWAY 3500 LB. CAPACITY6 7/16"1'-0 3/4"7 1/4"8'-8" HOISTWAY7'-0" PLATFORM8 1/4"4'-0 5/16"7'-9" B.T.B. RAILS1"3 1/2"7'-2" D.B.G.CWT.1"3 1/2"3'-6 7/8"3'-6 7/8"CAR P.U.C4'-1 1/4"CAR STA.2 3/4"3"3'-6"CLEAR OPNG.3'-3"7'-0 3/4" B.T.B. STILESCAR P.U.C7'-1 3/4" DIST. BET. P.U.3'-6"CLEAR OPENING10 1/4"NOTE: IF DRYWALL CONSTRUCTION, INSTALL WALL AFTER3'-3"CARHALL STA. PLAN 2 : PIT 3500 LB. CAPACITY4'-3 3/4"P.I. (1) 6" WIDE X 6" HIGH ELECTRICALRACEWAYS REQUIRED. LOCATION ISDETERMINED BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEENCONTROLLER CLOSET AND HOISTWAY.FINAL LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED WITH THYSSENKRUPP FIELD SUPERINTENDENT.B 7"PIT LADDERBY OTHERSPIT LADDER POCKET 2 1/2" X 1'-11 1/2" 1'-11 1/2" NOTCH 2 1/2"POCKET EXTENDING FROM PIT FLOORTO 50" ABOVE THE BOTTOM LANDING1'-2" 2'-9"7'-10 3/4" HOISTWAY5" FACE OF SILL6'-10 1/4" PLATFORM1 1/4"3'-3 1/4" 2'-3 1/8" CWT. D.B.G. 2'-10 1/8" B.T.B. RAILS 4'-2 1/4" C CAR SHV. B 3'-11 3/8" 8 1/8" CAR SHVS.3"3'-6"CLEAR OPNG.3'-3"3'-6"CLEAR OPENING@ X10 1/4"3'-3"CARHALL STA. 4'-3 3/4"P.I. 3 1/2"3 1/2" 5" FACE OF SILL 1 1/4"FRONTREARFINAL LIMITSCAR RAILS R1BUFFER REACTIONSR29,900 LBS.14,850 LBS.R4R3PIT FLOOR REACTIONSR56,525 LBS.2,650LBS.OVERHEAD SHEAVE ASSY. WT., RAILS, AND MACHINE WT.DYNAMIC (IMPACTED)7,350 LBS.3,825 LBS.COMPOSITE REACTIONSR67,400 LBS.8,350 LBS.5,500 LBS.6,375 LBS.825 LBS.1,175 LBS.1,900 LBS.1,975 LBS.D.B.G. = DIST. BET. GUIDESB.T.B. = BACK TO BACK RAILS= TRAVELING CABLE3"DEAD ZONELOW PROFILE FISHPLATER. L. "B"R. L. "A"R. L. "C"TOKEN CHAINFRONTBUFFER6 7/16"11 3/4"8'-8" HOISTWAY4'-0 5/16"7'-9" B.T.B. RAILS3 1/2"7'-2" D.B.G.CAR RAILS CWT.CAR3 1/2"4'-1 1/4"6 1/4"CWT.BUFFERPIT LIGHT BY OTHERSR2R3R4R5R62 3/4"8 1/4"2'-3 1/8" D.B.G. 2'-10 1/8" B.T.B. RAILSGOV. TAIL WT.E-STOP SW.11"3'-3 1/4" 3 1/2"3 1/2"PIT SUMP(BY G.C.)FRONT1'-5 3/8" 7'-10 3/4" HOISTWAY 1'-2" PIT LADDER BR1R1BUFFER3 1/2"7"A4'-9" ROUGH OPENING2 1/4"3'-8 3/4"1'-6" INSERT 1'-5 1/8"2'-6 1/4" TYP. 2'-0 1/4"2'-6"INSERT ABV. PIT 1'-6" INSERT 4 1/2"C:\Program Files\AutoCAD To PDF\Process Folders\DWGsToConvert\85ss_3500_150_PLAN 2 HW_PIT_LHF_RHR_SEISMIC.dwg, 11/8/2012 3:41:59 PM DRAWN DATE JOB NUMBER DATE SYM.REVISION BY CHKD. CHKD. FOR:REV.SHEET NO. OFX2 4XX-X-XX MAXIMUM DESIGNEDCOUNTERWEIGHT RUNBY OF 2 " INCHES. 3500 LB. LH2"CWT. RUNBY7'-0" CLEAR ENTRANCE OPENING (TYP.)8'-3" ROUGH OPENING (TYP.)3'-11"TOP OF CWT. WITH CARON FULLY COMPRESSED BUFFERS5'-0"X' - X" NET TRAVELSECTION A - A X14'-2"4'-0" MAX.PIT LADDER1'-11 3/4"5 3/8"1'-2"13'-6" CLEAR UNDER SAFETY BEAMTOKEN CHAIN11'-7 3/4" O.A. CWT.CAR RAIL 7'-0" CLEAR ENTRANCE OPENING (TYP.)8'-3" ROUGH OPENING (TYP.)(BY GEN. CONTR.) 5,000 LB. CAPACITY SAFETY BEAM 2"6"9 1/4"3'-0 1/2"2 3/4"STROKE1'-8 3/4"3'-10 1/4"REFUGE SPACESECTION B - B5'-0"PIT1'-2"12'-0 3/8" BOTTOM OF MACH. SUPPORT ASSY.11'-9 3/4" TOP OF RAIL SECTION8"8'-3 3/8" UNDER X-HEAD9'-8 1/4" BRACKET AND INSERTFLOOR HT.FLOOR 1 - 2 X' - X" SPACING MAX. BRACKET CAR CWT. X X CAR AND CWT BRACKETS @ 6" BEL. EA. LANDING & 9'- 8 1/4" ABV. TOP FLOOR (4) CAVITY FILLERS, 165BDD001, PER ELEVATOR PLACE CAVITY FILLERS INTO BOTTOM OF CWT. FRAME PRIOR TO STACKING FILLERS. CWT. FILLERS4'-0"2 - 3 3 X' - X"1 7/8"LADDER POCKET (IF REQ.)2"5'-2"1'-5 5/8"7'-10"CAR GOV. 1'-5 1/8"10 5/8"3'-6"A17.1 RULE RAILING CAR TOP 2.14.1.7 C CWT.FRONTSEISMIC2'-1 1/2"IS B.T.U./HOUR. CAUSED BY ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT HEAT LOAD IN OVERHEAD 00,000 8'-4" TOP OF CAB AT HIGHEST TRAVEL WITH 7'-10" O.A. CAB HT.C:\Program Files\AutoCAD To PDF\Process Folders\DWGsToConvert\85ss_3500_150_SV_LH_PLAN 2_SEISMIC.dwg, 11/8/2012 3:42:36 PM 1'-0" DRAWNDATEJOB NUMBERREV.SHEET NO.DATESYM.REVISIONBYFOR: DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWINGCHKD.CHKD.THIS DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTYOF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.SYNERGY 85sCAUSED BY ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ISIN B.T.U./HOUR UNITS PER CHART BELOWHEAT LOAD IN CONTROLLER CLOSETTRANSFORMERCARSPEEDWITHOUTDRIVEREGENERATIVEH.P.DRIVE7'-6" MIN. CEILING HEIGHT DISCONNECT SWITCH (BY OTHERS)10% - 95% NON-CONDENSING RELATIVE HUMIDITY7(03(5$785(5$1*()0,1)0$;CONTROL CLOSET SYNERGY STANDARD RAIL SUPPORTED* PREFERABLY THE CONTROL CLOSET SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE TOP LANDING AND THE MAX DIST. OF CONDUIT RUN FROM CONTROLLER TO MACHINE IS 150'. (1) 6" WIDE X 6" HIGH ELECTRICALRACEWAYS REQUIRED. LOCATION ISDETERMINED BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEENCONTROLLER CLOSET AND HOISTWAY.FINAL LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED WITH THYSSENKRUPP FIELD SUPERINTENDENT.? VOLTSHEATDEFLECTORSYNERGY CONTROLLER ASSY.(400 LBS.)5'-9 3/8" 7'-6" MIN. 7'-0" DOOR 4'-0" CLR. OPNG.6" 6"1'-8" WALL TO WALL 4" DUCT COVERACCESSCOVER(FRONT)SEPARATE DISCONNECT SWITCHLIGHT AND ALARM CIRCUIT WITHDISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CARSUPPORT AND DISCONNECTSBY OTHERS(STACKED)3'-6" CLEAR 2'-3 1/4"4'-4"PREFERRED4'-4"THE MINIMUM SIZES SHOWN FOR THESE CONTROL SPACES ARE PREDICATED ONAVERAGE SIZED COMPONENTS AND ANY OVERSIZED BOX OR DISCONNECTCOULD AFFECT THE SIZE OF THE CONTROL ROOM.* DISCONNECTS LARGER THAN THESE DIMENSIONS SUCH AS AN ELEVATOR SHUNT SHUNT TRIP CENTER COULD INCREASE MINIMUM CONTROL ROOM DIMS.100 amp DISCONNECT60 amp DISCONNECT1'-6 3/8"10 3/4"1'-0"7 9/16"SQUARE D DISCONNECTS OR EQUIVILENTSYNERGY CONTROLLER ASSY.(400 LBS.)3'-4" 2" 3'-6 1/8" 3 1/8" 1'-0"1'-0"1'-0" 2'-3 1/4"2'-11 1/8"2'-9 1/8" ( 8 ) REQ .THIS STANDARD ARRANGEMENT IS TO BE USED WITH NO ADDITIONAL OPTIONS AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 208/240 OR 460/480 VWALL MOUNTED CONTROLLERWALL MOUNTED CONTROLLERBOLT PATTERN FOR MAX DIMENSIONS FOR DISCONNECTSC:\Program Files\AutoCAD To PDF\Process Folders\DWGsToConvert\1_SYNERGY 85S CONTROL CLOSETS_PREFERRED.dwg, 11/8/2012 3:24:35 PM DRAWNDATEJOB NUMBERREV.SHEET NO.DATESYM.REVISIONBYFOR: DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWINGCHKD.CHKD.THIS DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTYOF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.SYNERGY 85sCAUSED BY ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ISIN B.T.U./HOUR UNITS PER CHART BELOWHEAT LOAD IN CONTROLLER CLOSETTRANSFORMERCARSPEEDWITHOUTDRIVEREGENERATIVEH.P.DRIVE7'-6" MIN. CEILING HEIGHT DISCONNECT SWITCH (BY OTHERS)10% - 95% NON-CONDENSING RELATIVE HUMIDITY7(03(5$785(5$1*()0,1)0$;CONTROL CLOSET SYNERGY STANDARD RAIL SUPPORTED* PREFERABLY THE CONTROL CLOSET SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE TOP LANDING AND THE MAX DIST. OF CONDUIT RUN FROM CONTROLLER TO MACHINE IS 150'. (1) 6" WIDE X 6" HIGH ELECTRICALRACEWAYS REQUIRED. LOCATION ISDETERMINED BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEENCONTROLLER CLOSET AND HOISTWAY.FINAL LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED WITH THYSSENKRUPP FIELD SUPERINTENDENT.? VOLTSSYNERGY CONTROLLER ASSY.(400 LBS.)3'-6 7/16"6 1/2" 7'-0" DOOR 7'-6" MIN.4'-0"1'-8" WALL TO WALL 4" DUCTING (BY G.C.)ACCESSCOVER(FRONT)SEPARATE DISCONNECT SWITCHLIGHT AND ALARM CIRCUIT WITHDISCONNECT SWITCH, ABOVE CARSUPPORT AND DISCONNECTSBY OTHERSON TOP OF CONTROLLER3'-6" CLEAR 3'-6" CLR. OPNG.ALTERNATE4'-0"THE MINIMUM SIZES SHOWN FOR THESE CONTROL SPACES ARE PREDICATED ONAVERAGE SIZED COMPONENTS AND ANY OVERSIZED BOX OR DISCONNECTCOULD AFFECT THE SIZE OF THE CONTROL ROOM.* DISCONNECTS LARGER THAN THESE DIMENSIONS SUCH AS AN ELEVATOR SHUNT SHUNT TRIP CENTER COULD INCREASE MINIMUM CONTROL ROOM DIMS.4" DUCTING (BY G.C.)THIS STANDARD ARRANGEMENT IS TO BE USED WITH NO ADDITIONAL OPTIONS AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 208/240 OR 460/480 V100 amp DISCONNECT60 amp DISCONNECT1'-6 3/8"10 3/4"1'-0"7 9/16"SQUARE D DISCONNECTS OR EQUIVILENTMAX DIMENSIONS FOR DISCONNECTSC:\Program Files\AutoCAD To PDF\Process Folders\DWGsToConvert\2_SYNERGY 85S CONTROL CLOSETS_ALTERNATE.dwg, 11/8/2012 3:24:42 PM DRAWNDATEJOB NUMBERREV.SHEET NO.DATESYM.REVISIONBYFOR: DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWINGCHKD.CHKD.THIS DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTYOF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.SYNERGY 85sCONTROL CLOSET SYNERGY STANDARD RAIL SUPPORTEDHEATDEFLECTORSYNERGY CONTROLLER ASSY.(400 LBS.)5'-1 7/8" 7'-6" MIN. 7'-0" DOOR 3'-0" CLR. OPNG.6" 2" 1'-8" WALL TO WALL 4" DUCT COVERACCESSCOVER(FRONT)SEPARATE DISCONNECT SWITCHLIGHT AND ALARM CIRCUIT WITHDISCONNECT SWITCH AND CARSUPPORT AND DISCONNECTSBY OTHERSON TOP OF CONTROLLER3'-6" CLEAR 1'-7 7/16"3'-6"3'RD ALTERNATE3'-6"TRANSFORMERCARSPEEDWITHOUTDRIVEREGENERATIVEH.P.DRIVE? VOLTSCAUSED BY ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ISIN B.T.U./HOUR UNITS PER CHART BELOWHEAT LOAD IN CONTROLLER CLOSET7'-6" MIN. CEILING HEIGHT DISCONNECT SWITCH (BY OTHERS)10% - 95% NON-CONDENSING RELATIVE HUMIDITY7(03(5$785(5$1*()0,1)0$;* PREFERABLY THE CONTROL CLOSET SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE TOP LANDING AND THE MAX DIST. OF CONDUIT RUN FROM CONTROLLER TO MACHINE IS 150'. (1) 6" WIDE X 6" HIGH ELECTRICALRACEWAYS REQUIRED. LOCATION ISDETERMINED BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEENCONTROLLER CLOSET AND HOISTWAY.FINAL LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED WITH THYSSENKRUPP FIELD SUPERINTENDENT.THE MINIMUM SIZES SHOWN FOR THESE CONTROL SPACES ARE PREDICATED ONAVERAGE SIZED COMPONENTS AND ANY OVERSIZED BOX OR DISCONNECTCOULD AFFECT THE SIZE OF THE CONTROL ROOM.* DISCONNECTS LARGER THAN THESE DIMENSIONS SUCH AS AN ELEVATOR SHUNT SHUNT TRIP CENTER COULD INCREASE MINIMUM CONTROL ROOM DIMS.THIS STANDARD ARRANGEMENT IS TO BE USED WITH NO ADDITIONAL OPTIONS AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 208/240 OR 460/480 V100 amp DISCONNECT60 amp DISCONNECT1'-6 3/8"10 3/4"1'-0"7 9/16"SQUARE D DISCONNECTS OR EQUIVILENTMAX DIMENSIONS FOR DISCONNECTSC:\Program Files\AutoCAD To PDF\Process Folders\DWGsToConvert\3_SYNERGY 85S CONTROL CLOSETS_3_6_2ND ALTERNATE.dwg, 11/8/2012 3:24:47 PM DRAWNDATEJOB NUMBERREV.SHEET NO.OFDATESYM.REVISIONBYFOR: DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWINGCHKD.CHKD.THIS DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTYOF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.33XXX/XX20XXXSYNERGY CONTROL CLOSET SYNERGYSTANDARD RAIL SUPPORTED(400 LBS).6'-6" WALL TO WALL2'-6"WALL TO WALL6'-0" CLR. OPNG.3"3"DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECTCONTROLLER33" X 17 1/4" X 42 1/8"EMERGENCYRESCUE16 W. X 10" D. X 24" H.7'-6" MIN.6'-6"3"3"6'-0" CLR. OPNG.WALL MTD.TRANSFORMER21 W. X 18" D. X 26" H.THIS ARRANGEMENT MUST BE USED WITH THE EMERGENCY RESCUE OPTION ONLY AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OTHER THAN 460/480 V7'-6" MIN.6'-6"3"3"6'-0" CLR. OPNG.DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT6'-6" WALL TO WALL6'-0" CLR. OPNG.3"3"3'-6" CLEAR 3'-0"LINE FILTERBELOWDISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECTTHIS ARRANGEMENT MUST BE USED WITH THE EMERGENCY RESCUE OPTION ONLY AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 460/480 VDISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECTEMERGENCYRESCUE16 W. X 10" D. X 24" H.EMERGENCY RESCUE BELOWREGEN DRIVECABINETRESISTOR1'-8" WALL TO WALL 3'-6" CLEAR3'-0"DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT LINE FILTERBELOWEMERGENCY RESCUE BELOWRESISTORBOX 6'-0" WALL TO WALL1'-8" WALL TO WALL5'-6" CLR. OPNG.3"3"DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT7'-6" MIN.6'-0" CLR. INSIDE3"3"5'-6" CLR. OPNG.THIS ARRANGEMENT MUST BE USED WITH THE TENANT SECURITY OPTION ONLY RESISTORBOX TENANT SECURITYCABINET(400 LBS.)1614"W X 8 18"DP.X 36" HIGHSYNERGY CONTROLLER ASSY.(400 LBS.)4'-6 15/16"ACCESSCOVER3'-6" 2'-7 7/8"(TO BE FLUSH WITH TRANS. BELOW)6"( TO BE FLUSH WITH CONTROLLER )( TO BE FLUSH WITH CONTROLLER )CONTROLLERCABINET WALL MOUNT ANGLEREGENCABINETCABINET WALL MOUNT ANGLEREGENDRIVECABINET7'-6" MIN.SYNERGY CONTROLLER ASSY.(400 LBS.)4'-6 15/16"CABINET WALL MOUNT ANGLEREGENDRIVECABINET( TO BE FLUSH WITH CONTROLLER )( TO BE FLUSH WITH FRONT OF TRANSFORMER )TRANSFORMERCARSPEEDWITHOUTDRIVEREGENERATIVEH.P.DRIVE? VOLTSCAUSED BY ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ISIN B.T.U./HOUR UNITS PER CHART BELOWHEAT LOAD IN CONTROLLER CLOSET7'-6" MIN. CEILING HEIGHT DISCONNECT SWITCH (BY OTHERS)10% - 95% NON-CONDENSING RELATIVE HUMIDITY7(03(5$785(5$1*()0,1)0$;* PREFERABLY THE CONTROL CLOSET SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE TOP LANDING AND THE MAX DIST. OF CONDUIT RUN FROM CONTROLLER TO MACHINE IS 150'. (1) 6" WIDE X 6" HIGH ELECTRICALRACEWAYS REQUIRED. LOCATION ISDETERMINED BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEENCONTROLLER CLOSET AND HOISTWAY.FINAL LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED WITH THYSSENKRUPP FIELD SUPERINTENDENT.THE MINIMUM SIZES SHOWN FOR THESE CONTROL SPACES ARE PREDICATED ONAVERAGE SIZED COMPONENTS AND ANY OVERSIZED BOX OR DISCONNECTCOULD AFFECT THE SIZE OF THE CONTROL ROOM.* DISCONNECTS LARGER THAN THESE DIMENSIONS SUCH AS AN ELEVATOR SHUNT SHUNT TRIP CENTER COULD INCREASE MINIMUM CONTROL ROOM DIMS. AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 208/240 OR 460/480 VWALL MOUNTED CONTROLLER100 amp DISCONNECT60 amp DISCONNECT1'-6 3/8"10 3/4"1'-0"7 9/16"SQUARE D DISCONNECTS OR EQUIVILENTMAX DIMENSIONS FOR DISCONNECTSC:\Program Files\AutoCAD To PDF\Process Folders\DWGsToConvert\SYNERGY 85S CONTROL CLOSETS WITH REGENERATIVE DRIVE RESISTOR CABINET.dwg, 11/8/2012 3:42:41 PM DRAWNDATEJOB NUMBERREV.SHEET NO.OFDATESYM.REVISIONBYFOR: DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWINGCHKD.CHKD.THIS DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTYOF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.33XXX/XX20XXXSYNERGY 4'-4" WALL TO WALL2'-3" WALL TO WALL4'-0" CLR. OPNG.2"2"DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT7'-6" MIN.4'-4" CLEAR INSIDE2"2"4'-0" CLR. OPNG.DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT2" DOORCAUSED BY ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ISIN B.T.U./HOUR UNITS PER CHART BELOWHEAT LOAD IN CONTROLLER CLOSETTRANSFORMERCARSPEEDWITHOUTDRIVEREGENERATIVEH.P.DRIVECONTROL CLOSET SYNERGY STANDARD RAIL SUPPORTED(400 LBS).6'-6" WALL TO WALL2'-6"WALL TO WALL6'-0" CLR. OPNG.3"3"DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT? VOLTSCONTROLLER33" X 17 1/4" X 42 1/8"EMERGENCYRESCUE16 W. X 10" D. X 24" H.7'-6" MIN.6'-6"3"3"6'-0" CLR. OPNG.WALL MTD.TRANSFORMER21 W. X 18" D. X 26" H.THIS ARRANGEMENT MUST BE USED WITH THE EMERGENCY RESCUE OPTION AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OTHER THAN 460/480 V7'-6" MIN.5'-6"3"3"5'-0" CLR. OPNG.DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT5'-6" WALL TO WALL5'-0" CLR. OPNG.3"3"3'-6" CLEAR 3'-0"LINE FILTERBELOWDISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECTTHIS ARRANGEMENT MUST BE USED WITH THE EMERGENCY RESCUE OPTION AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 460/480 VDISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECTCONTROLLER33" X 17 1/4" X 42 1/8"WALL MTD.EMERGENCYRESCUE16 W. X 10" D. X 24" H.EMERGENCY RESCUE BELOWRESISTORBOX RESISTOR1'-8" WALL TO WALL 3'-6" CLEAR3'-0"DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT LINE FILTERBELOWEMERGENCY RESCUE BELOWRESISTORBOX ALTERNATE OPTION FOR USE WHEN TALL CABINET IS REQUIREDCONTROLLER30" W x 26" D x84" H. (600 LBS.)(FRONT)5'-6" WALL TO WALL1'-8" WALL TO WALL5'-0" CLR. OPNG.3"3"DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT7'-6" MIN.5'-6" CLR. INSIDE3"3"5'-0" CLR. OPNG.THIS ARRANGEMENT MUST BE USED WITH THE TENANT SECURITY OPTION DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECTRESISTORBOX TENANT SECURITYCABINET(400 LBS.)1614"W X 8 18"DP.X 36" HIGHAIR INTAKE FANS(DO NOT BLOCK &NO HEAT SOURCEUNDER CABINET)SYNERGY CONTROLLER ASSY.(400 LBS.)4'-6 15/16"CONTROLS MOUNTED ON STANDSACCESSCOVER3'-6" 2'-7 7/8"(TO BE FLUSH WITH TRANS. BELOW)6"( TO BE FLUSH WITH CONTROLLER ANDTEN. SEC. BELOW )( TO BE FLUSH WITH CONTROLLER )( TO BE FLUSH WITH CONTROLLER )CONTROLLER( TO BE MOUNTED FLUSH WITH CONTROLLER )( TO BE MOUNTED FLUSH WITH TRANSFORMER )5"5"(1) 6" WIDE X 6" HIGH ELECTRICALRACEWAYS REQUIRED. LOCATION ISDETERMINED BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEENCONTROLLER CLOSET AND HOISTWAY.FINAL LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED WITH THYSSENKRUPP FIELD SUPERINTENDENT.* PREFERABLY THE CONTROL CLOSET SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE TOP LANDING AND THE MAX DIST. OF CONDUIT RUN FROM CONTROLLER TO MACHINE IS 150'. THE MINIMUM SIZES SHOWN FOR THESE CONTROL SPACES ARE PREDICATED ONAVERAGE SIZED COMPONENTS AND ANY OVERSIZED BOX OR DISCONNECTCOULD AFFECT THE SIZE OF THE CONTROL ROOM.* DISCONNECTS LARGER THAN THESE DIMENSIONS SUCH AS AN ELEVATOR SHUNT SHUNT TRIP CENTER COULD INCREASE MINIMUM CONTROL ROOM DIMS.7'-6" MIN. CEILING HEIGHT DISCONNECT SWITCH (BY OTHERS)10% - 95% NON-CONDENSING RELATIVE HUMIDITY7(03(5$785(5$1*()0,1)0$;5'-6" AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 208/240 OR 460/480 VTHIS STANDARD ARRANGEMENT IS TO BE USED WITH NO ADDITIONAL OPTIONS AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 208/240 OR 460/480 VGENERALLY USED WITH DRIVE H.P. MOTOR < 40 H.P.WALL MOUNTED CONTROLLERWALL MOUNTED CONTROLLER100 amp DISCONNECT60 amp DISCONNECT1'-6 3/8"10 3/4"1'-0"7 9/16"SQUARE D DISCONNECTS OR EQUIVILENTMAX DIMENSIONS FOR DISCONNECTSC:\Program Files\AutoCAD To PDF\Process Folders\DWGsToConvert\SYNERGY 85S CONTROL CLOSETS WITH STANDARD RESISTOR CABINET.dwg, 11/8/2012 3:42:48 PM DRAWNDATEJOB NUMBERREV.SHEET NO.OFDATESYM.REVISIONBYFOR: DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWINGCHKD.CHKD.THIS DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTYOF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.33XXX/XX20XXXSYNERGY DUPLEX CONTROL CLOSET SYNERGYSTANDARD RAIL SUPPORTEDTHIS STANDARD ARRANGEMENT IS TO BE USED WITH NO ADDITIONAL OPTIONS AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 208/240 OR 460/480 VACCESSCOVER(FRONT)4'-0"ACCESSCOVER6"5'-6"7'-0"6"MIN.3'-0"CLR. OPENINGSTACK BOTH REGENRESISTOR CABINETS HEREDISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT2'-6" MIN.CONTROLLER MOUNTED ON STANDSTRANSFORMERCARSPEEDWITHOUTDRIVEREGENERATIVEH.P.DRIVE? VOLTSCAUSED BY ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ISIN B.T.U./HOUR UNITS PER CHART BELOWHEAT LOAD IN CONTROLLER CLOSET7'-6" MIN. CEILING HEIGHT DISCONNECT SWITCH (BY OTHERS)10% - 95% NON-CONDENSING RELATIVE HUMIDITY7(03(5$785(5$1*()0,1)0$;* PREFERABLY THE CONTROL CLOSET SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE TOP LANDING AND THE MAX DIST. OF CONDUIT RUN FROM CONTROLLER TO MACHINE IS 150'. (1) 6" WIDE X 6" HIGH ELECTRICALRACEWAYS REQUIRED. LOCATION ISDETERMINED BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEENCONTROLLER CLOSET AND HOISTWAY.FINAL LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED WITH THYSSENKRUPP FIELD SUPERINTENDENT.THE MINIMUM SIZES SHOWN FOR THESE CONTROL SPACES ARE PREDICATED ONAVERAGE SIZED COMPONENTS AND ANY OVERSIZED BOX OR DISCONNECTCOULD AFFECT THE SIZE OF THE CONTROL ROOM.* DISCONNECTS LARGER THAN THESE DIMENSIONS SUCH AS AN ELEVATOR SHUNT SHUNT TRIP CENTER COULD INCREASE MINIMUM CONTROL ROOM DIMS.7'-6" CLR. OPENING8'-0" CLR. INSIDE3'-2 1/2" 3'-6"DISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CAR LIGHT ANDALARM CIRCUIT WITHSEPARATE DISCONNECT (STACKED)TENANT SECURITYCABINET (BELOW) (400 LBS.)1614"W X 8 18"DP.X 36" HIGHTHIS ARRANGEMENT IS TO BE USED WITH OR WITHOUT TENANT SECURITY AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 460/480 VCONTROLERS 300E SYNERGY (DUPLEX)2'-6"OR ANY MRL WITH < 40 HP SYNERGY CONTROLLER ASSY.(400 LBS.)5'-9 3/8" 7'-6" MIN. 7'-0" DOOR 4'-0" CLR. OPNG.6" 1'-8" WALL TO WALL 4" DUCT COVERACCESSCOVER(FRONT)SEPARATE DISCONNECT SWITCHLIGHT AND ALARM CIRCUIT WITHDISCONNECT SWITCH,ABOVE CARSUPPORT AND DISCONNECTSBY OTHERS(STACKED)3'-6" CLEAR 2'-3 1/4"4'-4"SYNERGY CONTROLLER ASSY.(400 LBS.)3'-4"2"3'-6 1/8"3 1/8"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"2'-3 1/4"2'-11 1/8"2'-9 1/8"(8) REQ.HEATDEFLECTOR6"4" DUCT COVERACCESSCOVER(FRONT)3'-6" CLEAR 4'-4"SYNERGY CONTROLLER ASSY.(400 LBS.)4'-0" CLR. OPNG.6"4'-4"4'-4"THIS STANDARD ARRANGEMENT IS TO BE USED WITH NO ADDITIONAL OPTIONS AND A FEEDER VOLTAGE OF 208/240 OR 460/480 VCONTROLLER WALL MOUNTED WALL MOUNTING DETAILS100 amp DISCONNECT60 amp DISCONNECT1'-6 3/8"10 3/4"1'-0"7 9/16"SQUARE D DISCONNECTS OR EQUIVILENTMAX DIMENSIONS FOR DISCONNECTSC:\Program Files\AutoCAD To PDF\Process Folders\DWGsToConvert\SYNERGY 85S DUPLEX CONTROL CLOSETS.dwg, 11/8/2012 3:42:54 PM PROJECT LOCATION 725 Plymouth Way Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Item No. 8b Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 725 Plymouth Way Meeting Date: August 12, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Architect: James Stavoy | Architect AIA APN: 029-171-080 Property Owners: Heather and David Sanchez Lot Area: 5,400 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached garage is located on an interior lot, contains 1,444 SF (0.27 FAR) of floor area, and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the rear portion of the house with a new first floor addition (net 299 SF) and to add a new second story (1,035 SF). With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,761 SF (0.51 FAR) where 3,037 SF (0.56 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including 50 SF front porch exemption). The proposed project is 276 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The number of bedrooms would increase f rom two to four. The code requires two on-site parking spaces, one of which must be covered (9’ x 18’ for existing conditions). The existing detached garage provides one covered space (9’-3” x 19’ clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off -street parking requirements. The proposed second story encroaches into the declining height envelope along the right side by 45 SF (1’-4” x 28’-3½” at front portion, 0’-7” x 7’-0” at stairwell, and 0’-2” x 21’-10” at rear portion) which requires approval of a Special Permit (attic areas are exempt). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The proposed project includes removal of an existing protected size multi -trunk Pittosporum shrub (9.5, 16 and 19 inches in diameter) located in the rear yard along the right side property line. In the report prepared by Urban Tree Management, Inc., dated December 14, 2018 (attached), the arborist notes that the shrub has grown t o over maturity, is in very low vigor due to its age, and has structural faults. Due to the poor health and weak structure, he recommends that the shrub be removed. The City Arborist notes that the applicant will need to apply for and obtain a Protected Tree Removal Permit to remove this shrub. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); and  Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right side of the house (45 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)). This space intentionally left blank. Design Review and Special Permit 725 Plymouth Way 2 725 Plymouth Way Lot Area: 5,400 SF Plans date stamped: July 31, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 20’-8½” n/a 20’-8½” (to porch) 20’-0” 15’-1” (block average) 20’-0” Side (left): (right): 9’-5” 3’-5” no change 4’-0” (to addition) 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 40’-2” n/a 31’-10½” 30’-10½” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,455 SF 26.9% 1,800 SF 33.3% 2,160 SF 40% FAR: 1,444 SF 0.27 FAR 2,761 SF 0.51 FAR 3,037 SF 1 0.56 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (9’-3” x 19’ clear interior) + 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) no change 1 covered (9’ x 18’ clear interior for existing) + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 22’-2” 26’-3” 30'-0" above average top of curb DH Envelope: n/a encroachment along right side ² Special Permit (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)) 1 (0.32 x 5,400 SF) + 1,100 SF + 209 SF = 3,037 SF (0.56) FAR 2 Special Permit required for declining height envelope along the right side of the house (45 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:  Windows: existing wood frame windows with grids; proposed double-hung wood windows with grids, wood clad with simulated divided lites  Doors: existing wood doors; proposed wood clad;  Siding: existing stucco siding; proposed stucco siding to match existing;  Roof: existing asphalt shingle roofing; proposed composition asphalt single roofing;  Other: brick chimney; wood louvered screen vents; stained wood belly band; guard rail with stucco finish (second floor deck) Staff Comments: At the design review study meeting on July 22, 2019, there was confusion about the second floor right side setback and whether it requires a Variance because the first floor right side setback (3’-5”) is nonconforming. Per Code Section 25.26.072 (c)(2), “the minimum side setback to second stories shall be base d on the declining height envelope.” Therefore the proposed second floor does not require a Side Setback Variance. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on July 22, 2019, the Commission had suggestions regardi ng this project and voted to place this item on regular action when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached July 22, 2019 Planning Design Review and Special Permit 725 Plymouth Way 3 Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the Commissions’ comments from the July 22, 2019 Design Review Study meeting and the applicant’s response: 1. Update arborist report to show association of the proposed tree removal in relation to the proposed project. The applicant submitted an updated arborist report (see attac hed), dated July 25, 2019, where the arborist states that the proposed addition would be encroaching into the drip line of the tree’s canopy as well as its root structure. He also states that the “tree is in terrible condition” and recommends removal. 2. Revisit window grid patterns since they are part of the existing windows, it would add character . Window grids (simulated divided lites) have been added to all the proposed windows. 3. Add more articulation and detailing to the West elevation (right side). The applicant’s response letter notes that roof overhangs have been added to the proposed dormers creating “a new shadow line at each gable roof.” At the stairway, the second floor has been stepped in by 7-inches and stepped in another 7 -inches along the same side at the rear of the second floor in order to “further separate the proposed addition from the neighbor’s property.” 4. Consider reducing the declining height envelope encroachment at the rear elevation . With the revised changes, the overall encroachment into the declining height envelope has reduced by at least 28%. Also, the encroachment into the declining height envelope at the rear elevation is now 4 SF (78% reduction from previous encroachment at the rear elevation). The proposed second floor extends towards the rear and beyond the second floor of the adjacent neighbor (right side) by 12’-11”; the encroachment into the declining height envelope of this specific portion is 2 SF (0’-2” x 12’-11”). The applicant submitted a response letter dated July 31, 2019 and revised plans date stamped July 31, 2019, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. Please refer to the applicant’s response letter for further details about the changes made (see attached). Also submitted was a letter of concern (see attached), dat ed August 6, 2019, from the adjacent neighbor on the right side of the subject property that expresses their opposition to the proposed project. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed structure (featuring a combination of hip and gable roofs, proportional plate heights, aluminum clad wood windows, composition asphalt roofing, and stucco siding) is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the Design Review and Special Permit 725 Plymouth Way 4 interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a -d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant struc tural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of an y new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings for Declining Height Envelope: The proposed project has the right side of the second floor encroaching 45 SF into the declining height envelope, requiring a Special Permit. The architectural style that would result from a code complying project would not be compatible or true to the massing and style of a house if the second floor were offset in order to comply with Declining Height Envelope . The house, as proposed, will provide a cohesive architectural style that will complement the nei ghborhood, and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans subm itted to the Planning Division date stamped July 31, 2019, sheets A0.0 through A5.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, wind ows, 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); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which wou ld include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. 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; 6. 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 Plannin g 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 withou t the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; Design Review and Special Permit 725 Plymouth Way 5 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design sha ll be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. 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; and 13. 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. James Stavoy, applicant and architect Heather and David Sanchez, property owners Attachments: July 22, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Letter of Response, dated July 31, 2019 Updated Tree Assessment Report, dated July 25, 2019 Neighbor Letter of Concern, dated August 6, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Tree Assessment Report, dated December 14, 2018 Neighbor Letter of Concern, dated June 24, 2019 Property Owner Letter – response to neighbor concern, dated July 9, 2019 Neighbor Letters of Support Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 2, 2019 Area Map SANCHEZ RESIDENTIAL REMODEL725 PLYMOUTH WAY BURLINGAME, CA 94010679 Sanchez Street San Francisco, California 94114 415 • 553 • 8696 JAMES G STAVOY ARCHITECT AIA BY :ISSUE :DATE :no.00917STREET FRONT ELEVATION VIEW W/DECLINING HEIGHTA0.10510 FT 1 A0.1 NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATION - PROPOSED Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A0.1 EXISTING - BLOCK STREET VIEW Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 725 PLYMOUTH WAY SUBJECT PROPERTY 721 PLYMOUTH WAY717 PLYMOUTH WAY 729 PLYMOUTH WAY ADJACENT PROPERTY 733 PLYMOUTH WAY ADJACENT PROPERTY 1"725 PLYMOUTH WAY SUBJECT PROPERTY 729 PLYMOUTH WAY ADJACENT PROPERTY1"12 10 12 10 (E) GRADE AT FRONT -1'-10 1/2" (VARIES AT FRONT) (E) CEILING 8'-4"8'-4" V.I.F.(E) 1ST F.F.L. 0'-0"1'-10 1/2"6'-0"(N) SPRING LINE 15''-4"1'-0"(N) 2ND F.F.L. 9'-4"8'-1"25'-3 1/2" (AT FRONT)(E) GRADE AVERAGE TO T.O. CURB AT 21.59' -2'-10" (E) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 43.73' OR 22'-2" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB (N) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 47.81' OR 26'-3" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB PL (E) 3'-7" AT FRONT (E) 4' - 4 1/2"3'-2"12'-0"7'-6"17'-4 1/4" (E) B.O. ADJ. SOFFIT(W/ DECLINING HEIGHT DIMENSIONS) BOUNDARY OF DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 17'-2 1/2" (PROPOSED B.O. SOFFIT)DECLINING HEIGHT AREA AREA OF 5" OFFSET REQUESTED FOR SPECIAL PERMIT DECLINING HGT. AREA12'-0"0 5 10 FT 2 A0.1 SOUTH (REAR) ELEVATION - PROPOSED Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 12 10 (N) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 47.81' OR 26'-3" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB 12 10 725 PLYMOUTH WAY SUBJECT PROPERTY 729 PLYMOUTH WAY ADJACENT PROPERTY PL AT REAR (E) 3'-5" (N) 4'-0" AT 1ST FLR (E) 4'-7" (E) GARAGE 2'-7" (W/ DECLINING HEIGHT DIMENSIONS) ADJACENT PROPERTY REAR FACADE PROFILE DECLINING HEIGHT AREA (N) SPRING LINE 15''-4" (E) GRADE F.F.L. -1'-7" (VARIES AT REAR) (E) CEILING 8'-4"8'-4"(E) 1ST F.F.L. 0'-0"1'-7"6'-0"1'-0"(N) 2ND F.F.L. 9'-4"8'-1"25'-0" (AT REAR)DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE DECLIN'G HGT. AREA 7'-6"(N) 4'-7" AT 2ND FLR 1 1 06.12.19RESPONSE TO COMMENTSpmg---07.31.19RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTSpmg------------04.15.19PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PERMITpmg1 SANCHEZ RESIDENTIAL REMODEL725 PLYMOUTH WAY BURLINGAME, CA 94010679 Sanchez Street San Francisco, California 94114 415 • 553 • 8696 JAMES G STAVOY ARCHITECT AIA BY :ISSUE :DATE :no.00917EXISTING ELEVATIONS A4.00510 FT 2 A4.0 SOUTH\WEST (SIDE) ELEVATION - EXISTING\DEMO Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) REAR YARD (E) STUCCO FINISH, TYP. (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (R)(D) (D) (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) GRADE AT FRONT +/- -1'-10 1/2" (VARIES AT FRONT) (E) CEILING +/- 8'-4"8'-4"(E) 1ST F.F.L. +/- 0'-0"+/- 1'-10 1/2"+/- 11'-0"+/- 21'-2 1/2" (AT FRONT)(E) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 43.73' OR +/- 22'-2" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB (E) BRICK CHIMNEY TO REMAIN 12 10 12 10 12 10 (E) GARAGE BEYOND 0 5 10 FT 1 A4.0 NORTH\WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION - EXISTING\DEMO Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) GRADE AT FRONT +/- -1'-10 1/2" (VARIES AT FRONT) (E) CEILING +/- 8'-4"8'-4"(E) 1ST F.F.L. +/- 0'-0"+/- 1'-10 1/2"+/- 11'-0"+/- 21'-2 1/2" (AT FRONT)(E) GRADE AVERAGE TO T.O. CURB AT 21.59' +/- -2'-10" (E) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 43.73' OR +/- 22'-2" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB (R) (R) 12 10 12 10 (E) WOOD FRAME WINDOWS, TYP. AND EXTERIOR WOOD DOORS (E) BRICK CHIMNEY TO REMAIN (E) WOOD SIDING (E) STUCCO, TYP. (R) (E)(E)(E) STUCCO, TYP. (E) GARAGE BEYOND 0 5 10 FT 4 A4.0 NORTH\EAST (SIDE) ELEVATION - EXISTING\DEMO Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) REAR YARD (D) (D) (D) (E) GRADE AT REAR +/- -1'-7" (VARIES AT REAR) (E) CEILING +/- 8'-4"8'-4"(E) 1ST F.F.L. +/- 0'-0"+/- 1'-7"+/- 11'-0"+/- 20'-11" (AT REAR)(E) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 43.73' OR +/- 22'-2" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB 12 10 12 10 STUCCO, TYP. (E) (R) (R)STUCCO, TYP. (E) EXISTING (N) NEW (R) TO BE REPLACED IN SAME OPENING WINDOW/DOOR ABBREVIATEIONS: 0 5 10 FT 3 A4.0 SOUTH\EAST (REAR) ELEVATION - EXISTING\DEMO Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (D) (D) (D) (E) GRADE AT REAR +/- -1'-7" (VARIES AT REAR) (E) CEILING +/- 8'-4"8'-4"(E) 1ST F.F.L. +/- 0'-0"+/- 1'-7"+/- 11'-0"+/- 20'-11" (AT REAR)(E) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 43.73' OR +/- 22'-2" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB 12 10 12 10 STUCCO, TYP. (R) STUCCO, TYP. (E) GARAGE(D) 1 1 06.12.19RESPONSE TO COMMENTSpmg---07.31.19RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTSpmg------------04.15.19PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PERMITpmg1 0 5 10 FT 4 A4.1 EAST (SIDE) ELEVATION - PROPOSED Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" CL CENTER 4" SLIT OPENING ON SLIDING DOORS (N)(E) (E) (E) (N) (N) (N) STUCCO SIDING (E) STUCCO SIDING STUCCO SIDING, TYP. PROFILE OF GARAGE IN FOREGROUND (E) EXISTING (N) NEW (R) TO BE REPLACED IN SAME OPENING WINDOW/DOOR ABBREVIATEIONS: (E) GRADE F.F.L. +/- -1'-7" (VARIES AT REAR) (E) CEILING +/- 8'-4"8'-4"(E) 1ST F.F.L. +/- 0'-0"+/- 1'-7"6'-0"(N) SPRING LINE +/- 15''-4"1'-0"(N) 2ND F.F.L. +/- 9'-4"8'-1"+/- 25'-0" (AT REAR)12 10HEAD AFFWINDOW SCHEDULE W1.01UNIT #ROOMWIDTH(FRAME SIZE)HEIGHT(FRAME SIZE)MATERIALOPERATIONGLAZINGMFGSPECCOMMENTSW2.01 W2.02 BDRM-100 2'-11"5'-3 1/2"6'-8"WOOD DBL-HUNG DBL-GLZD MARVIN -EGRESS OPENING = 5.78 SQ.FT. OPENING HGT. = 2'-2 5/32", WIDTH = 2'-7 7/8" BDRM-201 BDRM-203 DBL-HUNG DBL-HUNG MARVIN MARVIN " " " " " " DBL-GLZD DBL-GLZD 6'-8"2'-11"5'-3 1/2" NOTE: THESE WINDOWS COMPLY WITH EGRESS REQUIREMENTS PER 2016 CRC R310 OR CBC 1030. 2'-11"5'-3 1/2"6'-8" WOOD WOOD - - (N) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 47.81' OR +/- 26'-3" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB WOOD LOUVERED SCREEN VENT, TYP. STUCCO PANEL AT UPPER GABLE, TYP. 12 10 (N) SLIDING WOOD GATE 8X STAINED WD. CORBEL BRACKETS AT OVERHANG W/ OGEE EDGE, TYP. (N)SANCHEZ RESIDENTIAL REMODEL725 PLYMOUTH WAY BURLINGAME, CA 94010679 Sanchez Street San Francisco, California 94114 415 • 553 • 8696 JAMES G STAVOY ARCHITECT AIA BY :ISSUE :DATE :no.00917PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A4.1 0 5 10 FT 3 A4.1 SOUTH (REAR) ELEVATION - PROPOSED Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) GRADE F.F.L. +/- -1'-7" (VARIES AT REAR) (E) CEILING +/- 8'-4"8'-4"(E) 1ST F.F.L. +/- 0'-0"+/- 1'-7"6'-0"(N) SPRING LINE +/- 15''-4"1'-0"(N) 2ND F.F.L. +/- 9'-4"8'-1"+/- 25'-0" (AT REAR)4" SLIT OPENINGS IN +42" A.F.F. GUARD RAIL W/ STUCCO FINISH (N) CLASS 'A' COMPOSITION ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (N) 4/12 ROOF PITCH AT DORMER SHED ROOF (N) 2ND FLOOR GABLE AND HIPPED ROOF PITCH TO MATCH (E) (N) STUCCO SIDING TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) (R)(N) (N) (N) (N) (N) STUCCO SIDING (E) GARAGE SHAPED 4X6 CAP AT DECK RAILING 12 10 (N) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 47.81' OR +/- 26'-3" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB (N) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 47.81' OR +/- 26'-3" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB 12 10 0 5 10 FT 2 A4.1 WEST (SIDE) ELEVATION - PROPOSED Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" W2.01 W2.03 W1.01 (N)(N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) 12 10 (N) STUCCO SIDING TO MATCH (E), TYP. 1 X STUCCO WINDOW AND DOOR MOULDING TO MATCH (E) RESIDENCE, TYP. EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN, DBL. GLAZED, WOOD CLAD W/ SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS (WHERE SHOWN), TYP. VELUX SKYLIGHT, TYP. (E) GRADE F.F.L. +/- -1'-7" (VARIES AT REAR) (E) CEILING +/- 8'-4"8'-4"(E) 1ST F.F.L. +/- 0'-0"+/- 1'-7"6'-0"(N) SPRING LINE +/- 15''-4"1'-0"(N) 2ND F.F.L. +/- 9'-4"8'-1"+/- 25'-0" (AT REAR)(N) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 47.81' OR +/- 26'-3" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCK, TYP. (N) (N) WOOD LOUVERED SCREEN VENT, TYP. 0 5 10 FT 1 A4.1 NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATION - PROPOSED Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) GRADE AT FRONT +/- -1'-10 1/2" (VARIES AT FRONT) (E) CEILING +/- 8'-4"8'-4" V.I.F.(E) 1ST F.F.L. +/- 0'-0"1'-10 1/2"6'-0"(N) SPRING LINE +/- 15''-4"1'-0"(N) 2ND F.F.L. +/- 9'-4"8'-1"+/- 25'-3 1/2" (AT FRONT)(N) (N) (R) (R) (E)(E)(E) (E) GARAGE BEYOND (E) 12 10 STUCCO PANEL AT UPPER GABLE, TYP. 2X FASCIA TO MATCH (E), TYP. WOOD SHUTTERS TO MATCH (E), TYP. 4" S.M. GUTTER, PRIME & PAINT PROFILE TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) STUCCO TO MATCH (E), TYP. STAINED WOOD BELLY BAND S.M. LINED, STAINED WOOD WINDOW BOX, TYP. 6X STAINED WD. CORBEL BRACKETS AT PLANTER BOX W/ OGEE EDGE, TYP. (N) 8X8 STAINED D.F. COLUMN (N) CLASS 'A' COMPOSITION ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (E) GRADE AVERAGE TO T.O. CURB AT 21.59' +/- -2'-10" (E) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 43.73' OR +/- 22'-2" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB (N) T.O. HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AT 47.81' OR +/- 26'-3" ABOVE AVERAGE T.O. CURB 12 10 (E) STUCCO, TYP. (E) BRICK CHIMNEY TO REMAIN 8X STAINED WD. CORBEL BRACKETS AT OVERHANG W/ OGEE EDGE, TYP. 1 1 1 06.12.19RESPONSE TO COMMENTSpmg---07.31.19RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTSpmg------------04.15.19PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PERMITpmg1 SANCHEZ RESIDENTIAL REMODEL725 PLYMOUTH WAY BURLINGAME, CA 94010679 Sanchez Street San Francisco, California 94114 415 • 553 • 8696 JAMES G STAVOY ARCHITECT AIA BY :ISSUE :DATE :no.00917EXISTING\DEMO ELEVATIONS &SECTIONSA5.00510 FT 2 A5.0 LOGITUDINAL SECTION - EXISTING\DEMO Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) REAR YARD (E) ATTIC SPACE KITCHEN 105 FOYER 101 UTILITY RM 107 1 A5.0 12 10 0 5 10 FT 1 A5.0 TRANSVERSE SECTION - EXISTING\DEMO Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) ATTIC SPACE LIVING ROOM 103 BATHROOM 104 CLOSET 2 A5.0 (E) GRADE AT FRONT +/- -1'-10 1/2" (VARIES AT FRONT) (E) CEILING +/- 8'-4"8'-4"(E) 1ST F.F.L. +/- 0'-0"+/- 1'-10 1/2"+/- 11'-0"+/- 21'-2 1/2" (AT FRONT)(E) GRADE AVERAGE TO T.O. CURB +/- -2'-10" 12 10 f 0 5 10 FT 4 A5.0 LOGITUDINAL SECTION - PROPOSED Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) REAR YARD KITCHEN 105 FOYER 101 HALL 204 BEDROOM 201 BEDROOM 100 BEDROOM 203 BATHROOM 202 3 A5.0 M. BEDROOM 206 12 10 0 5 10 FT 3 A5.0 TRANSVERSE SECTION - PROPOSED Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) ATTIC SPACE LIVING ROOM 102 BA.RM. 103 BEDROOM 203 HALL 204 4 A5.0 (E) GRADE AT FRONT +/- -1'-10 1/2" (VARIES AT FRONT) (E) CEILING +/- 8'-4"8'-4" V.I.F.(E) 1ST F.F.L. +/- 0'-0"1'-10 1/2"6'-0"(N) SPRING LINE +/- 15''-4"1'-0"(N) 2ND F.F.L. +/- 9'-4"8'-1"+/- 25'-3 1/2" (AT FRONT)12 10 12 10 ------------------04.15.19PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PERMITpmg07.31.19RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTSpmg SANCHEZ RESIDENTIAL REMODEL725 PLYMOUTH WAY BURLINGAME, CA 94010679 Sanchez Street San Francisco, California 94114 415 • 553 • 8696 JAMES G STAVOY ARCHITECT AIA BY :ISSUE :DATE :no.00917EXISTING\PROPOSED SITE & ROOF PLANA1.0 S S S REQ'DSIDESETBACKPITCH10:12PITCH10:12PITCH10:12SITE & LANDSCAPE PLAN - EXISTING\DEMO Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A1.0 0 20 FT 725 PLYMOUTH AVENUEADJACENT PROPERTY 721 PLYMOUTH AVENUE 108.0'(E) SIDEWALKPL 50.0'(E) DRIVEWAY SUBJECT PROPERTY REAR YARD SUBJECT PROPERTY ROOF ADJACENT PROPERTY REAR YARD ADJACENT PROPERTY ROOF SUBJECT PROPERTY FRONT YARD PL ADJACENT PROPERTY REAR YARD ADJACENT PROPERTY ROOF ADJACENT PROPERTY FRONT YARD ADJACENT PROPERTY 729 PLYMOUTH AVENUE PL PL (E) PITTOSPORUM TREE TO BE REMOVED SUBJECT PROPERTY GARAGE (E) TERRACE TWO-STORY ROOF ONE-STORY ROOF CONCRETE ONE-STORY ROOF 15'-1" (E) BOX HEDGE TO BE REMOVED (E) LAWN ADJACENT PROPERTY FRONT YARD AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK OF BLOCK PER 709 PLYMOUTH 20'-8 1/2"1'-5 1/2"4'-0" 6'-0" (E) FRONT SETBACK 6" (E) CURB42'-0 1/2"5'-0"40'-3" 9'-0"25'-7"4'-2 1/2"20'-2 1/2"15'-0"8'-3 1/2"5'-7 1/2" 20'-0"4'-0"SUBJECT PROPERTY 725 PLYMOUTH AVENUE PARCEL APN# 029171080 (E) PITTOSPORUM TREES AT REAR (E) PURPLE LEAF PLUM TREE (E) JAPANESE MAPLE TREE (E) SHRUBERRY ONE-STORY ROOF (E) B.O. SOFFIT AT ADJ. PROPERTY ONE-STORY ROOF MIN. REAR SETBACK FOR FIRST FLOOR 3'-7"(E) SETBACK AT FRONT3'-5"(E) SETBACK AT REAR WATER METER SEWER C.O. (E) PG&E GAS METER PITCH 10:12 PITCH 10:12 PITCH 10:12 PITCH10:12MIN. REAR SETBACK FOR SECOND FLOOR (E) CRAB APPLE TREE (E) LEMMON TREEEEEE(E) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY NORTH W W W (E) SHRUBERRY (E) SYCAMORE TREE S S S REQ'DSIDESETBACKS SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALKSITE & LANDSCAPE PLAN - PROPOSED Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 A1.0 0 20 FT 725 PLYMOUTH AVENUEADJACENT PROPERTY 721 PLYMOUTH AVENUE 108.0'(E) SIDEWALK50.0'(E) DRIVEWAY SUBJECT PROPERTY 725 PLYMOUTH AVENUE PARCEL APN# 029171080 SUBJECT PROPERTY ROOF ADJACENT PROPERTY REAR YARD ADJACENT PROPERTY FRONT YARD SUBJECT PROPERTY FRONT YARD ADJACENT PROPERTY REAR YARD ADJACENT PROPERTY FRONT YARD ADJACENT PROPERTY 729 PLYMOUTH AVENUE PL PL PL PL (N) (N) (N) 200 AMP MAIN PANEL SUBJECT PROPERTY (E) GARAGE (E) TERRACE (N) DECK AT GRADE 15'-1" NOTE: (E) LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS TO REMAIN EXCEPT THE REMOVAL OF THE REAR YARD PITTOSPORUM TREE. 20'-8 1/2"1'-5 1/2"4'-0"6'-0" (E) FRONT SETBACK PROPOSED (N) 2ND FLOOR OVERHANG 8 1/2"4'-0"(E) PITTOSPORUM TREE TO BE REMOVED ADJACENT PROPERTY ROOF ADJACENT PROPERTY ROOF TWO-STORY ROOF ONE-STORY ROOF ONE-STORY ROOF (N) LAWN (E) B.O. SOFFIT AT ADJ. PROPERTY ONE-STORY ROOF TWO-STORY ROOF ONE-STORY ROOF NOTE: ATTIC SPACE AREA IF 1ST FLR. CLG. NOT RAISED. 15'-0" (N) DECK AT 2ND FLR. PITCH 10:12 PITCH 10:12 PITCH 10:12PITCH10:12PITCH10:12PITCH10:12PITCH4:12PITCH10:12PITCH 10:12 PITCH10:12D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S. D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S. D.S. 20'-0"EEEESUBJECT PROPERTY REAR YARD PROPOSED ROOF MOUNTED PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS OR SOLAR SHINGLES RELOCATE (E) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY WATER METER SEWER C.O. (E) PG&E GAS METER MIN. REAR SETBACK FOR FIRST FLOOR MIN. REAR SETBACK FOR SECOND FLOOR AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK OF BLOCK PER 709 PLYMOUTH NORTH W W W D.S. D.S. D.S.PITCH10:12PITCH10:121 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 06.12.19RESPONSE TO COMMENTSpmg---07.31.19RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTSpmg------------04.15.19PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PERMITpmg1 PROJECT LOCATION 2601 Easton Drive Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Item No. 8c Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 2601 Easton Drive Meeting Date: August 12, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. Applicant and Architect: Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company|Architects APN: 027-195-090 Property Owners: Debanjan and Liz Ray Lot Area: 7,923 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a res idential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single -family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lo t and the applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house with an attached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 3,566 SF (0.45 FAR) where 3,635 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including 97 SF front covered porch exemption and 100 SF lower level exemption). The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the attached garage (10’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. The lot slopes downward from the front property l ine to the rear property line by more than 25%. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for the second floor to extend beyond the declining height envelope along both sides of the house (80 SF along the right side of the house and 271 SF along the left side of the house). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The proposed project includes removal of an existing protected size Coast live oak tree (30.2 -inch diameter) along the left side property line. The tree is located in a five foot wide landscape strip between the walls of two existing houses. The tree trunk is touching the garage wall and the limbs are touching the roof of the house. In an arborist report prepared by Advanced Tree Care, dated February 9, 2019 (attach ed), the certified arborist notes that the tree is in fair health and condition and recommends removal. The City Arborist notes that the applicant will need to apply for and obtain a Protected Tree Removal Permit to remove this tree if the project is approved. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a new single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); and  Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right and left sides of the house (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)). This space intentionally left blank. Design Review and Special Permit 2601 Easton Drive 2 2601 Easton Drive Lot Area: 7,923 SF Plans date stamped: July 31, 2019 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 25’-0” 28’-7” 23’-11” (block average) 23’-11” (block average) Side (left): (right): 5’-10” 4’-0” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 62’-0” 65’-4” 15'-0" 20'-0" Single-car attached garage: 25’-0” 25’-0” Lot Coverage: 2,030 SF 25.6% 3,169 SF 40% FAR: 3,566 SF 0.45 FAR 3,635 SF 1 0.46 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10’ x 20’ clear interior) + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20' clear interior) + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 19’-10” 20'-0" above average top of curb for lots sloping downward more than 25% (C.S. 25.26.060 (2)(b)) DH Envelope: encroachment along both sides ² Special Permit (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)) 1 (0.32 x 7,923) + 1,100 = 3,635 SF (0.46) FAR 2 Special Permit required for declining height envelope along the right and left sides of the house. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:  Windows: aluminum clad casement windows with simulated divided lites ; wood trim and shutters  Doors: wood panel garage door; wood entry door with wrought iron; aluminum clad exterior doors (rear)  Siding: stucco; exterior trim to be wood or cement fiber with cast stone cap  Roof: clay tile  Other: stone veneer clad chimney; stone veneer clad foundation; wrought iron railings and detailing Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on July 22, 2019, the Commission had suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on regular action when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached July 22, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). Design Review and Special Permit 2601 Easton Drive 3 Listed below is a summary of the Commissions’ comments from the July 22, 2019 Design Review Study meeting:  Massing is well articulated and broken down;  Revisit front elevation, add layer of depth and charm and/or articulation such as gable roofs that would bring out more of the Spanish Revival style that the design is aiming for;  Revisit left elevation, would like to see more detailing; and  Consider simplifying and unifying roof. The applicant submitted a response letter dated July 30, 2019 and revised plans date stamped July 31, 2019, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. In summary, the footprint remained the same, however the front and left side elevations were revised and gable roofs and more detailing (wood shutters, wrought iron elements, gable vents, and decorative tile) were incorporated into the design. Please refer to the applicant’s response letter for full list of changes and responses to the Commission’s comments and concerns (see attached). Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed structure (featuring a combination of hip and gable roofs, proportional plate heights, aluminum clad windows with wood trim and shutters, clay tile roofing, stucco siding, and wrought iron details) is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a -d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings (Declining Height Envelope): That because of the downward slope of Design Review and Special Permit 2601 Easton Drive 4 the lot from front to the rear of the property by more than 25%, the point of departure for the declinin g height envelope along both sides of the house is seven feet below the first story finished floor of the house which causes the declining height envelope to extend into the house at a lower elevation, that the encroachment is consistent with the design, a nd that the second floor wall which extends into the declining height envelope is broken up by articulated walls at various setbacks and windows distributed along the wall, the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown o n the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 31, 2019, sheets A1.1 through A3.8, and sheets L1 through L3; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, wind ows, 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); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. 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; 6. 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 approv al of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these ventin g details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and a lteration 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Californi a Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; Design Review and Special Permit 2601 Easton Drive 5 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the m aximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submi tted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. 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 Buildi ng Division; and 13. 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Debanjan and Liz Ray, property owners Attachments: July 22, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Letter of Response , dated July 30, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, dated May 24, 2019 Special Permit Application Arborist Report, prepared by Advance Tree Care, dated February 9 , 2019 Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 2, 2019 Area Map City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Address: 2918 Adeline Drive Meeting Date: August 12, 2019 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for a new accessory structure (detached garage) in front of an existing single family dwelling. Property Owners: Brent and Stephanie Jenkins APN: 027-111-050 Applicant and Designer: Leslie Jones, Jones Street Design Lot Area: 94,961 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e), which states that construction or conversion of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages , carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is exempt from environmental review. Site Description: The subject property contains an existing one-story single family dwelling with an attached two-car carport and finished basement. The subject property is accessed through a private driveway easement from Adeline Drive through 2910 Adeline Drive. There is also a road easement that runs through the rear of the property, as recorded in the assessor’s parcel maps. Mills Canyon Park lies directly behind the property with Mills Creek crossing through a portion of the rear property line. This property is not located within the Hillside Area Construction Permit zone. Project Description: The site currently has a two-car carport that is attached and located in fro nt of the main dwelling. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing attached carport and construct a new, detached two-car garage (500 SF) in its place, located in front of the main dwelling. The accessory structure also includes a small work/storage room (122 SF). Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.60.010 (d) (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts) states that a detached garage may be built in front of the main building as long as 1) the dwelling was built on the rear 60% of the lot and 2) the dwelling was built prior to January 15, 1954, but not in any portion of the front setback. Since the existing house is not located within the rear 60% of the lot, an application for a Conditional Use Permit is required to construct the detached garage in front of the main dwelling. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure (detached garage) occupying any portion of the lot in front of the main building (C.S. 25.60.010 (d)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8d Regular Action Item Conditional Use Permit 2918 Adeline Drive 2 2918 Adeline Drive Lot Area: 94,961 SF Plans date stamped: July 25, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D Location of Accessory Structure: accessory structure (attached carport) is located in front of main dwelling accessory structure (detached garage) is located in front of main dwelling accessory structures occupying any portion of the lot in front of main building Height of Accessory Structure: 7’-8” 13’-0” to highest roof ridge 15'-0" to highest ridge Lot Coverage: 2,594 SF 2.7% 2,599 SF 2.7% 8,000 SF (max home size)1 FAR: 2,453 SF 0.49 FAR 2,653 SF 0.53 FAR 8,000 SF (max home size)1 1 Per Code Section 25.26.070, maximum allowed home size is 8,000 SF. Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that because of the nature of the request and that the existing carport is being replaced with a detached garage in the same location on the lot , it was determined that this request could be brough t forward directly as a Regular Action Item. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, 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 cond ucted 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 operati on 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. Suggested Conditional Use Permit Findings: The proposed accessory structure (detached garage) will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity as it will provide required off-street parking to current code standards and will replacing an existing carport in the same location on the lot; t he proposed use of the structure is consistent with the residential nature of the neighborhood; the proposed structure is consistent with the architectural style of the main dwelling; and that the location of the detached garage in the front of the lot is necessary because of the co nfiguration and the significant downward slope towards the rear of the lot . For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the conditional use permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should con duct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Conditional Use Permit 2918 Adeline Drive 3 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 25, 2019; 2. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit shall be void or shall be amended to reflect the changes ; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters f or the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. 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; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance whic h 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; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Buil ding and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Michelle Markiewicz Assistant Planner c. Leslie Jones, Jones Street Design , designer Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 2, 2019 Area Map HOSE BIB TIMER (E.) gas meter to remain 14'-8"4'-4"8'-0"2'-4"12'-0"9'-4"7'-6"16'-3"5'-11"8'-0"2'-4"14'-11"5'-11"8'-0"1'-0"14'-9"8'-0"2'-5"7'-8"3/16" = 1'-0" Existing East Elevation (Front) 3/16" = 1'-0" Existing North Elevation (Side) 3/16" = 1'-0" Existing West Elevation (Back) 3/16" = 1'-0" Existing South Elevation (Side) demo existing carport demo existing carport A3 Existing Exterior Elevations DESCRIPTION MILLS CANYONRENOVATION2918 Adeline DriveBurlingame, CA 94010PROJECT ADDRESS:REV DATE PERMIT SET xxx STRUCTURAL ENGINEER C R E S ENGINEERING NORTH 2420 Sand Creek Road SUITE C-1252 Brentwood, CA 94513 ANDRES@CRESENG.COM 925.420.5255 Ofﬁce 925.420.5252 Fax 925.487.0895 Andres Direct XXX CONTRACTOR HOME DESIGN & CAD LESLIE JONES Jones Street Design 714 Pomona Avenue Albany, CA 94706 t: (415) 310-8491 leslie@jonesstreetdesign.com 07-19-2019 HOSE BIB TIMER (E.) gas meter to remain 14'-8"4'-4"8'-0"2'-4"12'-0"9'-4"7'-6"5'-10"8'-0"2'-10"14'-11"6'-8"7'-3"1'-0"14'-9"8'-0"2'-5"8'-6"3/16" = 1'-0" Proposed East Elevation (Front) 3/16" = 1'-0" Proposed North Elevation (Side) 3/16" = 1'-0" Proposed West Elevation (Back) 3/16" = 1'-0" Proposed South Elevation (Side) demo existing carport13'-0"7'-0"12'-6"11'-0"12'-6"8'-6"3/16" = 1'-0" Proposed South Detatched Garage Elevation (Side) 17'-0"2'-6"2'-6"4'-0"9'-0"4'-5"4'-5"9"3'-2" 2'-2" 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 677 776 8 8 8 9 2 1 12 10 11 14 1213 42" cable spacing is 3-1/8" C to C *posts should not be spaced more than 48" apart (inside to inside dimension) 34"24" 3-1/8" 2"W x 1"H powder coated 11 gauge aluminum sq tube handrail 2"SQ powder coated 11 gauge aluminum sq tube posts 6"SQ x 18" powder coated aluminuml fascia mounting plate risers not to exceed 7-3/4" height 12"D stair treads 36" landing to be no less than 36" wide Top of handrail to be between 34"-38" at front of every tread D 1.1 EXTERIOR STAIRCASE 12"=1'-0" Guardrail to be a minimum 42" high Openings between guardrail intermediate rails to be such that a 4" diameter sphere cannot pass through 3-3/4" 4" diameter sphere cannot pass through CRAWL SPACE VENTILATION CALCS CRAWL SPACE AREA: 1545 SF 150SF =10.05 SF VENTILATION (E.) 6X16 (.66 SF) VENTS: 10 x .66 = 6.6 SF VENTILATION (N.) 6X16 (.66 SF) VENTS: 6 x .66 = 3.96 SF VENTILATION 6.6SF + 3.96 SF= 10.56 SF TOTAL CRAWL SPACE VENTILATION ALL VENTILATION IS TO BE CORROSION-RESISTANT WIRE MESH, WITH THE LEAST DIMENSION BEING 1/8-INCH THICK 1.STUCCO IS TO BE APPLIED WITH A 3 COAT APPLICATION WHEN APPLIED OVER METAL LATHE OR WIRE LATHE PER CRC R703.6.2. 2.2 LAYERS OF GRADE "D" PAPER UNDER STUCCO COVERING WHEN APPLIED OVER WOOD SHEATHING PER CRC R703.6.3 3.PROVIDE WEEP SCREED AT THE BOTTOM OF STUCCO WALLS AT A LOCATION AT A MINIMUM OF 4" ABOVE EARTH OR 2" ABOVE PAVED AREAS PER CRC R703.6.2.1. CONSTRUCTION NOTES (E.)(E.) (E.)(E.) (E.)(E.) (E.) 3'-0" (N.)(E.)(N.)(E.) (N.) (N.)(N.) (E.) (N.) A4.0 1.1,1.2 Dual Tension- Cable FittingsLevel Installation- Cable Fittings 0.6250 1.000 0.91 0.6250 0.8350.500*all fittings manufactured from 316 stainless steel Fascia Mounting Plate- FRONT VIEW D 1.2 EXTERIOR RAILING DETAILS scale:1"=1'-0" 7/16" 11/16" 5-3/4" 4-5/8" 5-3/4" 4-5/8" 11/16" 1-1/8" 5-3/4" 516" X 4" GRK RSS Fasteners 18" thick Aluminum mounting plate 2"SQ 11 Gauge Aluminum tube posts Fascia Mounting Plate- SIDE VIEW Handrail Section 1" 2" *2"W x 1"H powder coated 11 gauge aluminum sq tube handrail NEW STANDING SEAM ROOF; COLOR TBD NEW COMP SHINGLE ROOF TO REPLACE EXISTING NEW D.S.NEW D.S. NEW D.S. IN EXISTING LOCATION NEW D.S. IN EXISTING LOCATION NEW D.S. IN EXISTING LOCATION NEW D.S.NEW D.S. IN EXISTING LOCATION NEW D.S. IN EXISTING LOCATION NEW D.S. IN EXISTING LOCATION NEW D.S.NEW D.S. A4 Proposed Exterior Elevations DESCRIPTION MILLS CANYONRENOVATION2918 Adeline DriveBurlingame, CA 94010PROJECT ADDRESS:REV DATE PERMIT SET xxx STRUCTURAL ENGINEER C R E S ENGINEERING NORTH 2420 Sand Creek Road SUITE C-1252 Brentwood, CA 94513 ANDRES@CRESENG.COM 925.420.5255 Ofﬁce 925.420.5252 Fax 925.487.0895 Andres Direct XXX CONTRACTOR HOME DESIGN & CAD LESLIE JONES Jones Street Design 714 Pomona Avenue Albany, CA 94706 t: (415) 310-8491 leslie@jonesstreetdesign.com 07-19-2019 1/8" = 1'-0" Proposed Roof and Drainage Plan 22'-2"18'-1"29'-3"49'-2" downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout downspout 9'-4" 16'-3" 9'-9"10'-2"12'-8" 25'-4"19'-7"downspout 11'-6"4:12 PITCH 5:12 PITCH 5:12 PITCH 4:12 PITCH 1:12 PITCH 1:1 PITCH 1111 12 13 14 DENOTES ADDITION DENOTES PROPERTY LINE DENOTES HOUSE FOOTPRINT DENOTES GAF COBRA RIDGE VENT IN 3 LINEAL FOOT INCREMENTS LEGEND CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1.THE DISCHARGING OF WASTEWATER TO STORM DRAINS GENERATED FROM THE INSTALLATION, CLEANING, TREATING, AND WASHING OF THE SURFACE OF COPPER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, INCLUDING COPPER ROOFS, GUTTERS, OR DOWNSPOUTS TO STORM DRAINS IS PROHIBITED. BMC-7-17 DENOTES NEW STORM DRAIN SYSTEM DENOTES NEW FRENCH DRAIN 3.CONSTRUCTION PLANS SHALL INDICATE HOW THE SITE GRADING OR DRAINAGE SYSTEM WILL MANAGE ALL SURFACE WATER FLOWS TO KEEP WATER FROM ENTERING BUILDINGS. KITCHEN ADDITION IS OUTSIDE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATH AND WILL REQUIRE A NEW FRENCH DRAIN. CGBC 4.106.3 4.IN ORDER TO MANAGE STORMWATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION, WHERE STORMWATER IS CONVEYED TO A PUBLIC DRAINAGE SYSTEM, COLLECTION POINT, GUTTER OR SIMILAR DISPOSAL METHOD, WATER SHALL BE FILTERED BY USE OF A BARRIER SYSTEM, WATTLE IN ORDER TO PREVENT FLOODING OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, PREVENT EROSION AND RETAIN SOIL RUNOFF ON THE SITE: CGBC 4.106.2 ASPHAULT COMPOSITION SHINGLE STANDING SEAM 320 watt SOLAR PANEL DENOTES EXISTING INTERLOCKING CONCRETE GARDEN WALL >36" HIGH DENOTES NEW SANDSET CONCRETE PAVERS (E.)Live Oak DENOTES RIVER ROCK FOR TREE SURROUND AND ORNAMENTAL DRY CREEK BED EXISTING STORM DRAINS (E.) (N.) (E.) TO EDGE OF PROPERTY 262'-4" TO EDGE OF PROPERTY 339'-6" (E.)Live Oak (E.)Live Oak (E.)Live Oak (E.)Live Oak (E.)Live Oak (E.)Live Oak DENOTES CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AND WALKWAYS TO BE REPLACED IN SAME LOCATION. DOWNSPOUT TO PERCOLATE OUT UNDER GROUND DENOTES EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS TO REMAIN >42 HIGH MAIN HOUSE ATTIC SPACE VENTILATION CALCS ATTIC FLOOR AREA: 1250 SF 150SF =300 SQ INCHES VENTILATION (N.) 17 LINEAL FEET OF GAF COBRA RIGID 3 VENTS @18 SQUARE INCHES NET FREE AREA OF VENTING PER LINEAL FEET ) = 300 SQ INCHES NET FREE EXHAUST VENTILATION GARAGE ATTIC SPACE VENTILATION CALCS VAULTED FLOOR AREA: 510 SF 150SF =123 SQ INCHES VENTILATION (N.) 22 LINEAL FEET COBRA® EXHAUST VENT FOR ROOF RIDGE - NAIL GUNABLE@12.3 SQUARE INCHES NET FREE AREA OF VENTING PER LINEAL FEET )= 300 SQ INCHES NET FREE VENTILATION (N.) 7 LINEAL FEET OF GAF COBRA RIGID 3 VENTS @18 SQUARE INCHES NET FREE AREA OF VENTING PER LINEAL FEET ) = 123 SQ INCHES NET FREE EXHAUST VENTILATION (N.) 9 LINEAL FEET COBRA® EXHAUST VENT FOR ROOF RIDGE - NAIL GUNABLE@12.3 SQUARE INCHES NET FREE AREA OF VENTING PER LINEAL FEET )= 123 SQ INCHES NET FREE VENTILATION 12'-0"10'-0"3'-6"3'-6"8'-0"7'-0"9'-0"A7 Proposed Roof & Drainage Plan DESCRIPTION MILLS CANYONRENOVATION2918 Adeline DriveBurlingame, CA 94010PROJECT ADDRESS:REV DATE PERMIT SET xxx STRUCTURAL ENGINEER C R E S ENGINEERING NORTH 2420 Sand Creek Road SUITE C-1252 Brentwood, CA 94513 ANDRES@CRESENG.COM 925.420.5255 Ofﬁce 925.420.5252 Fax 925.487.0895 Andres Direct XXX CONTRACTOR HOME DESIGN & CAD LESLIE JONES Jones Street Design 714 Pomona Avenue Albany, CA 94706 t: (415) 310-8491 leslie@jonesstreetdesign.com 07-19-2019 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 To: Planning Commissioners Date: August 12, 2019 From: Andrea Pappajohn, Sustainability & Climate Mgmt. Fellow – (650) 558-7271 Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject: Adoption of the Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan and Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame has long been an advocate and steward of the environment. The City prepared its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2009 to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the city. Over the last decade, the City has implemented multiple programs and efforts to significantly reduce GHG emissions from City operations and the community and is on track to achieve the 2020 GHG reduction goal set by the original 2009 CAP. A GHG reduction target was first set by the State in 2006 with the passage of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. The legislation called for the State to achieve 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2020 and encouraged local cities to follow suit. In 2016, the State Legislature passed SB 32, setting a mandated reduction target for GHG emissions of 40% below 1990 by 2030, and an intermediate target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, set in Executive Order S-3-05. These targets are in-line with the scientifically established levels needed to limit global warming below 3.6° F. (2° C.) in this century, which is the warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super droughts and rising sea levels. In 2015, the City initiated a process focused on a community-led effort to update the City’s General Plan. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in June 2018 that analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the General Plan, including potential impacts from GHG emissions, energy use, and other effects of global climate change (State Clearinghouse No. 20170820180). The DEIR analysis showed mitigation measures were needed to reduce GHG emissions to levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals. The preparation of a 2030 CAP Update was introduced in the DEIR as a mitigation measure to reduce GHG emissions levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals. The City adopted the General Plan and certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. Both the General Plan and EIR anticipated the 2030 CAP Update as a necessary component. Staff worked with the assistance of the General Plan consultant, MIG, to develop the 2030 CAP Update. The 2030 CAP will replace the previous 2009 CAP. DRAFT 2030 CAP Update August 12, 2019 2 The Draft CAP was introduced at the Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting on April 27, 2019. Since that time, staff have conducted outreach and sought feedback on the CAP. The CAP was posted on the City’s website and announced through eNews and social media. Copies of the Draft CAP were made available to the public at the Main Library, Easton Branch Library, and Planning Division Counter. The Draft CAP was also presented to the public at the Citizens Environmental Council (CEC) meeting on May 8, with a question and answer session, and the CEC subsequently provided comments on the Draft CAP. An official Notice of Availability of an Addendum to the City of Burlingame General Plan Environmental Impact Report was posted on June 19, 2019, with a comment period from June 19, through July 3. City Staff contacted and received informal comments from Bay Area Air Quality Management District staff. Based on the comments received on the Draft CAP and EIR Addendum, staff and MIG have prepared a revised draft with proposed revisions shown as tracked changes (attached). All comments have been reviewed and considered for revised draft. MIG has also prepared a memorandum addressing the comments received (attached). In this Planning Commission meeting MIG will provide a presentation of the changes to the draft CAP that have been made in the revised document and responses to comments received. The revised document with tracked changes is attached to this staff report; for reference, the original unedited draft and appendices may be downloaded at www.burlingame.org/climateactionplan. DISCUSSION Key sources of GHG emissions data are identified in the 2005 and 2015 Community-Wide Emissions Inventory. The 2015 Inventory reflects the best available information for actual GHG emissions levels within the city. Projections for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 are based on growth projections from 2015 consistent with the General Plan. While the State uses 1990 as a baseline year, the City uses 2005 as a baseline. Local governments tend to not have reliable GHG data prior to 2005. According to the California Air Resources Board, a reduction target of 15% below the 2005 level is considered to be comparable to a return to 1990 levels. As a brief outline, the 2030 CAP Update:  Provides necessary background, purpose and objectives, climate change context, inventories, forecasts and reduction targets in Chapters 1 - 3  Presents 20 GHG Reduction Measures in Chapter 4. The measures address: o Built Environment and Transportation (Measures 1 – 10) o Energy (Measures 11 – 15) o Water and Wastewater (Measures 16-17) o Waste (Measure 18) o Municipal (Measures 19 -20) DRAFT 2030 CAP Update August 12, 2019 3  Summarizes the steps the City is taking to address sea level rise and other climate change impacts in Chapter 5  Provides an Implementation and Monitoring Plan to Track Progress in Chapter 6 General Plan Amendments. The adoption of the CAP will involve amendments to the General Plan to include two policies and two amended policies designated in the CAP. Please refer to the MIG response to comments memorandum (attached) for a summary of the new and amended policies proposed in the CAP. Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The General Plan EIR has also been amended to reflect the adoption of the CAP. An Addendum to the EIR has been prepared, to be considered in conjunction with the CAP. Adoption of the CAP will allow EIR Impact 10-1 (Increases in GHG Emissions) to no longer be considered a significant and unavoidable impact, and therefore be removed from the General Plan EIR. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should take public testimony to make a recommendation to the City Council. This will include recommendations on the CAP document, as well as the associated General Plan amendments and EIR Addendum. Exhibits:  MIG Memorandum – Response to Public Comments Received on the City of Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update and Addendum to the City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR)  Draft City of Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan Update – Revised Public Review Draft  Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report  Resolution (Proposed) – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report  Resolution (Proposed) – Adoption of the Climate Action Plan and General Plan Amendment  Notice of Public Hearing – Published August 2, 2019 The original unedited Draft CAP may be downloaded at: www.burlingame.org/climateactionplan. 2635 NORTH FIRST STREET, STE. 149 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 650.327.0429 WWW.MIGCOM.COM Memo To: Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator, and Andrea Pappajohn, Sustainability and Climate Management Fellow, City of Burlingame From: Chris Dugan and Phillip Gleason CC: -- Date: August 8, 2019 SUBJECT: Response to Public Comments Received on the City of Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update and Addendum to the City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) This memorandum addresses the comments received on the the City of Burlingame’s (City) Draft 2030 CAP Update and Addendum to the City’s 2040 General Plan EIR. This memorandum includes the following attachments: • Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update • Attachment 2: Revised Public Draft 2030 CAP Update with Text Changes in Strikethrough and Underline 1. 2030 CAP Update As a community committed to protecting the environment, Burlingame prepared its first CAP in 2009 to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the city through the year 2020. Over the last decade, Burlingame has implemented multiple programs and efforts that significantly reduced GHG emissions from City operations and the community and brought other benefits to Burlingame. In 2015, the City commenced a three-year endeavor that updated the community’s vision for the future and set forth policies to implement this vision. These policies constitute the Burlingame 2040 General Plan, also known as Envision Burlingame. On January 7, 2019, the Burlingame City Council certified an EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2017082018) for the 2040 General Plan, and adopted the 2040 General Plan (Burlingame, 2019a). An underlying theme of the Envision Burlingame General Plan is sustainability through smart growth, resource conservation, green design, urban forest protection, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and transit oriented development. The General Plan contains numerous policies and measures that will reduce GHG emissions by conserving resources, promoting alternative transportation, and reducing waste. The City completed its Draft 2030 CAP Update in April 2019. The 2030 CAP Update compiles all the climate action related goals and policies contained in the 2040 General Plan into a single, comprehensive document for addressing GHG emissions in the city. The 2030 CAP Update also addresses Goal HP-2 of the 2040 General Plan (achieve GHG emissions consistent with State goals) and is one of the specific implementation programs identified in the General Plan (IP-52: Climate Action Plan). The Draft 2030 CAP Update provides new estimates of existing GHG emissions within the city; forecasts future GHG emissions for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050; and identifies GHG emission reductions resulting from State legislation and GHG Emission Reduction Measures contained in the CAP. Nearly all the GHG Emission Reduction Measures identified in the 2030 CAP Update are directly tied to the City’s General Plan policies; however, 2030 CAP Update and Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR Page 2 Response to Public Comments MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 the 2030 CAP Update modifies and adds several policies to the General Plan, requiring an amendment to the General Plan. 2030 CAP Update Public Review Processes The City provided the following opportunities for public review of the Draft 2030 CAP Update: • The Draft 2030 CAP Update was made available for public review through the City’s Climate Action Plan website beginning on April 24, 2019.1 • The Draft 2030 CAP Update was presented at the Annual Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on April 27, 2019. • The Draft 2030 CAP Update was presented to the City’s Citizens Environmental Council on May 8, 2019. • The Draft 2030 CAP Update was provided to staff of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Planning and Climate Protection Division on June 4, 2019. • A Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR, requesting comments on the 2030 CAP Update, associated General Plan amendments, and Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR from any agencies, persons, or organizations concerned with the environmental effects of the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments was released on June 19, 2019. This noticing effort involved: o Posting the NOA at the City Planning Department and Libraries o Email notification through the Envision Burlingame Website o A 15-day public comment period (concluding on July 3, 2019) The City received eight comment letters/transmittals during the review period on the Draft 2030 CAP Update’s emissions inventories, GHG Emission Reduction Measures, and other information, including two letters from a regional agency (the BAAQMD), five letters/transmittals from a community group (Citizens Environmental Council of Burlingame), and one letter from a member of the public. In addition, the City received and responded to oral comments from members of the public at the April 27 and May 8, 2019 public meetings at which the 2030 CAP Update was discussed. Each written comment/transmittal was assigned a letter (i.e., “A”, “B”, etc.) and each specific comment was assigned an alpha-numeric identification number, as summarized in the Table below. Summary of Written Public Comments Received on the Draft 2030 CAP Update ID Commenter (Affiliation) Comments A Steven Cady (Citizens Environmental Council of Burlingame (CEC)) A-1 B Ash McNeeley (CEC) B-1 and B-2 C Mike Dunham (CEC) C1 D Former Mayor Terry Nagel (CEC) D1 and D2 E Christine Yballa (Interested Individual) E1 to E8 F Michael McCord (CEC) F1 to F12 G Jakub Zielkiewicz (Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)) G1 to G27 H Jakub Zielkiewicz (BAAQMD) H1 1 https://www.burlingame.org/departments/sustainability/climate_change.php 2030 CAP Update and Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR Page 3 Response to Public Comments MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 The comments received on the Draft 2030 CAP Update addressed topics ranging from clarifying text edits, to suggestions for specific GHG emission reduction strategies, to requests and recommendations for more aggressive timing and implementation procedures for the CAP Update. The City has reviewed the comments received on the Draft CAP Update and revised the 2030 CAP Update, where necessary, to reflect public comments. The changes incorporated into the 2030 CAP Update add clarity and specificity to the 2030 CAP Update, but do not result in substantial changes to emissions inventories, GHG emission reduction targets, GHG Emission Reduction Measures, or GHG emission reductions. Attachment 1 includes the public comments received on the 2030 CAP Update and the City’s responses to these comments. Attachment 2 provides amended text and graphics for the 2030 CAP Update. Additions to the 2030 CAP Update text are shown in underline and text removed from the 2030 CAP Update is shown with strikethrough. 2. Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR In 2018, the City prepared a Draft and a Final EIR (collectively, EIR; State Clearinghouse Number 2017082018) that evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with the potential growth that may occur with implementation of the 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan EIR identified significant environmental effects in the following areas, even with the incorporation of mitigation measures intended to avoid and/or substantially reduce potential impacts associated with General Plan implementation: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Paleontological Resources, Noise, and Transportation and Circulation. As noted in Section 1, the City Council certified the EIR for the 2040 General Plan and adopted the 2040 General Plan on January 7, 2019. The Draft 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although nearly all of the GHG Emission Reduction Measures identified in the Draft 2030 CAP Update are directly tied to the City’s 2040 General Plan policies, the 2030 CAP Update proposes the modification and addition of several policies to the General Plan, including: • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 9, Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment, would add a new policy to the General Plan, Policy HP-2.16: Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment, that would support the transition of lawn and garden equipment from combustion fuels to electric power. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 10, Construction Best Management Practices, would amend existing General Plan Policy HP-3.12: Construction Best Management Practices to support the transition of certain construction equipment from combustion fuels to electric power. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 15, Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters, would add a new policy to the General Plan, Policy HP-2.17: Alternatively- Powered Residential Water Heaters, to support the transition from tank-based, natural gas water heaters to solar, electrically-powered, or natural gas tankless water heaters in residential development. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 20, Increase the Public Tree Population, would amend existing General Plan Policy CC-2.2: Increase the Public Street Tree Population to support planting of trees in other public areas besides streets. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162(a), the City has reviewed the 2030 CAP Update, associated General Plan amendments, and the certified EIR for the 2040 General Plan EIR to determine: 2030 CAP Update and Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR Page 4 Response to Public Comments MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 1) The extent to which potential project impacts have been addressed by the previously certified EIR for the 2040 General Plan EIR; 2) Whether project changes create new significant or more severe project impacts; 3) Whether new circumstances or new information create new significant or more severe impacts or require new analysis; and 4) Whether any identified new significant or more severe impacts are adequately addressed by previously approved project mitigation. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and General Plan amendments have been designed with the expressed purpose of reducing environmental effects. The City determined that the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments would result in similar or lower magnitude environmental impacts than identified in the certified 2040 General Plan EIR. The City, therefore, determined that an EIR addendum should be prepared as the appropriate CEQA document to address project revisions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council in January 2019 still apply to the project. Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR Public Review Process CEQA Guidelines §15164(c) provides that an Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to a final EIR or adopted negative declaration. Nonetheless, as described in Section 1, the City provided a 15-day public review period for interested individuals and public agencies to submit comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update, associated General Plan amendments, and Addendum to the General Plan EIR from June 19, 2019 to July 3, 2019. The City did not receive any comments on the Addendum, and none of the changes made to the Draft 2030 CAP Update summarized above and presented in Attachments 1 or 2 change the information, analyses, or conclusions contained in the Addendum. Therefore, there are no changes to the Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR required. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Attachment 1 Responses to Comments on the 2030 Draft CAP Update Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. A-1 Comment Letter "A" Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 2 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 3 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Response to Comments from Steven Cady, Vice Chair, Citizens Environmental Council Comment A-1: Mr. Cady recommends the City examine and improve existing bicycle paths of travel in the City and provides a specific recommendation for improving the intersection of Bernal Avenue and Hillside Drive. Response to Comment A-1: The 2030 CAP Update incorporates several strategies to reduce automobile vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and increase alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle travel, including, but not limited to GHG Emission Reduction Measure 2 (Transportation Demand Management), GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 (Complete Streets), and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 5 (Electric Vehicle, Bicycle, and Scooter Sharing). GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 specifically requires the City to develop and implement a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan by 2025 that includes detailed information on the existing transportation network and identifies multi-modal infrastructure improvements, including expanded safe bicycle routes, that reduce VMT, and increase pedestrian and bicycle use, safety, comfort, and accessibility. The feasibility and suitability of specific multi-modal infrastructure improvements would be considered during the development and implementation of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. No changes to the 2030 CAP Update are required at this time. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 4 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. omment Letter "B" B-1 B-2 B-1 con't. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 6 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 7 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Response to Comments from Ash McNeely, Member, Citizens Environmental Council Comment B-1: Ms. McNeely questions why school districts are not included in the 2030 CAP Update and suggests the City contact the San Mateo County Office of Education for potential sustainability practices that could be implemented by school districts. Response to Comment B-1: The 2030 CAP Update is a comprehensive roadmap that outlines the activities the City will take to reduce GHG emissions and address climate change. To clarify, the emissions associated with the operation of existing schools within Burlingame (e.g., resident trips to and from schools, natural gas and electricity consumption at a school site, etc.) are part of the 2030 CAP Update’s baseline, business-as-usual (BAU), adjusted BAU, and GHG Reduction Strategy emissions estimates. The 2030 CAP Update; however, does not separately track school-related emissions because it is not possible to do so at this time. Although the 2030 CAP Update does not include specific GHG Emission Reduction Measures pertaining to school operations, page 55 of the 2030 CAP Update does include a list of other GHG Emission Reduction Measures included in the General Plan that provide GHG emission benefits, including measures pertaining to school gardens (HP-1.13) and public education and outreach (CC-1.12). These measures would be implemented through the General Plan, and the City may coordinate with local schools, school districts, and the County’s Office of Education during implementation of the 2030 CAP Update and Envision Burlingame General Plan. In addition, the City has revised Chapter 6 of the 2030 CAP Update to indicate the City’s Sustainability Coordinator would work with the Burlingame School District to inform students of the City’s goals for addressing climate change and the importance of sustainable practices. Comment B-2: Ms. McNeely asks if the City can provide a faster permit processing time or financial incentives to projects that go 100% electric. Response to Comment B-2: In general, the City processes permit applications according to set procedures that include schedules and timelines for determining application completeness, processing, etc. The 2030 CAP Update, at this time, does not propose to adjust permit processing procedures or provide lower permit processing fees (because such fees are intended to cover administrative staff time that would occur even if a project is LEED certified or 100% electric, etc.). As described on page 63 of the 2030 CAP Update, the City has prepared the CAP Update to satisfy all of the qualifications set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5, which may allow projects that are consistent with or which exceed the measures and requirements contained in the CAP to be eligible for a streamlined environmental review. Such reviews typically proceed faster and require lower costs to complete. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 8 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Comment Letter "C" C-1 Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 10 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 11 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Response to Comments from Mike Dunham, Member, Citizens Environmental Council Comment C-1: Mr. Dunham comments the 2030 CAP Update does not capture GHG emissions from “upstream” activities such as food and material productions and, therefore, should set more aggressive GHG emission reduction targets and strategies, such as reach codes that eliminate natural gas from new residential construction or net-zero GHG emissions targets. Response to Comment C-1: Mr. Dunham is correct the 2030 CAP Update does not include GHG emissions from upstream activities associated with food and material production.1 Rather, the 2030 CAP Update uses a sector- or production-based GHG emissions quantification methodology to estimate existing and future GHG emissions from sources and activities that are, in general, located within the City’s boundaries. This approach is consistent with the City’s previous (2009) CAP efforts, the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Version 1.1), and, in general, the State’s GHG emissions reporting protocols used to track progress towards meeting State annual GHG emission reduction goals. The production-based approach allows for consistent tracking and comparison to State GHG emission reduction goals. The 2030 CAP Update does include certain voluntary reach code provisions (e.g., see GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Initiatives, GHG Emission Reduction Measure 11, Green Building Practices and Standards, and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 12, Energy Efficiency) that may, depending on the specific project being evaluated, apply to new and/or modified development projects. The 2030 CAP Update did not apply a net-zero GHG emission target, because the 2030 CAP Update is intended to reduce GHG emissions from both new and existing GHG emission-generating sources and activities within the City, and a net-zero GHG emission threshold was not considered feasible for the City given it’s specific demographics and GHG emissions profile. 1 The inclusion of upstream GHG emissions sources is usually referred to as a consumption-based methodology. A consumption-based emissions inventory is based on a full life-cycle analysis of the emissions generated by the production, shipping, use, and disposal of each product consumed in an area, regardless of where the GHG emissions associated with production, shipping, etc. were released to the atmosphere. Since consumption-based inventories capture upstream emissions generating activities, they typically result in higher GHG emissions levels or estimates. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 12 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. On May 24, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Terry Nagel wrote: HI Andrea and Syed-- thought I would share some minor questions and a few typos I saw while reading the Climate Action Report. CEC is going to submit a group memo summarizing some suggestions for the CAP. The following is just from me. Typos ES-2 – 1st paragraph third from last line – change “its businesses are shown on below” to “its businesses are shown below” Page 21 – 8th line – change “made-up” to “made up” Page 31 – last paragraph, 2nd line – change “of City’s CAP” to “of the City’s CAP” Page 60 – 1st paragraph, 3rd line – change “for seal level rise” to “for sea level rise” Page 65 – Close up space between 1st two lines Questions (when you have time) Page ES-3 - I'm curious as to what percent of streetlights have been replaced with LEDs and what percent of homes have been installed solar power. Page 7 - Menthane is mentioned. Is there anything we can do to channel the methane from the City's landfill to a positive use? Page 21 - Shouldn't we have a goal of electrifying all City vehicles and incentives for disposal of old refrigerators? Page 59 - Paragraph 2 says, “Much of the City’s aging storm drain system has a ten-year design storm capacity, not the standard 30-year capacity for regional facilities.” We are currently overhauling all our water systems, and I'm wondering why the new storm drain system isn't being built for 30- year capacity. Thanks very much, Terry --- Terry Nagel Comment Letter "D" D-1 D-2 Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 14 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 15 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Response to Comments from Former Mayor Terry Nagel, Member, Citizens Environmental Council Comment D-1: Former Mayor Nagel identifies several typographical errors in the Draft 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment D-1: Comment noted. The identified errors have been corrected in the 2030 CAP Update (see Attachment 2). Comment D-2: Former Mayor Nagel asks several questions regarding specific information in the Draft 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment D-2: In response to Ms. Nagel’s questions: • Street lights: Within the City, PG&E maintains 849 street lights on wooden poles and the City’s Public Works Department maintains 2,035 streetlights on metal poles. The 1,677 street lights replaced by the City over the past several years represents approximately 82% of the City’s street lights. • Residential solar power: The 300 homes that have installed solar power over the past several years represents approximately XYZ% of the City’s residential housing stock as of 2015. • Methane: The Burlingame landfill, located at 1001 Airport Boulevard, was in operation from 1957 to 1987. The site accepted only inorganic construction debris, concrete rubble, wood, plastic, garden refuse, metal, and clean soil; no household garbage or hazardous waste was accepted. Although the site is now capped and built upon, methane emissions are still collected via a landfill gas collection system and combusted to prevent the release of methane to the atmosphere. • Electrification of city vehicles: The City’s vehicle fleet encompasses a variety of vehicle types intended for different uses (e.g., passenger cars, emergency vehicles, other types of vehicles) and a one-sized fits all approach to fleet electrification is not considered feasible at this time. The City is committed to evaluating the specific characteristics of its vehicle fleet and evaluating the feasibility of acquiring electric vehicles in the future. The City has revised GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 to include a specific evaluation and study of the hurdles and opportunities for converting the City’s fleet to electric vehicles as part of the development of its Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan (see Attachment 2). • Disposal of old refrigerators: The energy and cooling efficiency of refrigerators is established by the California Energy Commission. GHG Emission Reduction Measure 12 encourages energy efficiency improvements in the City’s existing building stock. The City could provide financial incentives to upgrade appliances as part of this measure if a funding source became available for such incentives. • Storm drain systems: The sentence referred to on page 59 of the Draft 2030 CAP Update refers to the City’s existing stormwater system. According to the Public Works Department, the storm drain upgrades planned for in the City are designed to meet current standards, which provide capacity for the 30-year design storm event. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 16 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. From: Christine Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 6:04 PM To: apapppajohn@burlingame.org Subject: CAP comments Hello Andrea, I came to the May CEC Meeting and heard the CAP introduction from the consultant. I attached some of my thoughts on the CAP and also included a flyer from Kaiser that I saw a while ago that I thought was interesting. Maybe something like this could be designed by the city? You sure have your work cut out for you! This is a big job! As I mentioned in my comments, I believe it is important to get the community together on these issues. I would be willing to volunteer a bit in these efforts. I have very little expertise in this area but am willing to help out for the cause! Sincerely, Christine Yballa 650-740-3391 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Comment Letter "E" E-1 E-2 Comment Letter "E" Burlingame CAP suggestions – from Christine Yballa, resident of Burlingame The CAP is very well thought out and I believe it is going to be valuable to the city of Burlingame. Below, I listed some of my thoughts as I read through the CAP. A CAP is not going to change views of the community unless the community is aware of the CAP and why it is necessary. In other words, the city needs to encourage residents to come together and have discussions regarding climate change and make it our business too. There is a great need to influence Burlingame as a community to make those necessary steps to change and I believe they will step up to the challenge if they are aware of the need and are involved in the process. It will be necessary for an aggressive outreach program. It may be helpful to start with educating the city employees initially and then including them in a whole city- wide town hall meetings prior to adoption. I think it is important that the municipal operations purchase electric vehicles for staff as cars are retired out. I know some city authorities have already purchased these vehicles on a voluntary basis. I realize some electric vehicles may not be available for specific uses, but all others should be mandatory. There also needs to be more infrastructure built to accommodate the charging of these city cars. There is a great opportunity here to set an example of how serious Burlingame is in combatting climate change. I would hope that as the city of Burlingame begins to tackle the CAP and reduce our greenhouse gases that other agencies may follow suit such as hospitals, schools, and neighboring cities. I think it is very important for the school district to be aware of what the city’s goals are and hopefully they would include any improvement to their school plans to strengthen our citywide contributions to cut our carbon footprint together. I worked at the Burlingame School District for a short period and I became aware of how important it is to get the younger generation involved in caring for our planet. When the children are educated about the subject, they not only understand it, they are passionate about it. The City of Burlingame could consider moving their investments out of institutions that contribute to the funding of fossil fuel industries. There is a common trend to move in this direction due to the values of providing a livable future and for pure investment reasons such as financial risks due to climate change. They could explore the possibilities. The CAP should include the GHG Reduction measures “not quantified.” All those ideas are important to include in discussions with the community and are vital to include in some aspect of the plan. I feel the Burlingame CAP is a great start but needs more input from the community from beginning to end. Comment Letter "E" E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 20 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 21 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Response to Comments from Christine Yballa, Interested Individual Comment E-1: Ms. Yballa provides an example of public education and outreach document pertaining to sustainability that the City could implement. Response to Comment E-1: Comment noted. The City provides similar information graphics through its sustainability website and will consider this document as it prepares future education and outreach materials pertaining to the 2030 CAP Update.2 Comment E-2: Ms. Yballa comments it is important to involve the Burlingame community in the implementation of the 2030 CAP Update and offers assistance to the City in doing so. Response to Comment E-2: The City concurs with Ms. Yballa and appreciates her offer of assistance. Please also see Response to Comment E-8. Comment E-3: Ms. Yballa reiterates it is important to involve the Burlingame community in the implementation of the 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment E-3: The City concurs with Ms. Yballa. General Plan Policy CC- 1.12 requires the City to continue to educate the community about sustainable development strategies, programs, and opportunities. As noted on page 61 of the 2-30 CAP Update, the City’s Sustainability Coordinator will work closely with other City staff, residents, and businesses on CAP-related planning efforts. The Sustainability Coordinator would also continue to provide an Annual Sustainability Report to the City Council summarizing the programs and policies implemented by the City to improve sustainability. Finally, the City notes the Draft 2030 CAP Update was reviewed by and reflects the comments received from other City Departments, and the Sustainability Coordinator would continue to coordinate with City Departments that are integral to implementing the CAP as identified in the 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program (Table 36). Comment E-4: Ms. Yballa states it is important that City purchase electric vehicles for staff as fleet vehicles need to be replace and that more infrastructures I need to support electric vehicle charging. Response to Comment E-4: The City is committed to evaluating the specific characteristics of its vehicle fleet and the feasibility of acquiring fleet electric vehicles in the future. The City has revised GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 to include a specific evaluation and study of the hurdles and opportunities for converting the City’s fleet to electric vehicles as part of the development of its Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan (see Attachment 2). The Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan will also identify priority areas for installing new electric vehicle infrastructure in the City and opportunities to public/private partnerships to support future expansion and use of electric vehicles in the City. Comment E-5: Ms. Yballa states it is important the Burlingame and San Mateo Union High School Districts be aware of the City’s 2030 CAP Update and its GHG emission reduction targets. Response to Comment E-5: As explained in more detail in Response to Comment B-1, the General Plan includes measures pertaining to school gardens (HP-1.13) and public education and outreach (CC-1.12), and the City may coordinate with local schools, school districts, and the County’s Office of Education during implementation of the 2030 CAP Update and Envision Burlingame General Plan. In addition, the City has revised 2 https://www.burlingame.org/departments/sustainability/index.php Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 22 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Chapter 6 of the 2030 CAP Update to indicate the City’s Sustainability Coordinator would work with the Burlingame School District to inform students of the City’s goals for addressing climate change and the importance of sustainable practices. Comment E-6: Ms. Yballa states the City should consider moving investments out of institutions that contribute to the funding of fossil fuel industries. Response to Comment E-6: Comment noted. This recommendation would not change the information contained in the 2030 CAP Update. Comment E-7: Ms. Yballa states the 2030 CAP Update should include the measures listed at the end of Chapter 4 that are “not quantified”. Response to Comment E-7: To clarify, the nine measures listed in the sidebar on page 55 of the 2030 CAP Update are part of the CAP and the City’s General Plan. These measures would be implemented through the CAP and General Plan development review processes; however, the potential GHG emissions reductions associated with these measures could not be quantified and thus they do no not numerically contribute towards the City reaching its annual GHG emission reduction targets. Comment E-8: Ms. Yballa states more input from the community is needed on the 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment E-7: Comment noted. The City provided several opportunities and methods to review the Draft 2030 CAP Update. As explained in Chapter 6 of the 2030 CAP Update, the City’s Sustainability Coordinator would continue to monitor and publically report on the implementation of the 2030 CAP Update on an annual basis at minimum. The CAP would also be periodically updated for public review and consideration. -&FG5GEFN -*$!&%!,1'-&!$5!,1 &*5&-+,!&!$!,1 &*@+A JEF*!%*'+8 -*$!&%5NIEFE 7#'&, GEHE(,*, '&'*$-*$!&%!,1'-&!$ %*+5!,1 &*5&-+,!&!$!,1 &*@+A5 & $', '*'!*,'*+', !,!2&+&.!*'&%&,$'-&!$'-*$!&%5 /*!,,'+ *'-*#'&, GEHE(,*,*$+,', (-$!'&(*!$GJ5 GEFN8 /'-$!*+,$!#,', &#1'-'*, '(('*,-&!,1,'(*'.!, !+#8*,*-$1 ((*!,!.', +-(('*,1'-:.(*'.!-+'.*, $+,FE1*+&, '(&&++,' '&+!*!&'-**'%%&,!'&+,''+,*%'*&.!*'&%&,$$1+-+,!&$-*$!&%8 .$-'-*(*,&*+ !(&*($+//'*#/$$,', *+,%8 '&5/:$!#,''%%&, !,1'&!,+.'$-%+'(+,/'*#,'*++*& '-+ +%!++!'&+!&$-!&'2&+'!%(,-$!&!,!,!.+.*11*+'-,$!&!&, -+,!&!$!,1 &*:+&&-$*('*,+,', !,1'-&!$+!&GEFG8 &#1'-'* !,!&, +*+'-*+8 -%-$,!.*+-$,+*+!&!!&,&%&!&-$8 ,!+ *++-*!&, ,-*$!&%!+'&,*#,'%,, ,,:+ *-,!'&,*,+'*GEGE5 &/*(*'-', /'*#, !,1 +'&+!&, GEEN8 !&$$15/(($-1'-*'-+'&'&,!&--,+,'*& '-++%!++!'&+.!, %+-*+'-,$!&!&, !+GEHE(,*,5, &&-$%'&!,'*!&', '+%+-*+5 &, '%%!,%&,,'-(,, .*1!.1*+8 !+-(,!+&!%('*,&, .&,!&'-*!,1:+ !+,'*15&/$!,!+&%2!&'(('*,-&!,1,'+,/!&&!& '-&,!'&'*$'&,*%+-+,!&!$!,18 '/, ,/ .+-!!&,$1*.!/, *,5/ ., '$$'/!&'&*&+& ('++!$+'$-,!'&+5', '/ ! /:$!#,'*++(*!'*,', !,1'-&!$'&+!*!&, '(,!'&', GEHE(,7 Comment Letter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• !.GEGE %!++!'&+)-$,'FNNE%!++!'&+@HG5(GEEKA • !.GEHE %!++!'&+IEQ$'/FNNE%!++!'&+@HG5(GEFKA • !.GEJE %!++!'&+MEQ$'/FNNE%!++!'&+@HG5(GEFKA 1,!-+'*, &0,J1*+,',*,++,!&GEFK5$%'+,H1*+'4 &, !+$!%,*!+!+5/'&:, /&,,'*$,'$*('*,+, ,'-+'&$!%!,!&$'$/*%!&,'G'8, *5/*'%%&+,,!& ,*,+, ,,-+ ', +,,:+5&!&$!&/!, , !*&0,%'.5++-%!&, 1+,%'**++!. ,*,+'*'-*&0,-(,!&GEGJ8 ++- 5/*'%%&'-*-*$!&%:+GEHE(,,*,+7 • !.GEGJ%!++!'&+IEQ$'/FNNE$.$+@$!#&*&!+'A •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omment Letter "F" F-1 F-2 ',F8G?1'-*$-$,!'&+5JHQ', (*'",%!++!'&+*-,!'&+1GEHE!&, GEHE(, *,'%*'%G-,!'& +-*+, ,, !,1'+&',0$-+!.$1%&'*!%($%&,7 • +-*I?$,*!&$,*!!,!'&@(HMA •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• )&%&# " $>0-,*&+('*,,!'&%& &%&,($&'*, -*$!&%.&-'%%*!$*&, *'/1'%%*!$*,'!&,!1&!%($%&, ,!'&+&+,*,!+, ,/'-$*-+!&$>'-(&1*,*!(+& 1JEQ$'/-**&, $.$+8 %($%&,,!'&++- +*(''$!&5+!&,(*#!&'*$&!*&*!+ *!& . !$+5,*&+!,+-+!!+5!1$(*#!&5&%($'1*+('&+'*+ -,,$+8$'$,'*&,$1 '&-,+!%!$*($&8 • #%&# %%#%! ?'(,&;!*+,<'*!&&5$!#*%&,'5 *)-!*!&$$!,1$,. !$(-* ++,'2*'%!++!'&+'*$,*!. !$+-&$++, *!+&' +!$2*'%!++!'&+'(,!'&8'+,&0%($'*, '%%-&!,15/$+'*'%%&, ,$, . !$+(*'%!&&,$1!+($1&.*,!+, !,1:++-+,!&!$!,1'%%!,%&,8 • '+.%#2!( &# #%! %#? &,!1&!%($%&, ,!'&+,' !.2*'&,-*$+&2*'&,&*1!&-*$!&%:+&/*,!'&&,*5$!# , $ ''&1!**15&.*,!+, !+ !.%&,,', '%%-&!,18 &5'&-, ($&'*, &,*, ,*-++!&$>'-(&1*,*!(+& 1JEQ$'/+,&*$.$+8 • #%%%# $%! #!)&%!#! #+.%#& $?'%%!,,''(, &!&+-$$&&*1&, & ,''-&,1!'-+,!&!$!,1GEFN>GEGE!,$GI '$&-&%'!1-,-*','%&,+*& (*$$>$,*!-!$!&+ '%%&+-*,/!, ', *$!&!,!+!&, 8-*, *5&1*)-!*%&,'*&'-*%&,'* ;2*'&,&*1<-!$!&++ '-$$+'!&$-;$$>$,*!8< • #%!& %*#!$% ?.$'(($&,'-!, '%%-&!,1!&!.*,!&!,+ /+,*'%$&!$$!+('+$5%&*+'-*+,', !* ! +,&+,-+5&*-/+,, , +'-*5, , ++(!!+,*,!+5!%($%&,,!'&&)-&,!!'$+8 • ! $#! #! #%* $> &.+,!,&'&+!*"'!&!&(*'*%+, ,-! !,!+,'%'*+-+,!&$5+- +, *'&-,*$!,!+$$!&5$!%,$!,1*'",:+ FEEQ'%%!,,%(!&5&:+$$>!&!,!+-+,!&!$!,1(*'",8 Comment Letter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omment Letter "F" F-10 F-11 &%! %7!'.! $" &%!"%#9 $&#$ $&#8/!"%%#%$0367585$$! $#&%! "%!6;$&#$ %*! %#!1 • (!1%,*!+5,'*!+5&,+'*%-$,!>%'$!%(*'.%&,+588FE%!$+'%!-%+!2 *'/1+!%(*'./!, FE-*0,&+!'&+1GEGG8 • !&&+(!1+$!&&-%*+&&&-$!&*++'*,*&+('*,,!'&!%(,, ,*/* (*'",+++'!,/!, $'/ 8 • *,!!(,!&&.','*!&$-+!'&'-*$!&%*'+!&, & ,''-&,1-+,!&$ ,*,+ +,*$&(*!'*!,!2,!'&8 $&#7/ 037"%!6; %*! %#!1 • &*+'$,'*-+!&$>'-(&1*,*!(+& *'%GEQ,'JEQ8 • 0-, ($&'*, &/!$$,-*$!&%&-*$!&%*,!'&&,*, ,%, JEQ*-,!'&!&,*!(&*,!'&*,+&+,+, & %*#'*+!%!$*-,-*($&+8 • (!1/ '%($'1+, +!&,''*!&,'*5 '/',&&/ ,!&'*%,!'&!+!&$- !&, !*(*'*%,!.&++*('*,&!&$-, (-$!!&, -!&'*, +*('*, (*+&,,!'&+8 • &+,!,-,%&!&-$!&+'*&',%,!&+!&$>'-(&1*,*!(+& *-,!'&'$+8 $&#65/! $%#&%! $% % #%$038"%!6; %*! %#!1 • ($;&'-*</!, ;%&,8< • ++*+'$-,!'&1GEGG&*($;/ &+!$</!, ;-&$++', */!+%'&+,*,, ,&' $,*&,!.+!$+'$-,!'&+0!+,8< $&#67/ #* *039"%!6; %*! %#!1 • ($;&'-*</!, ;%&,<!&!*+,&+'&+&,&+' •($/'*;.'$-&,*1</!, ;%&,<!& • (!1, &-%*'/'*#+ '(+8 • ++-!$!&&*1+.!&+'*!&&@A5$!#'-$*5&*#$1551GEGG, , *)-!*+*+!&,!$&'%%*!$(*'(*,1'/&*+,'!%(*'.&*1!!&1'*+$8 $/#!$%03:"%!6; %*! %#!1 • ;*,'%%-&!,1*'+,$&<>>,'-!, '%%-&!,1!&!.*,!&!,+/+,*'% $&!$$!+('+$5%&!&*+'-*+,', !* ! +,&+,-+5&*-!&/+,,, +'-* >>, , ++(!!+,*,!+5!%($%&,,!'&&)-&,!!'$+5+!%!$*,'($&+'(,!& &$'*#&$'$,'8 %# $&#$ • +-*J?!&$-+'',*+5('+5&*&,>(*> '-**>+ *!&@88!(*A8 • +-*K?&+-*$$&/'%%*!$.$'(%&,!&$-++-!!&, ! >+( **+,' +(-*%&8 • +-*L?!&$-*G> '-*(*#!&& *!&'*+!&!,1(*#!&+(+8 • +-*FF?*($GEHE/!, GEGH8 • +-*FL?!&$-,+'*&*1,**)-!*%&,+6'&+!*!&*1/,*-$(!( %&,+'*&/'&+,*-,!'&8 >>'&EK=FG=GEFN,''-&!$B-*$!&%8'*5((("' &B-*$!&%8'*5 +%! $B-*$!&%8'* Comment Letter "F" F-12 Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 28 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 29 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Response to Comments from Michael McCord, Chair, Citizens Environmental Council Note: In addition to their comment letter of June 12, 2019, the CEC provided the City with direct edits to an electronic file of the Draft 2030 CAP Update on July 2, 2019. Many of these direct edits were similar to the comments described below. The CEC’s direct edits are available for review from the City’s Sustainability Coordinator upon request. The City and the CEC also held a conference call to discuss the CEC comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update on July 17, 2019. Comment F-1: The CEC recommends more aggressive annual GHG emission reduction targets for the 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment F-1: The City has carefully reviewed the CEC’s recommendation and elected not to incorporate more aggressive annual GHG emission reduction targets into the 2030 CAP Update for several reasons. First, the City’s 2030 CAP Update builds, in part, on the City’s sustainability efforts completed as part of the City’s 2009 CAP, which set a target to reduce GHG emission 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. This target was consistent with Assembly Bill 32, which initiated many of the State’s major climate planning initiatives, such as the Climate Change Scoping Plan. As shown in Chapter 4 of the 2030 CAP Update, the City is on track to meet its 2020 GHG emission reduction target, which sets a logical starting point and trend for future GHG emissions reduction targets. Second, the City’s 2030 CAP Update annual GHG emission reduction targets were developed in consultation with the BAAQMD, and are consistent with the BAAQMD’s GHG emission reduction targets established in the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, as well as BAAQMD Resolution 2013-11, A Resolution Adopting a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal and Commitment to Develop a Regional Climate Protection Strategy.3,4 Third, the City’s 2030 CAP Update annual GHG emission reduction targets also align with the State’s current GHG emission reduction goals established by AB 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which were developed using the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate change assessment reports and are intended to keep global temperature increases below 3.6 °F. Finally, more aggressive GHG emission reductions are not required for the City’s 2030 CAP Update because the City’s 2030 CAP Update includes measures that would reduce GHG emissions from both existing and new development. A more aggressive target would be more appropriate if existing sources of emissions would not be reduced. But the City’s 2030 CAP Update reduces GHG emissions from existing and future VMT, existing and future energy sources, existing and future solid waste generation, etc. For the reasons outlined above, the City’s 2030 CAP Update sets GHG emission reduction targets that are consistent with regional, state, and international climate planning efforts. The City appreciates the CEC’s desire to set more aggressive targets, and recognizes that climate change science is constantly evolving. For this reason, Chapter 6 of the 2030 CAP Update incorporates the development of an Annual Sustainability Report and a periodic CAP update (every five years, beginning in 2025). These reports and periodic updates will allow the City to track progress towards meeting current GHG emission reduction targets and consider new targets as additional scientific 3 http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans 4 http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/climate-protection/climate-protection-program Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 30 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 evidence becomes available and incorporated into regional, state, and international planning efforts. Comment F-2: The CEC comments on the 2030 CAP Update’s sector- or production-based GHG emission quantification methodology. Response to Comment F-2: Please see Response to Comment C-1. The 2030 CAP Update’s methodology is consistent with the City’s previous 2009 CAP efforts, the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Version 1.1), and, in general, the State’s GHG emissions reporting protocols used to track progress towards meeting State GHG emission reduction goals (which do not use a consumption method). Comment F-3: The CEC recommends GHG emissions reductions associated with GHG Emission Reduction Measure 4 (Caltrain Electrification) and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 13 (Peninsula Clean Energy) should be moved from Chapter 4 because the City does not exclusively manage or implement these measures. Response to Comment F-3: The CEC is correct that the City does not solely manage or implement GHG Emission Reduction Measure 4 or 13; however, City staff have worked over the years to support Caltrain electrification efforts, and have enrolled all municipal accounts in Peninsula Clean Energy’s ECO100 program. City staff will continue to support Caltrain electrification efforts and will provide information and support for expanding non-municipal enrollment in Peninsula Clean Energy’s ECO100 program. Furthermore, moving the emission reductions from the City’s GHG emission reduction strategy to the Adjusted BAU or another scenario would not change the City’s annual GHG emission reduction targets or bottom line future year emission estimates. Comment F-4: The CEC recommends the 2030 CAP Update include more specific language in Chapter 4 regarding GHG Emission Reduction Measure descriptions, actions, and tracking requirements. The CEC also recommends GHG Emission Reduction Measures not be voluntary in nature. Response to Comment F-4: Regarding the voluntary nature of some of the GHG Emission Reduction Measures contained in the 2030 CAP Update, the City has incorporated voluntary measures because such measures allow for a case by case consideration of project specific variables, including costs, by each project proponent that are not currently known and which control whether any particular technology or equipment is feasible for a particular project. The 2030 CAP Update incorporates lower participation rates and lower total equipment turnover rates to account for the voluntary nature of these measures. Should such measures become mandatory as a result of future State or City actions, the additional GHG emissions reductions would be realized within the City. Please refer to Response to Comments F-5 through F-9 and F-12 for responses to the City’s suggestions regarding more specific language for specific GHG Emission Reduction Measures. Comment F-5: The CEC recommends the City include a transportation demand management (TDM) plan for the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Areas that reduces single- occupancy car trips by 50% below current levels. Response to Comment F-5: 2030 CAP Update Measure 2 (Transportation Demand Management) requires a 20% reduction in trip generation rates from residential and non- residential development, beginning with new development projects and, over time, Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 31 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 transitioning to existing development projects. The City has added an action to this measure to coordinate with local businesses in the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue Commercial Areas on the development of a Transportation Management Association that reduces existing trip generation rates in these areas (see Attachment 2). The City cannot, at this time, require a 50% reduction in single occupancy vehicle trips from these areas because tracking single occupancy vehicle trips would require significant data collection efforts and a 50% reduction from carpooling, ridesharing, transit subsidies, and other typical trip reduction measures is not considered feasible for the City. Comment F-6: The CEC recommends the City accelerate its vehicle fleet electrification. Response to Comment F-6: The City is committed to evaluating the specific characteristics of its vehicle fleet and the feasibility of acquiring fleet electric vehicles in the future. The City has revised GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 to include a specific evaluation and study of the hurdles and opportunities for converting the City’s fleet to electric vehicles as part of the development of its Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan (see Attachment 2). Comment F-7: The CEC recommends the City identify and implement actions to achieve zero net energy in certain City facilities, as well as a 50% reduction in single-occupancy car trips and VMT below standard levels from the City’s new Recreation Center. The CEC also recommends the City accelerate the transition from mixed fuel buildings to carbon-free, all electric buildings by commit to adopting Peninsula Clean Energy and the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability’s 2019-2020 Title 24 reach code requirements and including references in the 2030 CAP Update to zero net energy, all electric buildings. Response to Comment F-7: GHG Emission Reduction Measure 19, Municipal Green Building Measures, requires the City to aim for zero net energy in all new municipal construction and major renovations of City facilities. New City facilities would also be subject to the TDM requirements of GHG Emission Reduction Measure 2 (20% reduction in trip generation rates); a 50% reduction in trip generation rates is not considered feasible for a new civic-oriented facility that will draw vehicle trips from across the City. GHG Emission Reduction Measure 11 (Green Building Practices and Standards) and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 12 (Energy Efficiency) encourage development projects to incorporate the voluntary provisions of the Title 24 building standards. The City is currently exploring the development of a reach code that may require the incorporation of voluntary energy efficiency standards and/or multiple or all electric energy pathways. Should the 2030 CAP Update’s voluntary measures become mandatory as a result of future State or City actions, additional GHG emission reductions would be realized within the City. Comment F-8: The CEC recommends the City create a Community Zero Waste Plan to support waste diversion goals. Response to Comment F-8: GHG Emission Reduction Measure 18, Zero Waste, establishes increasing waste diversion goals within the City, reaching 85% waste diversion by 2030 and 95% waste diversion by 2050. The City has revised this measure to include the development and preparation of a Community Zero Waste Plan by 2025 that achieves 90% waste reduction by 2030 and 100% waste reduction by 2050 (see Attachment 2). Comment F-9: The CEC recommends the 2030 CAP Update include a measure requiring the City to investigate and consider joining carbon free city alliances, such as the Carbon Neutral Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 32 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Cities Alliance, Climate Reality Project’s 100% Committed campaign, and the Natural Resource Defense Council’s All-in Cities Sustainability Project. Response to Comment F-9: The City may consider resolutions supporting or joining the CEC’s recommended programs in the future; however, such action would not result in direct, quantifiable GHG emissions reductions. Therefore, this measure has not been added to the 2030 CAP Update. Comment F-10: The CEC recommends the City allocate additional resources to the 2030 CAP Update and sustainability activities. Response to Comment F-10: Comment noted. The 2030 CAP Update was developed based on the City’s existing resource commitments. If additional resources become available, additional GHG reductions may be realized within the City. Comment F-11: The CEC states that the 2030 CAP Update would have benefitted from earlier opportunities to review and provide comment on the City’s climate action planning efforts, such as workshops, outreach events, etc. that could have judged community interest in the 2030 CAP Update and its GHG Emission Reduction Measures. Response to Comment F-11: Comment noted. As the CEC indicates in its remarks, the City’s General Plan process did include multiple outreach efforts on all aspects of the plan, including its sustainability initiatives. The City will consider the CEC’s remarks as part of the periodic CAP updates described in Chapter 6 of the 2030 CAP Update. Comment F-12: The CEC provides specific, recommended text edits to the GHG Emission Reduction Measures contained in Chapter 4 of the 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment F-12: In response to the CEC’s specific text edits: • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 (Complete Streets): The CEC recommends specific metrics, projects, transportation impact and fee information. As identified in Table 18 of the 2030 CAP Update, the specific assumptions used to estimate emissions reductions from GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 are contained in CAP Appendix C, page 3. The CAP assumes 10% of intersections and 25% of street miles would be improved by 2030. The specific projects that would be implemented would be identified as part of the Bicycle and pedestrian Master Plan that is required to be prepared by 2025. The City would evaluate options for reducing its transportation impact fee separately, in consultation with the Public Works Department. Finally, the CEC recommends the City participate and advocate for inclusion of the City’s roads in the County’s Sustainable Master Plan prioritization. This action has been added to the 2030 CAP Update. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 2 (Transportation Demand Management): The CEC recommends increasing the targeted trip reduction from 20% to 50% and identifying other specific information regarding TDM plan implementation. At this time, a blanket 50% reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips from existing and new development is not considered a feasible trip reduction target given the type of trip reduction measures that are likely to be implemented through this measure. As points of clarification, TDM coordinators would likely be an employee or volunteer residential coordinator. In addition, the 2030 CAP Update provides a programmatic evaluation of GHG emissions in the City; identifying project-specific requirements is generally not the intent nor purpose of the CAP. Finally, deterrents and penalties for failing to comply with the requirements of the Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 33 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 City’s TDM ordinance, once adopted, would be identified in the code provisions implementing TDM requirements. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 10 (Construction Best Management Practices): The CEC recommends the City make this measure mandatory and pass an ordinance prohibiting the use of petroleum-based fuel sources for construction equipment less than 120 horsepower by 2022, instead of 2025 as identified in the 2030 CAP Update. The City is not electing to accelerate the schedule for the mandatory prohibition of petroleum-fueled equipment for several reasons. First, the voluntary application of this measure is expected to provide time for projects to acclimate to this requirement, as well as time for additional technologies to develop for the specific equipment targeted by this measure. Second, it is not feasible for City staff to accelerate the timeline for adopting the ordinance identified in GHG Emission Reduction Measure 10. In developing the CAP, the City considered existing resources and anticipated staffing commitments to identify realistic timelines for implementation of the GHG Emission Reduction Measures identified in the 2030 CAP Update. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 12 (Energy Efficiency): The CEC recommends this measure be mandatory, the 2030 CAP Update specific the amount of energy efficiency workshops to be held per year, and the City include a building energy savings ordinance that requires energy efficiency improvements before the sale of a building. As explained in more detail in Response to Comment F-7, G-5, and G-21 the City is maintaining the voluntary status of the 2030 CAP Updates energy efficiency measures. In addition, the City is not proceeding with a building energy savings ordinance because it is anticipated that much of the City’s older building stock will be upgraded and updated immediately following the sale of a building (as part of a redevelopment or remodel process). The City has, however, clarified the language in GHG Emission Reduction Measure 12 to indicate the City will hold up to three energy efficiency workshops per year (see Attachment 2). • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 18 (Zero Waste): The CEC recommends the City include a Community Zero Waste Plan as part of GHG Emission Reduction Measure 18. The City has revised this measure to include the development and preparation of a Community Zero Waste Plan by 2025 that achieves 90% waste reduction by 2030 and 100% waste reduction by 2050 (see Attachment 2). • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 5 (Electric Vehicle, Bicycle, and Scooter Sharing): As recommended by the CEC, the City has revised this measure to include opportunities for electric vehicle and electric scooter sharing services if such services are developed in the City. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 (Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Initiatives): GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 requires the installation of Level 2 chargers in new residential development. GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 also requires the City to develop and prepare an Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan by 2022 that will identify priority areas for installing new electric vehicle infrastructure in the City and opportunities to public/private partnerships to support future expansion and use of electric vehicles in the City. The expansion of high speed chargers in commercial areas and developments of the City would be considered as part of the development of the Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 34 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 7 (Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches): The CEC recommends free parking and charging for electric vehicles. GHG Emission Reduction Measure 7 is aimed at reducing parking availability as a means to reduce VMT; however, the City would consider parking incentives for electric vehicles as part of the Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan required by GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 11 (Green Building Practices and Standards): As explained in more detail in Response to Comment F-7, G-5, and G-21 the City is maintaining the voluntary status of the 2030 CAP Updates energy efficiency measures. In addition, the City is not proceeding with a zero net energy ordinance by 2030 (see Attachment 2); however, the City is currently exploring the development of a reach code that may require the incorporation of voluntary energy efficiency standards and/or multiple or all electric energy pathways. The zero net energy requirement for non-municipal development was not included in the 2030 CAP Updates GHG emission inventories and forecasts. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 17 (Water Conservation for New Residential Development): The City has clarified this measure to remove reference to “Energy Star” faucets, as faucets and other water fixtures are not Energy Star rated. In addition, gray water systems are currently allowed by State and City plumbing codes. The City has revised this measure to encourage the installation of gray water systems. From:MGR-Andrea Pappajohn To:Jakub Zielkiewicz Cc:Chris Dugan;Phillip Gleason;MGR-Sigalle Michael Subject:RE: Call re: Burlingame Climate Action Plan Date:Monday, July 1, 2019 2:09:59 PM Hi Jakub Thanks for your informal comments below. Thanks Andrea -----Original Message----- From: Jakub Zielkiewicz [mailto:jzielkiewicz@baaqmd.gov] Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 1:54 PM To: MGR-Andrea Pappajohn <apappajohn@burlingame.org> Subject: RE: Call re: Burlingame Climate Action Plan Hi Andrea, We've reviewed the CAP and have some informal comments, which I include below. I want to emphasize that these are staff informal comments that have not been routed for appropriate approval, and so they are not official BAAQMD comments. Thanks, Jakub Informal CAP comments Executive Summary – in general, the sector summaries provide good insights into the city’s actions. However, the summary lacks specificity in terms of substance and timeframe. Consider including specific time-bound targets and actionable items. ES1, 2nd paragraph (typo): “According to new research, unabated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could cause sea levels to rise by to ten feet by the end of this century - an outcome that could devastate coastal communities in California and around the world.” ES4 - “Still, changing people’s behavior to drive less is one of Burlingame’s trickiest challenges in reducing GHG emissions.” The Clean Transportation section ends with the sentence above. Consider a statement with more Comment Letter "G" G-1 G-2 G-3 definitive closure to the section. More importantly, Burlingame has the ability to influence people’s driving behavior through the establishment of low emissions zones, road diets, etc. Burlingame should consider adoption of such policies to change people’s behavior to drive less, or at least include timebound language in the CAP to study these types of policies. ES5 (also in footnote A of Table 13) - “Most recently, the State approved a shift to 100% renewable energy by 2045...” should read “100% carbon-free electricity." This is a minor word change, but it’s a big difference in renewable energy circles. See the underlying law for additional information: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100 ES5 - “however, the City recognizes that stronger policies will be necessary in the future.” Consider setting a goal, i.e.: a commitment to electrify all municipal buildings or X% of housing; to conduct a technical and legal feasibility study about fuel switching in Brisbane no later than 2020; to establish an energy benchmarking ordinance (https://sfenvironment.org/existing-buildings-energy-performance-ordinance) or building energy saving ordinance (https://www.cityofberkeley.info/BESO/) no later than 2020; etc. ES5 - “The City is examining its own waste practices by striving for zero waste in municipal buildings and public events. Burlingame also anticipates participating in future waste movements, similar to the plastic bag ban movement, to reduce plastic pollution and promote source reduction.” This is great. Consider including a timeframe to achieve zero waste and to pass a plastic bag ban. ES5 – Urban forestry. How many trees to be planted annually? ES-6, 2nd paragraph (typo): “Urban Forestry. Burlingame is proud of being a designated a “Tree City,” due to its canopies of diverse, mature, and expansive trees along public streets, private property, and parks and natural areas.” Figure 2: consider labeling Y-axis and plotting the 2020 and 2030 targets on the graph ES8 - “Procures all electricity from 100% renewable energy sources by 2030” PCE has a goal of 100% by 2025. Unless Burlingame is going to opt-out of PCE, consider changing this date to 2025. ES8 - “Makes significant cuts in transportation related emissions” Consider quantifying and setting a target. Page 5, 4th paragraph, consider including descriptions of the three policies that were introduced into the General Plan as mitigation measures to help reduce GHGs Page 10-12 – “state climate actions.” SB 32 (40% below 1990 levels by 2030) is missing as Executive Order B-55- 18 (carbon neutrality no later than 2045) Page 11 – SB 100 “and requires 100% of all electricity supplied come from renewable sources by 2045.” This should read "...supplied from carbon-free sources...” Page 13, paragraph about Year 2005 inventory – a bit confusing to the reader if the data for 2005 are the original numbers from the 2009 CAP or are the updated numbers generated for this CAP (text implies it’s the latter, but might want to clarify to avoid confusion) Page 14, graph: consider adding the 2015 total GHG emissions, and amounts for each sector Page 15: Footnote 20. This guidance is dated and should not be used/referenced. Page 16, 3rd full paragraph. Text about future emissions seems out of place in a discussion of the 2005 and 2015 inventories (“Emissions from electricity are anticipated to zero out in the future…”) Page 16 - “Emissions from natural gas will be tougher to reduce since the cost of natural gas remains relatively low and electrifying natural gas appliances and processes can be expensive and infeasible.” This statement makes the case for the status quo, rather than provide a vision to reduce GHGs. Consider striking this statement and reframing to offer a vision of reducing GHGs through less dependence on natural gas via building electrification. Comment Letter "G" G-3 con't. G-4 G-5 G-6 G-7 G-8 G-9 G-10 G-11 G-12 G-13 G-14 G-15 G-16 G-17 G-18 Page 17, 3rd paragraph on transportation: language about what City could do seems out-of-place in inventory section (“Local governments may limit the use of…”) Page 25, Table 9. Add units to this table Page 28 – what about alignment with State objective of carbon neutrality no later than 2045 (Executive Order B-55- 18)? Page 29, graph: It is unclear what the orange area represents since it is not defined in the legend. Should this cut off at 2015 since it seems this is meant to represent the historical emissions? Chapter 4 – overarching comment: without Appendices, cannot comment/review calculations of emission reductions. For example: 3. Complete Streets: How does the City justify the emission reductions associated with this measure? Not sure it is reasonable to expect similar reduction amounts from street infrastructure improvements (which are also costly) as from 2. TDM requirements outlined. 10. Construction Best Management Practices. What is the breakdown between equipment less than 120 hp (covered by the ordinance) and that above 120 hp to be able to expect the emission reductions indicated? 18. Waste. Unclear how incremental increases in waste diversion of 5% every ten years would lead to indicated emission reductions. Compared to ABAU solid emissions where 75% diversion required (Table 9): 39% by 2030 (2760/7106), 59% by 2040 (4483/7640), 79% by in 2050 (6435/8181) Chapter 4 – overarching comment: To increase the likelihood that measures achieve the emission reductions indicated, measures should require, over just encouraging, actions 12. Energy Efficiency. Many of the actions focus on encouraging, informing, etc. While the description for the measure indicates major remodels would be required to meet Title 24 standards, it is not clear how that would be achieved (e.g., ordinance?). 13. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100. The actions outlined in this measure do not require opting to ECO100, yet the reductions claimed by 2020 seem very unlikely unless this opt up is required (or incentivized). Page 47 - “By 2030, the entire portfolio will be 100% GHG free...” yet in the previous sentence you state the goal is 100% by 2021. Page 49 – Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters – this section highlights solar water heaters, which is great. However, it also advocates for tankless natural gas water heaters. Consider deleting the natural gas tankless water heaters, and instead emphasizing the need to electrify water heaters to heat pump water heaters. In addition, consider bolstering the “Actions” section to include working with PCE to establish rebate programs for building electrification. Page 66 – Table 36. Measures are classified as mandatory while the actions called for are focused on coordinating, supporting, encouraging (e.g., 13, 14). -----Original Appointment----- From: MGR-Andrea Pappajohn <apappajohn@burlingame.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 5:37 PM To: Jakub Zielkiewicz Subject: Accepted: Call re: Burlingame Climate Action Plan When: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: CR-7103 San Andreas and 1.888.204.5987x9915679# Comment Letter "G" G-19 G-20 G-21 G-22 G-23 G-24 G-25 G-26 G-27 Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 38 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 39 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Response to Comments from Jakub Zielkiewicz, BAAQMD Note: The BAAQMD provided informal comments on the Draft CAP Update. Although these comments are informal, the City has included its correspondence with the BAAQMD in this document for information disclosure purposes. The City also discussed the BAAQMD’s informal comments in a phone call with BAAQMD staff Jakub Zielkiewicz and Abby Young on July 3, 2019. Comment G-1: The BAAQMD recommends adding additional information to the 2030 CAP Update Executive Summary. Response to Comment G-1: Comment noted. The 2030 CAP Update Executive Summary was not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it was meant to provide a high level summary of the City’s CAP Update. Nonetheless, the City has revised the Executive Summary to provide additional information on the 2030 CAP Update GHG emissions targets, actionable items, and timelines for implementing GHG Emission Reduction Measures. Specific information on time-bound targets and actionable items is also contained in Chapters 4 and 6 of the 2030 CAP Update. Comment G-2: The BAAQMD identifies a typographical error on page ES-1 of the Draft 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment G-1: Comment noted. This typographical error has been corrected (see Attachment 2). Comment G-3: The BAAQMD recommends the City consider policies to change people’s behavior when it comes to driving. Response to Comment G-3: Comment noted. The 2030 CAP Update includes several measures that are intended to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled, including GHG Emission Reduction Measure 1 (Mixed-Use Development, Transit-Oriented Development, and Transit Supporting Land Use), GHG Emission Reduction Measure 2 (Transportation Demand Management), GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 (Complete Streets), GHG Emission Reduction Measure 5 (Electric Vehicle, Bicycle, and Scooter Sharing), GHG Emission Reduction Measure 7 (Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches), and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 8 (Burlingame Shuttle Service). Together, these measures are estimated to reduce VMT by approximately 21% in 2030, or nearly 60 million VMT. Comment G-4: The BAAQMD provides a clarification regarding the requirements of Executive Order (EO) B-55-018. Response to Comment G-3: Comment noted. The City has clarified the requirements of EO B-55-018 (see Attachment 2). Comment G-5: The BAAQMD recommends the City consider adopting strong policies for energy efficiency and retrofitting natural gas appliances. Response to Comment G-5: The 2030 CAP Update includes multiple strategies related to energy efficiency and retrofitting natural gas appliances. GHG Emission Reduction Measure 11 (Green Building Practices and Standards) and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 12 (Energy Efficiency) encourage development projects to incorporate the voluntary provisions of the Title 24 building standards. The City is currently exploring the development of a reach code that may require the incorporation of voluntary energy efficiency standards and/or multiple or all electric energy pathways. Should the 2030 CAP Update’s voluntary measures become mandatory as a result of future State or City actions, additional GHG emission reductions would be realized within the City. In Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 40 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 addition, GHG Emission Reduction Measure 15 encourages the transition from tank- based natural gas water heaters to solar or electric-powered water heaters in residential development, and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 19, Municipal Green Building Measures, requires the City to aim for zero net energy in all new municipal construction and major renovations of City facilities. Comment G-6: The BAAQMD recommends the City consider a time frame to achieve zero waste and pass a plastic bag ban. Response to Comment G-6: GHG Emission Reduction Measure 18, Zero Waste, establishes increasing waste diversion goals within the City, reaching 85% waste diversion by 2030 and 95% waste diversion by 2050. The City has revised this measure to include the development and preparation of a Community Zero Waste Plan by 2025 that achieves 90% waste reduction by 2030 and 100% waste reduction by 2050 (see Attachment 2). The City is not considering a plastic bag ban at this time. Comment G-7: The BAAQMD requests information on the amount of trees that will be planted annually under the 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment G-7: GHG Emission Reduction Measure 20, Increase the Public Tree Population, requires the City to plant a minimum of 33 trees annually through 2050. Comment G-8: The BAAQMD identifies a typographical error on page ES-6 of the Draft 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment G-8: Comment noted. This typographical error has been corrected (see Attachment 2). Comment G-9: The BAAQMD recommends changes to Figure 2 in the 2030 Draft CAP Update. Response to Comment G-9: Comment noted. The City has revised Figure 2 to address the BAAQMD’s comment (see Attachment 2). Comment G-10: The BAAQMD recommends clarifying the dates identified in the 2030 CAP Update for procuring all electricity from renewable energy sources. Response to Comment G-10: Comment noted. The City has clarified text referring to the date by when electricity would be procured from renewable energy sources (see Attachment 2). As explained in GHG Emission Reduction Measure 13, Peninsula Clean Energy has a strategic goal of sourcing 100% GHG emission-free electricity by 2021 and 100% California Renewable Portfolio Standard-eligible electricity by 2025. Since the 2030 CAP Update estimates emissions for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050, the GHG emission benefits resulting from Peninsula Clean Energy are only included in the estimates for years 2030, 2040, and 2050. Comment G-11: The BAAQMD recommends the 2030 CAP Update quantify and set a target for reducing transported related emission. Response to Comment G-11: Comment noted. The 2030 CAP Update does quantify and set targets for reducing transportation-related GHG emissions. Please see Response to Comment G-3. Comment G-12: The BAAQMD recommends the 2030 CAP Update include descriptions of the General Plan policies / GHG Emission Reduction Measures included in the 2040 General Plan EIR as mitigation measures. Response to Comment G-12: Comment noted. The City has revised the 2030 CAP Update to include brief descriptions of the policies/GHG Emission Reduction Measures Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 41 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 added as mitigation measures during the General Plan EIR process. These three policies were: M-3.10: Bicycle Sharing, M-4.7: Shuttle Service, and IF-6.9: ECO100 (see Attachment 2). Comment G-13: The BAAQMD provides additional, relevant contextual information on State climate actions. Response to Comment G-13: Comment noted. The City included this additional contextual information in the 2030 CAP Update (see Attachment 2). Comment G-14: The BAAQMD suggests the text on page 13 of the Draft 2030 CAP be clarified to indicate if the 2005 emissions data presented in the document has been updated or is the original data from the City’s 2009 CAP. Response to Comment G-14: The 2005 emissions data presented in the 2030 CAP Update is updated emissions data based on the key updates to the 2009 methodology described in Chapter 1 of the document. The City has clarified the 2030 CAP Update to indicate this (see Attachment 2). Comment G-15: The BAAQMD recommends adding an additional graphic showing 2005 emissions by sector Response to Comment G-15: Comment noted. Since the 2030 CAP Update forecasts emissions based on growth from the 2015 inventory year, a graphic showing 2005 emissions by sector has not been added to the 2030 CAP Update. Comment G-16: The BAAQMD identifies obsolete information contained in the 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment G-16: Comment noted. The City has deleted the information in question from the 2030 CAP Update. Comment G-17: The BAAQMD comments some of the information on 16 of the 2030 CAP Update appears out of place. Response to Comment G-17: Comment noted. The City has revised the 2030 CAP Update to reflect this comment. Comment G-18: The BAAQMD comments the discussion on page 16 of the 2030 CAP Update should be revised. Response to Comment G-18: Comment noted. The City has revised the 2030 CAP Update to reflect this comment. Comment G-19: The BAAQMD comments some of the information on 17 of the 2030 CAP Update appears out of place. Response to Comment G-19: Comment noted. The City has revised the 2030 CAP Update to reflect this comment Comment G-20: The BAAQMD recommends units be added to Table 9 of the 2030 CAP Update. Response to Comment G-20: Comment noted. The City has units (metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, or MTCO2e) to this table. Comment G-21: The BAAQMD inquires whether the City considered a goal or target that aligns with the State’s objective to be carbon neutral by 2045 pursuant to EO B-55-18. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 42 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Response to Comment G-21: As explained on page 28, the 2030 CAP update primarily focuses on reducing GHG emissions by 2020 and 2030. The 2030 CAP Update does not include a goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 because the State has not yet set for the measures or plan for achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. At the City level, based on the baseline and forecasted GHG emissions included in the 2030 CAP Update, achieving carbon neutrality would require substantial, economy-wide, technological advancements that would drastically reduce transportation and natural gas emissions. Such measures would be infeasible at the local level, and very likely be incompatible with federal preemptions pertaining energy standards and interstate commerce. For these reasons, the 2030 CAP Update does not include goal or target for carbon neutrality. The 2030 CAP Update, however, does include multiple strategies related to energy efficiency and retrofitting natural gas appliances. Please see Response to Comment G-5. The City also notes the carbon neutrality goal established by EO B-55-18 explicitly states the goal is in addition to existing State GHG emission reduction goals, including the goals set by EO S-3-05 (to reduce GHG emission 80% below 2050 levels). In addition, as explained in Chapter 6 of the document, the City will update the CAP every five years to ensure the City is on the right track towards addressing climate change and to reflect new technologies, data, and trends in reducing GHG emissions, including technologies and trends pertaining to carbon neutrality. Comment G-22: The BAAQMD requests clarification on what the orange shading in Figure 6 represents. Response to Comment G-22: The orange shading in Figure 6 does not represent anything specific. It merely was presented as a background color to show the City’s 2030 CAP Update annual GHG emission reduction targets. Comment G-23: The BAAQMD requests additional information on some of the GHG emissions reductions. Response to Comment G-232: In regards to the BAAQMD’s request for additional information: • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 (Complete Streets): Estimates of GHG emissions reductions associated with GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 are based on the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association document Quantifying GHG Mitigation Measures. The estimate of reductions is based on the existing intersection density in the City (106 intersections per square mile), which is high, and the percentage of intersections and streets assumed to improved (10 of intersections and 25% of street miles by 2030). Given the City’s intersection density, the 2030 CAP Update generally assumes the mid-range of reported effectiveness of complete streets traffic calming and infrastructure improvements. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 10 (Construction Best Management Practices): This measure is estimated to apply to approximately 33.5% of the construction equipment included in the off road equipment inventory used to estimate off road emissions in the 2030 CAP Update. • GHG Emission Reduction Measure 18: The 5% increase in solid waste diversion constitutes nearly 20% of the remaining waste to be diverted from the City (since the baseline emissions assume a 75% waste diversion). Thus, the 5% increase in waste diversion results in an approximately 20% reduction in solid waste Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 43 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 emissions (since it is 1/5th of the amount of waste to be diverted to achieve 100% waste diversion). Comment G-24: The BAAQMD recommends that GHG Emission Reduction Measures related to energy efficiency should be mandatory, and not voluntary in nature. Response to Comment: Comment noted. Please see Response to Comments G-5, G- 10, and G-21. Comment G-25: The BAAQMD identifies inconsistent text regarding Peninsula Clean Energy’s renewable portfolio and GHG emissions profile. Response to Comment G-25: Comment noted. The City has clarified text regarding Peninsula Clean Energy’s renewable portfolio and GHG emissions profile (see Attachment 2). As explained in GHG Emission Reduction Measure 13, Peninsula Clean Energy has a strategic goal of sourcing 100% GHG emission-free electricity by 2021 and 100% California Renewable Portfolio Standard-eligible electricity by 2025. Comment G-26: The BAAQMD recommends GHG Emission Reduction Measure 15 be revised to exclude encouraging the installation of tankless natural gas water heaters, and to include an action to work with Peninsula Clean Energy to establish rebate programs for building electrification. Response to Comment G-26: The City has revised GHG Emission Reduction Measure 15 to reflect the BAAQMD’s comments. Comment G-27: The BAAQMD identifies inconsistent text in Table 36 of the Draft CAP Update. Response to Comment G-26: The City has corrected inconsistencies regarding the mandatory/voluntary nature of GHG Emission Reduction Measures as identified in Table 36 (see Attachment 2). Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 44 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. From:Jakub Zielkiewicz To:MGR-Andrea Pappajohn;MGR-Sigalle Michael;Chris Dugan;Phillip Gleason Cc:Abby Young;Axum Teferra;Geraldina Grunbaum Subject:Burlingame CAP call follow-up Date:Wednesday, July 3, 2019 12:54:54 PM All, Thanks for the call earlier today. I forgot to mention one additional item on the call that's not covered in the comments in the email chain below... On page 15, there's discussion about large industrial sources. Specifically: "Large industrial sources are regulated by CARB and are part of California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. Since the City does not have control over the emissions from large industrial sources, these emissions are presented for informational purposes only." I'd encourage you to reframe these statements on industrial sources to show that the city has a willingness to work with industry to reduce emissions. This could be framed as no net GHG increase for future new industrial facilities that require local/regional permitting; working with State (CARB) and regional agencies (BAAQMD/PCE) to reduce existing industrial GHG emissions through Cap-and-Trade, innovative financing/funding mechanisms (i.e., Climate Tech Finance:http://www.baaqmd.gov/funding-and-incentives/businesses-and-fleets/climate-tech-finance), potential local incentives from Burlingame/PCE, etc. Thanks again, Jakub -----Original Message----- From: Jakub Zielkiewicz Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 1:54 PM To: MGR-Andrea Pappajohn <apappajohn@burlingame.org> Subject: RE: Call re: Burlingame Climate Action Plan Hi Andrea, Just making sure the timing still works for you and MIG (i.e., Wed from 11-12). We've reviewed the CAP and have some informal comments, which I include below. I want to emphasize that these are staff informal comments that have not been routed for appropriate approval, and so they are not official BAAQMD comments. In a non-CAP related question, have you seen any information on the potential carbon that's stored in Burlingame's wetlands or other natural lands? I'm trying to get an understanding if any carbon sequestration studies/assessments have been undertaken locally or regionally. Thanks, Jakub Informal CAP comments Executive Summary – in general, the sector summaries provide good insights into the city’s actions. However, the summary lacks specificity in terms of substance and timeframe. Consider including specific time-bound targets and Comment Letter "H" H-1 Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 46 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 47 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Response to Comments from Jakub Zielkiewicz, BAAQMD Comment H-1: The BAAQMD recommends the City consider working with large industrial sources to reduce GHG emissions that are not part of the City’s GHG emissions inventory. Response to Comment H-1: The City has revised the 2030 CAP Update to indicate it is willing to work with large industrial sources to reduce emissions when such opportunities become available (see Attachment 2). Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 48 MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 2: Revised Public Draft 2030 CAP Update MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 Attachment 2 Revised Public Draft 2030 Climate Action Plan Update with Text Changes in Strikethrough and Underline Attachment 2: Revised Public Draft 2030 CAP Update MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF BURLINGAME 2030 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE Revised Public Draft With text changes in strikethrough and underline August 8, 2019 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Page i City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 City of Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan Update Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of the purpose, development, objectives, and methodology for the 2030 CAP Update. 2 Climate Change Context ............................................................................................... 11 Background information on climate change science, state initiatives that reduce GHG emissions, and important changes to the 2009 CAP methodology. 3 GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Annual Targets ............................................... 17 The City's GHG emission baseline inventory, forecast of GHG emissions, and GHG emission reduction targets. 4 Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy ........................................................... 41 Review of the GHG emission reduction measures and for reducing GHG emissions within the city. 5 Preparing for Climate Change ....................................................................................... 71 The City’s vulnerability to climate change risks and the approach to adapting to these risks. 6 Implementation and Monitoring .................................................................................. 77 Plan for implementing the 2030 CAP Update’s GHG emission reduction strategy and monitoring progress. Appendix A, spreadsheets detailing the methodologies and calculations used to estimate the 2005 and 2015 community-wide and municipal GHG emission inventories. Appendix B, data sources and projection calculations for the community-wide GHG emissions forecast. Appendix C, calculations for estimating GHG emission reduction from GHG emission reduction measure implementation. Table of Contents Page ii City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Executive Summary Page ES-1 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Executive Summary Welcome Welcome to the City of Burlingame’s (City) 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update – a blueprint for our community’s response to the challenges posed by climate change. Scientists, including the United Nations’ scientific Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, paint a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought 1. Absent aggressive action, many effects once expected decades into the future are likely to arrive by 2040. The U.N.’s latest climate assessment report clearly shows that global warming and other shifts in the climate system observed over the past century are unequivocal, occurring at an unprecedented rate, and are extremely likely to be caused by human activities 2. According to new research, unabated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could cause sea levels to rise byto ten feet by the end of this century - an outcome that could devastate coastal communities in California and around the world 3. California is already feeling the effects of climate change, and projections show that these effects will continue and worsen over time. The impacts of climate change have been documented in California including details of changing temperatures, increasing wildfires and heat waves, decreasing snowpack, and changes in species sightings and food production. Locally, we can expect future climate impacts in Burlingame to include more storm and flood events near shorelines and streams, extreme hot days, and severe local air quality impacts 1 IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp. <https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf> 2 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/> 3 Gary Griggs, et al. Rising Seas in California An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science. California Ocean Protection Council. <http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise- science.pdf> Executive Summary Page ES-2 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 caused by regional wildfires. In addition, the anticipated future decrease of snowpack in the Sierras and longer drought conditions will impact the City’s fresh water supply. Burlingame is committed to addressing the climate crisis locally. The City, in coordination with County and State governments, is taking steps to reduce GHG emissions and create new programs and services that will support the community and businesses in doing the same. The 2030 CAP Update presents the City’s climate strategy and best estimates of emissions in the community, based on the most current data and methodologies available. Burlingame will update the CAP every five years to ensure the City is on the right track towards addressing climate change and to reflect new technologies, data, and trends in reducing GHG emissions. Achievements to Date As a community committed to protecting the environment, Burlingame prepared its first CAP in 2009 to address GHG emissions in the city. Over the last decade, Burlingame has implemented multiple programs and efforts that significantly reduced GHG emissions from City operations and the community and brought other benefits to Burlingame. The City has tracked its GHG emissions and monitored progress toward reducing GHG emissions and is on target to achieve the 2020 GHG reduction goal set by our original 2009 CAP. The substantial achievements realized by the City, its residents, and its businesses are shown on below in Figure 1. These achievements lay a strong foundation for the City’s 2030 CAP Update and the City’s GHG reduction goals. Executive Summary Page ES-3 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 FIGURE 1: BURLINGAME CLIMATE ACTION ACHIEVEMENTS Executive Summary Page ES-4 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Our Updated Goals Since 2006, when California adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, the State has acted as a leader in addressing climate change and has encouraged local cities to follow suit. AB 32 set a first-time GHG emissions target for the State to achieve 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2020. Subsequently, in 2016, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which set into law an additional mandated reduction target for GHG emissions of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Both of these mandates support the State’s long-range goal to reduce GHG emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, which was established by Executive Order S-3-05. These targets are in-line with the scientifically established levels needed to limit global warming below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) in this century, the warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super droughts and rising sea level.4 California’s mandates aim to push the State to respond to climate change more quickly and effectively. The City plays a vital role in implementing on-the-ground solutions needed to support the State’s actions, and has updated and aligned its annual GHG emission reduction goals targets to be consistent with State GHG reduction goals. The 2030 CAP Update specifically focuses on aligning the city’s annual GHG emissions with statewide goals for 2020 and 2030, consistent with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommendations. Annual GHG emissions are also estimated for 2040 and 2050; however, it is speculative to demonstrate achievement with longer-term goals for 2040 and 2050 based on the information known today. The City’s CAP will undergo updates every five years, and more aggressive goals for 2030, 2040, and 2050 may be established during the update process. Alternatively, goals may be adjusted in future iterations of the CAP based on the City’s progress toward reducing GHG emissions and/or newly established annual GHG emissions reduction targets set forth by the State. 4 “Governor Brown Establishes Most Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target in North America”. Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. April 29, 2015. <https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2015/04/29/news18938/index.html> Executive Summary Page ES-5 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Vision for the Future (Bullets for new call-out) • GHG Emissions – Emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons. • Annual GHG Emission Inventory – The total amount of GHG emitted, in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e), over the course of one calendar year. • Annual GHG Emission Target – The mass GHG emission target (MTCO2e) for Burlingame over the course of one calendar year; predominantly used for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. • GHG Emission Reduction Measures – An action, plan, or program identified herein the CAP that when executed by the City will reduce GHG emissions; predominantly quantified on an annual GHG emission basis for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. Achieving our 2030 GHG emission goaltarget calls for large reductions in GHG emissions across all sectors and a mix of many solutions working together. Transformations will occur over the next decades as we decrease our carbon intensity in transportation, energy, waste, and water. California’s Legislature and policies intend to shift the State toward cleaner transportation, efficient buildings, renewable energy, less waste and pollution, and healthier communities. This CAP, and its future updates, is tasked with keeping Burlingame at pace and consistent with the State’s climate actions. Clean Transportation. Cleaner transportation generally means reducing the amount of single occupancy driving, supporting alternative fuels, and implementing stricter fuel efficiency standards. While Burlingame cannot control fuel efficiency standards, it can influence individual and local patterns and modes of driving and support the use of alternative fuels and travel modes. The City, through this CAP and its new Envision Burlingame General Plan, is working on building more housing and jobs near transit, promoting the use of electric vehicles, supporting electrifying Caltrain, and making it easier for people to get around by walking and cycling. Still, changing people’s behavior to drive less is one of Burlingame’s trickiest challenges in reducing GHG emissions. As discussed in detail in this document, the City will implement GHG emission reduction measures to help curb the amount of vehicle miles traveled within the city, as well as provide Executive Summary Page ES-6 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 incentives that encourage residents and employees within the city to utilize non-petroleum powered vehicles (e.g., electric vehicles). These strategies include, but are not limited to: transportation demand management (TDM) programs, improvement of non-vehicular infrastructure (i.e., pedestrian and bicycle pathways), additional electric vehicle infrastructure (e.g., charging stations), and managing parking supply. By 2020, the City will adopt a TDM policy that requires new development demonstrate a 20% reduction in trip generation, compared to standard rates. Efficient Buildings. In the building and energy sectors, California’s Legislature is pushing the envelope with comprehensive and ambitious goals. Most recently, the State approved a shift to 100% renewable carbon-free electricity energy by 2045 and a mandate requiring certain new residential construction to install solar energy starting in 2020. Burlingame made its own significant contribution to clean energy when it joined Peninsula Clean Energy in 2016. Peninsula Clean Energy is San Mateo County’s new electricity utility charged with purchasing and providing electricity with higher renewable energy content than Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). In 2017, the City enrolled all its municipal accounts in ECO100, Peninsula Clean Energy’s 100% renewable energy program, and encourages residents and businesses to do the same. By 2021, Peninsula Clean Energy intends to source all its electricity from 100% GHG emission-free sources, thereby, zeroing out GHG emissions from electricity in Burlingame’s emission inventory5. This action undertaken by Peninsula Clean Energy, which is supported by the City, will reduce GHG emissions in Burlingame by more than 24,000 MTCO2e in 2030. The larger challenge, and opportunity, for GHG emissions reductions in buildings is natural gas usage in heating and eatingcooking. Currently, Burlingame intends to reduce natural gas usage with voluntary energy efficient measures that promote retrofitting natural gas appliances for water heating; however, the City recognizes that stronger policies will be necessary in the future. For example, some cities are exploring fuel switching policies to electrify natural gas uses in new and existing homes and the purchase of renewable energy credits to offset natural 5 PCE, 2017. 2018 Integrated Resource Plan. Peninsula Clean Energy. Approved by Board December 14, 2017. <https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PCE-FINAL-2017-IRP-Updated.pdf> Executive Summary Page ES-7 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 gas emissions. Though not quantified for GHG emission reductions in this CAP, the City is currently exploring ways to eliminate natural gas consumption in almost all new development; an action that would be similar to, but not exactly like, an ordinance recently adopted by the City of Berkeley. The implementation of an action such as this in Burlingame would further reduce the GHG emission reductions this CAP, which are on par to meet and exceed the City’s annual GHG emission targets for 2020 and 2030. Zero Waste. Reducing the amount of waste discarded in landfills presents an important strategy for GHG emission reductions and overall sustainability. Emissions from landfills represent a relatively small portion of the City’s GHG emission inventory, but the benefits of diverting waste spread far and wide. Waste reduction benefits water and air quality, resource conservation, wildlife habitats, and the principles of a circular economy. The circular economy rethinks how waste is used; rather than being disposed, waste should generate new products of equal or higher quality (not lower). The circular economy requires higher demands on product design, material use, and behavior change. Composting, which takes waste and turns it into usable, rich soil, is a strong element of the circular economy. With the help of State recycling laws, Burlingame seeks to improve its diversion rate with increased recycling and composting by residents and businesses. The City is examining its own waste practices by striving for zero waste in municipal buildings and public events. Burlingame also anticipates participating in future waste movements, similar to the plastic bag ban movement, to reduce plastic pollution and promote source reduction. To support the goal of transitioning to zero waste, the City will develop a Community Zero Waste Plan by 2025 that guides the community in diverting its waste from landfill disposal, highlights a strategy for managing resources to their highest and best use, and identifies ways to reduce waste at the source. Water Conservation. GHG emissions associated with the pumping, delivery, and treatment of water make up a small sliver of the City’s community-wide GHG emissions. Yet, with respect to California’s drought history, water conservation is vital to the State’s sustainability and will continue to remain a key priority in Burlingame. The City will continue to pursue innovative Executive Summary Page ES-8 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 monetary and nonmonetary incentives to motivate businesses and residents to conserve water in landscaping and indoor use. Actions that will be undertaken by the City, as identified in this CAP, include incentives for retrofitting existing business with newer, more water-efficient plumbing, and requiring high-efficiency indoor water fixtures in new development (e.g., energy star washing machines and dish washers). Urban Forestry. Burlingame is proud of being a designated a “Tree City,” due to its canopies of diverse, mature, and expansive trees along public streets, private property, and parks and natural areas. The trees contribute to Burlingame’s walkable nature and community character. Trees are also very good at sequestering carbon and are being utilized more and more as a climate action measure to address the effects of climate change. Burlingame will plant a net positive of 33, new trees annually to maintain its existing urban forests and benefit from the sequestration of carbon. Municipal Operations. Municipal operations, from vehicle fleets to parks and buildings, generate just one percent of Burlingame’s GHG emissions; however, they have the power to serve as a role model forto the community and demonstrate Burlingame’s leadership in climate action. Burlingame intends towill lower its operational GHG emissions in its operations by investing in electric fleet vehicles, striving for zero net energy in its future building construction, retrofitting existing buildings to be more efficient, and implementing various water conservation measures across buildings and parks. 2030 CAP Update at a Glance This 2030 CAP Update outlines Burlingame’s strategy for reducing its GHG emissions. The CAP specifically charts the City’s course to achieving its 2020 and 2030 GHG emission reduction targets, and demonstrates continuedual, substantial progress towards achieving an aggressive 2040 and 2050 GHG emission targets reduction goal. The chapters ahead detail and describe the 2030 CAP Update’s background, development process, goalsannual GHG emission targets, action strategyGHG emission reduction measures, and implementation plan. The 2030 CAP Update will significantly reduce GHG emissions into Executive Summary Page ES-9 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 the decades to come. Together with the City’s General Plan, the 2030 CAP Update will advance and guide the City’s sustainability effort. FIGURE 2: BUSINESS AS USUAL VS CLIMATE ACTION 2030 Executive Summary Page ES-10 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 FIGURE 3: 2030 CAP AT A QUICK GLANCE Executive Summary Page ES-11 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Executive Summary Page ES-12 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 1 Introduction The City of Burlingame’s 2030 CAP Update represents a significant step in the City’s ongoing efforts to quantify, monitor, and reduce GHG emissions within the city that contribute to global climate change. The 2030 CAP Update builds on and replaces the City’s previous CAP, which was prepared in 2009. It includes updated GHG emissions information and annual reduction targets. It also contains the City’s new GHG reduction strategyemission reduction measures, addresses the community’s potential vulnerability to climate change impacts, and provides clear implementation and monitoring programs to direct climate action in Burlingame. CAP Development Process A CAP is a comprehensive roadmap that outlines the activities an agency will take to reduce GHG emissions and address climate change. Although climate change is global in nature, the effects of climate change occur at the local level and will influence local decisions. Since 2006, California has led the way in addressing climate change by preparing plans and adopting regulations to reduce GHG emissions. While the State has provided strong leadership, the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan acknowledges that local government efforts are critical to achieving the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) General Plan Guidelines include guidance for preparing CAP documents.6,7 In general, State guidance recommends CAP documents include: 1) a GHG emission inventory; 2) annual GHG emission reduction targets; 3) forecasted GHG emissions for activities covered by the CAP document; 4) GHG emission reduction measures; 5) mechanisms for implementing and monitoring the CAP; and 6) a process for adopting the CAP in a public process following 6 CARB, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. California Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA. November 2017. <https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf> 7 Sahar Shirazi et al., 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Sacramento, CA. July 31, 2017. <http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf> Introduction Page 2 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 environmental review. The City has prepared the 2030 CAP Update to be consistent with current guidance and recommendations for CAP document preparation. The 2030 CAP Update builds on the work performed to prepare the City’s 2009 CAP and Envision Burlingame General Plan. Burlingame 2009 CAP As a community committed to protecting the environment, Burlingame prepared its first CAP in 2009 to address GHG emissions in the city.8 The City’s 2009 CAP: ● Quantified community-wide and municipal GHG emissions within the city for 2005 ● Established 2005 as the City’s baseline GHG emission inventory year ● Set a goal to reduce GHG emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 ● Identified 15 GHG emission reduction measures to reach the annual CAP GHG emissions reduction goaltarget for 2020 Over the last ten years, City staff have worked on implementing and monitoring the 2009 CAP. Table 1, on the next page, details actions taken on the 2009 CAP measuresGHG emission. The City’s 2009 CAP, along with aggressive State actions and key regional GHG efforts, have led to significant community-wide GHG reductions in Burlingame. While the City has not quantified the individual, actual reductions realized by each 2009 CAP measure, the City’s most recent GHG emission inventory indicates that GHG emissions are decreasing within Burlingame. This 2030 CAP Update fully replaces the 2009 CAP and is tasked with continuing the City’s downhill GHG emissions trajectory for years to come. 8 Burlingame, 2009. Climate Action Plan. Burlingame, CA. June 2009. <https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Sustainability/2009%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf> Introduction Page 3 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 1: Summary of 2009 CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation Status 1. Adopt a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Implemented. Burlingame is in compliance with AB 1881 and is up to date in adopting a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 2. Adopt a Residential Energy Conservation Policy (voluntary) to offer energy audits to residents at a reduced cost. Partially Implemented. Burlingame did not adopt a policy but offered and outreached other energy audit programs run by San Mateo County for free and subsidized energy audits and co-hosted energy workshops with the County. The City also adopted five PACE (property assessed clean energy) programs, which provide incentives to residents and businesses for energy efficient retrofits. 3. Research and consider a Solar and Energy Efficiency Financing Program for residents and small businesses. Implemented. See CAP Measure #2. 4. Adopt a Residential Green Building Ordinance for new construction and major remodel projects and require a minimum number of GreenPoints using the Build It Green Regional Program. Implemented. Burlingame adopted a Green Building Policy in December 2008 using Build It Green and LEED criteria in 2009; however, in 2011 the policy was superseded by CALGreen - the State’s ambitious green building policy. 5. Adopt a Commercial Green Building Ordinance to require new commercial (greater than 10,000 sq. ft.) construction and major remodels to meet a minimum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standard. Implemented. See CAP Measure #4. 6. Develop a Commercial Energy Efficiency Policy to provide energy- efficiency technical assistance to the commercial sector and provide an incentive and Recognition Program. Encourage commercial businesses applying for new or renewal of Partially Implemented. Burlingame did not adopt a policy; however, the City offered free audits to businesses through PG&E and the County of San Mateo. The City targeted outreach to business sectors including hotels and auto dealerships for audits; created a green business recognition program; and encouraged businesses to join San Introduction Page 4 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 1: Summary of 2009 CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation Status business licenses to complete a free PG&E energy-efficiency audit. Expand Burlingame’s participation in the Bay Area Green Business Program and provide incentives for businesses to achieve Green Business certification. Mateo County’s Green Business Program. Several new businesses have joined annually since the program’s revival - including Burlingame’s Corp Yard building and Main Library. 7. Establish a policy that requires new large commercial properties (larger than 10,000 sq. ft.) to develop Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that encourage the use of shuttles, carpools, bicycles, and public transportation. Provide TDM guidelines in the permit packet for all commercial developments. Not implemented. The City did not adopt a TDM policy; however, most of the large new developments in the City have included TDM measures as mitigation in the environmental review process. A TDM policy is included in the City’s Envision Burlingame General Plan and as a measure in this 2030 CAP Update. 8. Adopt a policy to provide prioritized parking for hybrid or alternative fuel cars on city streets, in garages, and in lots. Expand the policy as technology advances to increase accommodation of hybrids and/or alternative-fuel vehicles. Not implemented. The City did not implement this measure mostly due to existing parking pressure in downtown areas. Also, hybrid purchases have grown significantly in the region, and electric vehicles are increasing in popularity as well. 9. Incorporate bicycle friendly intersections in street design and modifications. Ensure new developments provide safe and convenient travel by walking, bicycling, or public transportation. Implemented. The City is continually working to improve its bicycle network. The City has applied for and received grants from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for bicycle network improvements, new bike parking, and new bike lanes. 10. Research methods to increase ridership and expand shuttle service and partner with local groups to increase public transportation alternatives. Implemented. The City is currently exploring the possibility of a new west side shuttle route to service residents on the hillsides of Burlingame. To increase ridership, the City posted new signs with schedules at stops; created a website with detailed and user-friendly route schedules; and continually outreaches to increase shuttle Introduction Page 5 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 1: Summary of 2009 CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation Status ridership. 11. Provide new residential and commercial recycling service that includes single stream recycling collection for residential and commercial and organics/food collection. Implemented. Under the City’s contract with Recology - the City’s waste hauler - Recology collects single stream recycling and organics from residents. In order to meet State requirements, Recology will be phasing in its recycling and organics program to commercial businesses as well. 12. Adopt a Commercial Recycling Ordinance that requires businesses to divert recyclable organics, containers, cardboard, and paper. Implemented. The City is in compliance with State recycling regulations for the phasing in of all businesses to recycle and compost (currently applicable to businesses that generate more than four cubic yards of solid waste a week). 13. Encourage the development of a community group “Burlingame Green,” to promote and educate the community about climate action programs. Implemented. The City works closely with the Citizens Environmental Council - a voluntary community group that emerged from the City’s Green Ribbon Task Force that spearheaded the 2009 CAP. 14. Dedicate a part-time Sustainability Coordinator to implement and coordinate climate action programs. Implemented. The City hired a part-time Sustainability Coordinator in December 2014. The coordinator has carried through numerous initiatives in the City from new electric vehicle charging stations and a bike sharing program to adoption of PACE programs and Peninsula Clean Energy. 15. Develop “City Green Team” composed of staff to promote and expand sustainable programs within the City and community. Implemented. The City’s Sustainability Coordinator organized a Green Purchasing group to help the City purchase environmentally preferred options. The Sustainability Coordinator meets frequently with staff from different departments to expand sustainable programs. Introduction Page 6 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 “Envision Burlingame” General Plan In 2015, the City began updating its General Plan for the first time in 40 years. The resulting effort, known as Envision Burlingame, established a long-range policy document to guide future development in the city. Through a robust community outreach process, the Envision Burlingame General Plan identified guiding principles and contains numerous goals, measures, and actions to achieve those principles. An underlying theme of the Envision Burlingame General Plan and its principles is sustainability through smart growth, resource conservation, green design, urban forest protection, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and transit oriented development (TOD). The General Plan contains numerous policies and measures that will reduce GHG emissions by conserving resources, promoting alternative transportation, and reducing waste. The Envision Burlingame General Plan was released for public review in August 2017. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Envision Burlingame General Plan, including potential impacts from GHG emissions, energy use, and other effects of global climate change, in June 2018 (State Clearinghouse No. 2017082018)9. The DEIR analysis indicated adoption of the General Plan and the implementation of the policies contained therein, as written at the time of the DEIR’s release, would not reduce the City’s GHG emissions to levels consistent with State GHG emission goals and would therefore have a significant impact on global climate change and GHG emissions. The DEIR acknowledged the 2030 CAP Update was underway, and introduced three, new policies in the General Plan as mitigation measures to help reduce GHG emissions. These three policies were: M-3.10: Bicycle Sharing, M-4.7: Shuttle Service, and IF-6.9: ECO100. The City adopted the Envision Burlingame General Plan and certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. 9 Burlingame, 2018. Envision Burlingame Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH#2017082018. June 28, 2018. <https://www.envisionburlingame.org/files/managed/Document/378/BurlingameGP_DEIR_FullDocument_06- 28-2018.pdf> Introduction Page 7 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 This 2030 CAP Update updates the methodology, data sources, and GHG emissions information presented in Chapter 10 of the City’s DEIR. 2030 CAP Update The 2030 CAP Update achieves several objectives for the City: 1) The 2030 CAP Update replaces the City’s 2009 CAP and provides a strategic plan for reducing GHG emissions in the near-term to achieve the established, annual reduction targets for 2020 and 2030. The document also identifies long-term GHG emission reduction strategies measures to keep the City’s GHG emissions on the necessary downward slope to reach 2040 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets. It provides the City’s most current information on its GHG emission baseline, future emission projections, strategy for reducing GHG emissions, and addressesing vulnerability to climate change, and how the City will implement, and regularly monitor, and evaluate the City’s progress towards achieving CAP goals. 2) The 2030 CAP Update fully integrates with and supports the growth, vision, and principles set forth in the Envision Burlingame General Plan. The Envision Burlingame General Plan identifies health and sustainability as topics deserving particular attention and references the preparation of the City’s 2030 CAP Update. The GHG emissions information contained in the 2030 CAP Update replaces the GHG emissions information presented in the City’s Envision Burlingame General Plan EIR. 3) The 2030 CAP Update analyzes and mitigates the City’s community-wide GHG emissions at a programmatic level. The City has structured the 2030 CAP Update to align with the GHG emission reduction mandates established by the State Legislature for 2020, 2030, and 2050 and has prepared the 2030 CAP Update to satisfy all of the requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15813.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Once adopted by the City following the necessary public review process, the 2030 CAP Update may streamline the future environmental review of development projects in the city. Introduction Page 8 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 The 2030 CAP Update employs the best currently available information, research, and methodologies for planning for and reducing GHG emissions. The 2030 CAP Update was developed using the land use and growth assumptions developed by the City’s Envision Burlingame General Plan. During the development of the General Plan EIR and the 2030 CAP Update, the City contacted the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for guidance regarding the methodology and data sources used to prepare the 2030 CAP Update. Key Updates to 2009 CAP Methodology The development of the 2030 CAP Update began with understanding the historical sources and amounts of GHG emissions generated by activities within the city. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and ICLEI Local Government Operations Protocol were used to develop community-wide and municipal GHG emission inventories, respectively.10,11 As part of the 2030 CAP Update development, the City coordinated with the BAAQMD on the methodologies used to prepare a GHG emission inventory, GHG emissions forecast, scope of the GHG emissions, annual GHG emissions reduction targets, and GHG emission reduction measures. This coordination led to several key changes in methodology between the 2009 CAP and the 2030 CAP Update. These changes are summarized below. Due to these changes, GHG emissions inventories and forecasts contained in this 2030 CAP Update are not comparable to those presented in the 2009 CAP. Global Warming Potential (GWP) Values The potential for a particular GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its global warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is CO2, which has a GWP of one. By comparison, methane has a GWP of 28, which means that one molecule of 10 ICLEI, 2013. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Version 1.1). ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. July 2013. 11 ICLEI, 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories (Version 1.1). ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. May 2010. Introduction Page 9 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 methane has 28 times the effect on global warming as one molecule of CO2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHG by their GWP determines their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which enables a project’s combined GWP to be expressed in terms of mass CO2 emissions equivalents. The City’s 2009 CAP applied GWP values from the U.N. IPCC’s 1996 Second Assessment Report; however, as recommended by the BAAQMD, the 2030 CAP Update uses GWP values from the U.N. IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).12 The GWP values identified in the AR5 generally produce higher estimates of GHG emissions due to a change in the GWP value for methane. The GWPs for the GHG evaluated in the 2030 Cap Update are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Comparison of 2009 and 2030 CAP Update GWP Values GHG Second Assessment Report GWP Fifth Assessment Report GWP Carbon Dioxide 1 1 Methane 21 28 Nitrous Oxide 310 265 IPCC, 2014. Fifth Assessment Report. Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) The key data used to estimate emissions from on-road transportation is vehicle miles travelled, or VMT. Whereas the City’s 2009 CAP used the in-boundary method to estimate on-road transportation emissions, the 2030 CAP Update uses the origin-destination method. Though both approaches are allowed for in the ICLEI U.S. Community Protocol, the latest update to the protocol in 2013 gives preference to the origin-destination, since it, “better captures a local government’s ability to affect passenger vehicle emissions than the alternative [origin- 12 BAAQMD, 2018. Personal Communication. Email. Abby Young, BAAQMD, to Phil Gleason, MIG. “RE: Additional Questions Re: Climate Action Plan and Baseline Inventory.” March 15, 2018. Introduction Page 10 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 destination] method...”.13 The VMT data source used to estimate on-road emissions in this CAP is also different than those used for the 2009 CAP. Previously, VMT estimates were obtained from the Caltrans Highway Performance Monitoring System.14 This CAP uses the same VMT data source as Plan Bay Area 2040, the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which was developed by the MTC and is supported by the BAAQMD.15 13 ICLEI, 2013. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Version 1.1). Appendix D: Transportation and Other Mobile Emission Activities and Sources. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. July 2013. 14 Burlingame, 2009. Climate Action Plan. Burlingame, CA. June 2009. <https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Sustainability/2009%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf> 15 BAAQMD, 2019. “Vehicle Miles Travel Data Portal”. Climate Action Plan VMT Data. Web. <http://capvmt.us- west-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data> Page 11 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 2 Climate Change Context This Chapter provides a brief background on current climate change science and the State’s initiatives to address climate change. Current State of Climate Change While some progress has been made over the last decade to reduce GHG emissions globally, climate change poses a serious risk to communities around the world. The United Nations (U.N.) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prepares regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they may use to develop climate policies. The U.N. IPCC’s 2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) represents the organization’s most current comprehensive study of climate change. The Report finds that the global average temperature has increased by 1.5 °F between 1880 and 2012, and that the period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period in the Northern Hemisphere over the last 1,400 years. Climate change forecasts contained in the AR5 conclude that the global average temperature could rise by 2.7 to 14 °F by the year 2100, depending on the level of action taken to reduce GHG emissions and climate change risks.16 The AR5 affirms that substantial GHG emissions reductions are needed to limit global GHG concentrations to 450 parts per million or less, which would likely limit global temperature increases to 3.6 °F (2 degrees Celsius) or less over the 21st century, as compared to pre- industrial levels. To achieve this goal, global GHG emissions reductions would need to be reduced between 41% and 72% by 2050, and between 78% and 118% by 2100 (compared to 2010 global GHG emissions levels). 16 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. Climate Change Context Page 12 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 California has been an active leader in addressing climate change for more than a decade. The State’s current comprehensive plan for addressing climate change is the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. According to the 2017 Scoping Plan, “The evidence that the climate is changing is undeniable. As evidence mounts, the scientific record only becomes more definitive – and makes clear the need to take additional action now.”17 The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan sets the State’s 2030 GHG reduction target emissions level (260 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents), and identifies the strategies, programs, and actions that will achieve this emissions target. The State’s 2030 GHG reduction target reflects the same science that informs the U.N. IPCC climate change assessment reports, and is intended to keep the global temperature increase below 3.6 °F (2 °C). State Climate Actions California, as a leader in the fight against climate change, has taken many actions at the State level to curtail the amount of GHG emissions emitted into the atmosphere. Although these actions were enacted at the State level, they result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. The State policies and regulations most relevant to the City’s 2030 CAP Update are briefly described below. The first three bullet points present the major milestones that have driven all climate change planning efforts across California. Executive Order S-3-05 9 (2005): In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 establishing the State’s GHG emission targets for 2010 (reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels), 2020 (reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels), and 2050 (reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels). Assembly Bill 32 (2006): Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006, mandating caps on Statewide GHG emissions, a deadline of December 31, 2020 for achieving GHG reduction levels, and the requirement for the State to prepare a Scoping Plan with the State’s GHG strategy to achieve such reductions by such date. 17 CARB, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. California Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA. November 2017. <https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf> Climate Change Context Page 13 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Executive Order B-30-15 (2015): Governor Edmund Brown issued EO B-30-15 to set a GHG emissions target for 2030 (reduce GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels) and to require the State’s climate adaptation strategy to be updated every three years. SB 375 - Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (2008): The intent of SB 375 is to better integrate regional planning related to transportation, land use, and housing to reduce sprawl and ultimately reduce GHG emissions and other air pollutants. SB 375 tasks CARB with setting GHG reduction targets for each of California’s 18 regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). In 2010, CARB adopted GHG reduction targets for the San Francisco Bay region. The targets were set as 7% and 15% reduction in per capita passenger vehicle GHG reductions by 2020 and 2035 (relative to 2005). The regional strategy for achieving VMT goals mandated under SB 375 is presented in Plan Bay Area 2040. In March 2018, CARB established new regional GHG reduction targets for the San Francisco Bay region.18 The new targets are a 10% reduction in per capita passenger vehicle GHG reductions by 2020 and a 19% reduction by 2035 (relative to 2005). AB 341 - Mandatory Commercial Recycling (2012): AB 341 requires that at least 75% of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. AB 341 works in conjunction with SB 1018, which included an amendment that requires businesses that generate four (4) cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week arrange for recycling services. Advanced Clean Cars Program (2012): In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) Program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The components of the ACC program are the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulation and the Zero- Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation. The Program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single 18 CARB, 2018. “SB 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets” California Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA. March 22, 2018. <https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/finaltargets2018.pdf?_ga=2.116102214.1971771227.1549478758- 1507730002.1452616621> Climate Change Context Page 14 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 package of standards. By 2025, new automobiles under California’s Advanced Clean Car program will emit 34% less global warming gases and 75% less smog-forming emissions. Low Carbon Fuel Standard (2018): CARB initially approved the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulation in 2009. Originally, the LCFS regulation required at least a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2020 (compared to 2010). In 2018, CARB approved changes to the LCFS regulation that require a 20% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030. These regulatory changes exceed the assumption in CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which targeted an 18% reduction in transportation fuel carbon intensity by 2030 as one of the primary measures for achieving the State’s GHG 2030 target. SB 100 - California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (2018): SB 100 revised the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program to require retail sellers of electricity to serve 50% and 60% of the total kilowatt-hours sold to retail end-use customers be served by renewable energy sources by 2026 and 2030, respectively, and requires 100% of all electricity supplied come from renewable carbon-free sources by 2045. Executive Order B-48-18 - Zero Emission Vehicles (2018): EO B-48-18 establishes a target to have five million ZEVs on the road in California by 2030. The executive order is supported by the State’s 2018 ZEV Action Plan Priorities Update, which expands upon the State’s 2016 ZEV Action Plan. While the 2016 plan remains in effect, the 2018 update functions as an addendum, highlighting the most important actions State agencies are taking in 2018 to implement the directives of EO B-48-18. Title 24 Energy Standards (2019): The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The 2019 standards will go into effect on January 1, 2020, and improve upon existing standards. The 2019 standards include new requirements for installation of solar photovoltaics for newly constructed low-rise residential buildings and also propose several smaller Climate Change Context Page 15 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 improvements in energy efficiency. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are approximately 53% more efficient than the 2016 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for residential development, and approximately 30% more efficient for non-residential development.19 Executive Order B-55-18: Governor Edmund Brown issued EO B-55-18 on September 10, 2018, which directs the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The actions enumerated above affect the GHG emissions produced in Burlingame. Accordingly, the City has incorporated the expected level of emissions reductions associated with these State initiatives into its GHG Emission Inventory presented in Chapter 3. Regional and San Mateo County Climate Action Program The San Francisco Bay Area and San Mateo County, as leaders in the fight against climate change, have taken many actions at the regional and county level to curtainl the amount of GHG emitted into the atmosphere. Although these actions are implemented at the regional and county level, they result in some GHG emission reductions within the City of Burlingame. The regional and county-based programs most relevant to the City’s 2030 CAP Update are briefly described below. Peninsula Clean Energy: Peninsula Clean Energy is a community choice energy (CCE) program. A CCE is a locally controlled community organization that enables local residents and businesses to have a choice regarding where their energy comes from. Peninsula Clean Energy specifically serves San Mateo County, and has strategic goals of supplying 100% GHG-free electricity by 2021 and sourcing 100% California RPS eligible renewable energy by 2025. San Mateo County Energy Watch: The San Mateo County Energy Watch (SMCEW) is a local government partnership between PG&E and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, and is administered by the County of San Mateo’s Office of Sustainability. 19 CEC, 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Fact Sheet. California Energy Commission. March 2018. <https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/> Climate Change Context Page 16 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 The SMCEW partners with Ecology Action, a non-profit organization, to provide no-cost technical services to local governments, schools, non-profits, and businesses that helps increase building energy efficiency. Bay Area Regional Energy Network: The Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) is a collaboration of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. BayREN provides regional-scale energy efficiency programs, services, and resources. Sustainability Academy: The San Mateo County Sustainability Academy is free education and outreach program administered by the County of San Mateo’s Office of Sustainability designed to raise awareness around sustainability and empower San Mateo County community members with knowledge and skills to promote sustainability. Page 17 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 3 GHG Emission Inventor y, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets This Chapter summarizes the City’s GHG emission inventory, forecasts the changes in City GHG emissions levels that will occur over time, and establishes the City’s annual GHG emissions targets to demonstrate consistency with and substantial progress towards the State’s 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction goalstargets, respectively. Burlingame’s Annual GHG Emission Inventory An annual GHG emission inventory identifies and quantifies the key sources of GHG emissions within the city for a given calendar year. TheAn inventory can also provides a baseline scenario that is used to forecast future changes in emissions, estimate GHG emissions targets, and identify the amount of GHG emissions reductions needed to reach GHG emission reduction targets. By understanding the key sources of emissions in Burlingame and how they change over time, the inventory allows the City to evaluate and implement strategies necessary to reach annual GHG emission reduction targets. 2005 and 2015 Community-Wide GHG Emission Inventory The City prepared two community-wide annual GHG emissions inventories as part of the 2030 CAP Update: Year 2005: The 2005 community-wide GHG emission inventory was originally prepared for the City’s 2009 CAP. The City updated the 2005 community-wide GHG emission inventory as part of the 2030 CAP Update to reflect updated GWP values and VMT calculation methodologies consistent with the latest guidance and recommendations from ICLEI and the BAAQMD. The updated 2005 community-wide GHG emission inventory serves as the City’s baseline year for establishing the City’s annual GHG emissions targets for the 2030 CAP Update. Year 2015: The 2015 community-wide GHG emission inventory represents the most current snapshot of community-wide GHG emissions in Burlingame. The 2015 inventory reflects the best available information for actual GHG emissions levels within the city. The City’s GHG GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 18 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 emissions projections for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 are based on the growth projections from 2015 as envisioned by, and consistent with, the Envision Burlingame General Plan. Key findings of the 2005 and 2015 community-wide GHG emission inventoriesy include: • GHG emissions levels fell by approximately 12,672 MTCO2e, approximately five percent, from 2005 to 2015. • Most of the GHG emission reductions are due to increased electricity supplied from renewable sources (e.g., solar and wind power), as required under the State’s RPS Programs. • Transportation is the largest contributor to GHG emissions at 53%, followed by energy use in buildings (primarily from heating and cooling) at 44%. • GHG emission increases in the transportation sector are from additional off-road equipment operation (e.g., construction and yard and garden equipment); on-road emissions have decreased. • The transportation and wastewater sectors are the only areas where emissions grew over the last decade. GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 19 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 FIGURE 4: 2015 COMMUNITY-WIDE GHG EMISSIONS GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 20 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 3: Burlingame 2005 and 2015 Community-wide GHG Emission Inventoriesy (MTCO2e) GHG Emission Sector GHG Emission Inventory (MTCO2e) Change from 2005 2005 2015 MTCO2e % Change Residential Energy 47,344 38,249 -9,095 -19.2% Commercial/Industrial Energy 78,215 67,669 -10,546 -13.5% Transportation 118,556 129,041 +10,485 +8.8% Solid Waste 9,333 6,321 -3,012 -32.3% Water 1,376 707 -636 -48.7% Wastewater 343 497 +154 +44.8% City-owned Stationary Sources 28 6 -22 -77.9% Total Inventory 255,195 242,489 -12,706 -5.0% Large Industrial Sources 4,593 31,967 +27,374 +596.0% Total with Large Industrial Sources 259,788 274,456 +14,688 +5.0% Consistent with BAAQMD guidance, the community-wide inventories show GHG emissions from the sectors presented above, plus emissions from large industrial sources.20 Large industrial sources are regulated by CARB and are part of California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. Since the City does not have control over the emissions from large industrial sources, tThese emissions are presented for informational purposes only, since the City does not have direct control over them. However, the City is open to working with industrial facilities within the city, as well as CARB, the BAAQMD, and Peninsula Clean Energy, to find ways of reducing existing GHG emissions through Cap-and-Trade and other financing/funding mechanisms. Refer to Appendix 20 BAAQMD, 2011. GHG Plan Level Guidance. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. November 3, 2011. <http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ghg-plan-level-guidance.pdf> GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 21 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 A for detailed emissions assumptions and methodology information on the 2005 and 2015 GHG emissions inventories. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Energy The energy sector identifies emissions generated by natural gas and electricity consumption in single- and multi-family residential developments and in commercial and industrial land uses. As is common in most cities, energy consumption is one of the largest contributors to GHG emissions in Burlingame. Energy, comprised of electricity and natural gas consumption, made up approximately 50% of the community-wide GHG emissions in 2005 and 44% in 2015. Most energy use occurs in lighting, heating, and cooling buildings; and some in outdoor lighting, traffic control signals, and other equipment. The energy sector includes energy use as reported by PG&E and Peninsula Clean Energy, and Direct Access energy. Direct Access energy is purchased on the wholesale market, rather than from PG&E or Peninsula Clean Energy. Direct Access energy is used by large commercial and industrial customers. Data on Direct Access energy use was provided by the CEC for all of San Mateo County, and this energy use was estimated for Burlingame based on the ratio of Direct Access energy use to other commercial/industrial energy use in the county.21 A comparison of GHG emissions generated by each energy subsector for 2005 and 2015 is presented in Table 4. 21 CEC, 2018. Personal Communication. Email. Steven Mac, CEC, to Phil Gleason, MIG. “RE: Request for Historic Electricity Consumption in San Mateo County.” March 2, 2018. GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 22 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 4: 2005 and 2015 Residential and Commercial/Industrial Energy Sector GHG Emissions GHG Emission Sector GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Change from 2005 2005 2015 MTCO2e % Change Residential Electricity 14,898 11,343 -3,555 -23.9% Natural Gas 32,446 26,906 -5,540 -17.1% Residential Subtotal 47,344 38,249 -9,095 -19.2% Commercial/Industrial Electricity 45,716(A) 38,315(B) -7,400 -16.2% Natural Gas 32,499 29,353 -3,146 -9.7% Commercial/Industrial Subtotal 78,215 67,669 -10,546 -13.5% Total 125,559 105,918 -19,641 -15.6% (A) Approximately 10,840 MTCO2e of these emissions are from direct access electricity consumption. (B) Approximately 8,837 MTCO2e of the emissions are from direct access electricity consumption. Emissions from electricity are anticipated to zero out in the future as the State and Burlingame pursue renewable energy goals. Emissions from natural gas will be tougher to reduce since the cost of natural gas remains relatively low and electrifying natural gas appliances and processes can be expensive and infeasible. Most of the opportunity for natural gas reductions lies in Burlingame’s existing building stock. Stringent energy efficiency measures and green building standards apply to all new construction, but new buildings make up a small portion of the city’s inventory. The City’s General Plan Housing Element, adopted in 2015, reported there were about 13,027 housing units in Burlingame, and 87% of them were built prior to 1980, before GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 23 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 energy efficiency requirements existed.22 Over the past few decades only, a small number of new buildings have been constructed annually (the City’s Housing Element reports that between 2007 and 2013, 77 new housing units were added.23) The City does not keep data on the number of homes retrofitted with energy efficient upgrades, but it can it can be assumed that most housing units in Burlingame would benefit from energy efficiency upgrades. Transportation Transportation emissions are found in vehicle trips occurring within Burlingame on local roads and highways and vehicles (on-road transportation); construction, landscape equipment, and other pieces of off-road equipment (off-road transportation); Caltrain; and freight trains. Vehicle travel on roads includes emissions from private, commercial, and fleet vehicles driven within the city’s geographical boundaries, as well as the emissions from transit vehicles and City-owned fleet and other public sector fleets. The key data used to estimate emissions from on-road transportation is VMT. This CAP uses the same VMT data source as Plan Bay Area 2040, the Bay Area’s RTP/SCS, which was developed by the MTC and is supported by the BAAQMD. The challenge of the transportation sector is well recognized. The City’s planning vision in the Envision Burlingame General Plan is centered around getting people to drive less and use alternative fuels. Off-road transportation emissions from the operation of lawnmowers, garden equipment, construction equipment, light commercial equipment, and mobile industrial equipment were estimated using CARB’s OFFROAD2007 model. Off-road transportation, while only 14% of transportation emissions, represents an opportunity for emission reductions that local governments can take on. Local governments may limit the use of off-road equipment by requiring construction best practices and electric alternatives to gas powered equipment. 22 Burlingame, 2015.City of Burlingame 2015-2023 Housing Element. City of Burlingame. Adopted January 5, 2015. <https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/1-Burlingame_2015-2023- HE_Adopted_01.05.15_Final_01.29.pdf> 23 Burlingame, 2015.City of Burlingame 2015-2023 Housing Element. City of Burlingame. Adopted January 5, 2015. <https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/1-Burlingame_2015-2023- HE_Adopted_01.05.15_Final_01.29.pdf> GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 24 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Caltrain operates seven days a week and provides commuter train service from San Francisco to San Jose. The City of Burlingame has two Caltrain stations: Burlingame station and Broadway station. For Caltrain operations, the City calculated the total countywide emissions and then allocated the miles of track within Burlingame to estimate emissions. Freight trains also operate on the Caltrain tracks in the evenings, after Caltrain operations are done. These trains do not stop in Burlingame, but just pass through the city on the rail track.24 For this reason, and because the City has no control or influence over freight train usage, the freight train emissions are shown for informational purposes only and are not included in the estimated emissions. A breakdown of transportation emissions between 2005 and 2015 is provided in Table 5. Table 5: 2005 and 2015 Transportation Sector GHG Emissions GHG Emission Sector GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Change from 2005 2005 2015 MTCO2e % Change On-Road 102,768 102,465 -303 -0.3% Off-Road 15,788 24,105 +8,317 52.7% Caltrain N/A 2,471 +2,471 N/A Total 118,556 129,041 +10,485 +8.8% Freight Rail N/A 2,577 +2,577 N/A Total with Freight Rail 118,556 131,618 +13,062 +11.0% Solid Waste The Solid Waste Sector is comprised of two separate categories: landfills and generated solid waste. There is one landfill located in the Burlingame city limits, the Burlingame Landfill, which 24 Burlingame, 2014. Final City of Burlingame 2010 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. City of Burlingame. June 11, 2014. <https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/1-Burlingame_2015-2023- HE_Adopted_01.05.15_Final_01.29.pdf> GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 25 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 was closed in 1992. The site is owned by the City and has since been turned into Bayside Park. Organic material deposited at the site while the landfill was in operation is in the process of decomposing and generates emissions of methane. The reported emissions from the landfill are based on the methane collected by the onsite landfill gas collection system. Since this landfill is closed, emissions from this source will decrease over time, as the amount of organic material decomposing decreases. Solid waste is generated by residents and visitors, businesses, public entities, and other organizations in the community. Emissions from waste result from organic materials decomposing in the anaerobic (non-oxygen) environment of a landfill and producing methane. Organic materials (e.g., paper, plant debris, food waste) generate methane, while non-organic materials (e.g., metal, glass) do not. The majority of solid waste is disposed of at the Ox Mountain Landfill in Half Moon Bay; small amounts of waste are disposed of at the Potrero Hills Landfill in Suisun City, the Zanker Materials Processing facility in San Jose, the Monterey Peninsula Landfill in Marina, and additional landfills in the region. In addition to solid waste disposal, this category includes alternative daily cover, which is used to cover the landfill each day in order to control vectors, odors, fires, blowing litter, and scavenging. The total amount of solid waste generated and alternative daily cover is taken from the CalRecycle jurisdictional database for the 2005 and 2015 calendar years. A comparison of GHG emissions in 2005 and 2015 from the inactive Burlingame Landfill, landfilled solid waste, and alternative daily cover are presented in Table 6. GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 26 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 6: 2005 and 2015 Solid Waste Sector GHG Emissions GHG Emission Sector GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Change from 2005 2005 2015 MTCO2e % Change Disposed Waste 8,526 5,773 -2,753 -32.3% Alternative Daily Cover 454 271 -183 -40.4% Landfill (Inactive) 354 277 -77 -21.6% Total 9,333 6,321 -3,012 -32.3% Water Consumption of water is associated with GHG emissions produced from the energy and fuel used to extract, treat, convey, and distribute potable water. In Burlingame, water is provided by the City, which serves as the local water utility. The City of Burlingame purchases all of its water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which owns and operates the San Francisco Regional Water System with water originating from spring snowmelt flowing down the Tuolumne River to storage in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. This water is mostly transported in a gravity-based system, although a modest amount of energy is needed for water transportation, treatment, and distribution. Historical water information is known for 2005 and 2015. For 2005, consumption data was sourced from the Burlingame 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. 25 For 2015, water consumption data was obtained by evaluating the amount of water sold by the City of Burlingame and subtracting customers outside the city limits (e.g., Hillsborough residents). 25 Burlingame, 2005. City of Burlingame Urban Water Management Plan. City of Burlingame. November 2005. <https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/urbanwatermanagement/2005uwmps/Burlingame/City%20of%20Burlingame% 20-%20Urban%20Water%20Management%20Plan%20-%202005.pdf> GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 27 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Wastewater The treatment of wastewater generates GHG emissions. The City of Burlingame owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant. This plant serves all of Burlingame, and also serves portions of Hillsborough and portions of unincorporated San Mateo County. Emissions from the wastewater treatment plant are based on stationary fuel use other than natural gas (such as diesel), and the types of treatment in place for the wastewater. Wastewater treatment leads to process and fugitive emissions of methane and/or nitrous oxide. Natural gas and electricity used at the wastewater treatment plant are included in the energy sector. Since the wastewater treatment plant serves multiple jurisdictions, this inventory includes an estimate of wastewater emissions allocated to Burlingame based on population. Stationary Sources Stationary sources include boilers, generators, co-generation, and industrial processing equipment and may include a number of fuel types, including natural gas, propane, and diesel. Stationary source data is provided by the BAAQMD since facilities receive a permit from, or must otherwise report emissions to, the BAAQMD. Stationary sources owned by the City of Burlingame, such as back-up generators and gas pumps, are included in the inventory, because the City has control over them. Stationary sources outside of the City’s control are listed for informational purposes only. 2005 and 2015 Municipal GHG Emission Inventory The municipal inventory represents GHG emissions from City operations alone. This data is folded into the community-wide inventory above; however, it is helpful to analyze these GHG emissions separately to see how City-generated emissions contribute to overall emissions and to identify reduction opportunities. As shown in Table 7, municipal GHG emissions made -up approximately 1% of the community-wide GHG emissions in 2005 and 2015. Emissions in City operations decreased across all sectors except refrigerants, which were not estimated in 2005, and in the City’s vehicle fleet. It is unclear why GHG emissions from the City’s vehicle fleet have gone up; however, it may be a result of growth occurring in Burlingame GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 28 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 and the additional resources used to serve the community (e.g., larger city vehicle fleet size and more miles being driven). Overall, the City reduced its emissions by approximately 11.5% due to various measures implemented across its departments, including: ● Retrofitted lights in municipal buildings, parks, and streets ● Upgraded HVAC equipment in municipal buildings ● Converted City-owned lawns to water efficient landscapes, and reduced water usage throughout parks ● Introduced composting in municipal buildings and improved recycling ● Certified the Corporation Yard and Main Library as green businesses with San Mateo County ● Increased water efficiency by replacing old water fixtures, such as toilets and aerators ● Conserved water during the drought, which reduces the flow of wastewater to the treatment plant. GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 29 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 FIGURE 5: BURLINGAME 2015 MUNICIPAL GHG EMISSION INVENTORYS GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 30 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 7: Burlingame 2005 and 2015 Municipal GHG Emission Inventoriesy GHG Emission Sector GHG Emission Inventory (MTCO2e) Change from 2005 2005 2015 MTCO2e % Change Energy 1,563 1,250 -313 -20.0% Vehicle Fleet 604 703 +99 +16.4% Landfill 354 277 -76 -21.6% Wastewater Treatment 431 405 -26 -6.0% Solid Waste Generation 39 16 -23 -58.4% Employee Commute 537 475 -61 -11.4% Generators 11 4 -8 -67.5% Refrigerants 0 3 +3 N/A Total 3,539 3,133 -406 -11.5% Percent of Community Inventory 1.4% 1.3% -- -- Burlingame’s GHG Emission Projections for 2020 to 2050 This section summarizes the City’s projections of how community-wide GHG emissions will change in the future. Projections are provided for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. These years were selected to align with State GHG emission reduction goalstargets and the Envision Burlingame General Plan build out year of 2040. A GHG emissions projection forecasts emissions levels based on the continuation of current trends and activities in GHG emissions sectors and accounting accounts for population and employment growth. GHG emissions projections provide a basis for determining the amount of GHG emissions reductions needed to achieve annual GHG emission reduction targets. The 2030 CAP Update contains two different GHG emissions projections: GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 31 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 The “Business As Usual” (BAU) Projection – This forecast estimates what GHG emissions would be if the Burlingame community continued to act as it currently does as it grows and takes no actions to reduce emissions. The CAP BAU projection assumes population, housing, and employment will increase over time from 2015, reaching General Plan buildout levels by 2040, and result in a corresponding increase in GHG emissions from the various GHG emissions sectors (e.g., energy, transportation, water, etc.). The CAP BAU projection assumes GHG emission reduction policies, regulations, etc. in place in 2015 would remain unchanged over time. The BAU projection does not account for GHG emissions reductions associated with State or regional GHG emission reduction programs implemented after 2015, nor does it account for emissions reductions associated with actions GHG emission reduction measures presented in this CAP. The “Adjusted Business As Usual” (ABAU) Pprojection – Fortunately, California is taking a leadership role in climate action and adopting significant regulations to reduce emissions and move the State toward a less carbon-intensive economy. The ABAU forecast accounts for legislative actions adopted after 2015 (or resulting in GHG emissions reductions after 2015) that would reduce future GHG emissions. These actions include: ● The 2019 Revised Energy Code and 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which improve electricity and natural gas efficiency in residential and non-residential buildings ● The State Renewable Energy Portfolio Program, as modified by SB 100, which increases the percentage of renewable energy serving the state ● Increased electric vehicle mode share pursuant to Executive Order B-48-18 and the State’s 2016 ZEV Action Plan ● Increases in transportation fuel efficiency resulting from legislatively mandated emissions standards ● The State Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which decreases the carbon content in fuel sold in California ● Assembly Bill 341, which reduces landfilled solid waste GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 32 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Appendix B details how the projections were developed, the indicators used to estimate emissions in each sector, and the data sources used. Demographic Trends and VMT Data The BAU and ABAU forecasts were developed using the housing units, population, and employment projections identified in the Envision Burlingame General Plan and VMT data from Plan Bay Area 2040. The values are based on the land use diagram contained in the General Plan and build-out estimates for 2040, the General Plan’s horizon year.26 Population and employment estimates for 2020, 2030, and 2050 were linearly interpolated based on the average rate of growth between 2015 and General Plan build-out year 2040; this average rate of growth was also applied to the 2040 to 2050 timeframe. The annual VMT estimates used for all forecast years were derived using the origin-destination method. Table 8, below, summarizes the housing units, population, employment, and VMT values used to develop the BAU and ABAU forecasts. Table 8: Demographic and VMT Growth in Burlingame, 2015 to 2050 Demographic Variable 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 Housing Units 13,144 13,728 14,897 16,065 17,233 Population 29,724 31,099 33,850 36,600 39,350 Employment 29,879 31,825 35,718 39,610 43,502 Annual VMT 254,793,946 264,495,198 271,492,453 307,367,222 332,725,017 26 Although Table CX-1 of the General Plan identifies 2016 as its baseline, this CAP uses those values for 2015, this CAP’s “existing conditions,” since they are the most accurate metrics available. GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 33 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 BAU and ABAU GHG Emissions Forecasts Table 9 summarizes Burlingame’s BAU and ABAU GHG emissions projections by sector. Table 9: Burlingame BAU / ABAU GHG Emissions Projections - 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 Projection / GHG Emission Sector GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 BAU GHG Emissions Projection Residential Energy 39,949 43,349 46,749 50,149 Commercial/Industrial Energy 72,076 80,892 89,707 98,522 Transportation 135,315 140,643 157,585 170,297 Solid Waste 6,631 7,259 7,895 8,538 Water 746 825 903 982 Wastewater 520 566 612 658 City-owned Stationary Sources 7 7 8 9 Total BAU GHG Emissions 255,244 273,541 303,460 329,155 ABAU GHG Emissions Projection Residential Energy 38,579 34,463 35,216 29,030 Commercial/Industrial Energy 67,712 55,906 59,452 36,554 Transportation 119,539 84,930 86,250 92,102 Solid Waste 6,580 7,106 7,640 8,181 Water 708 468 512 0 Wastewater 520 566 612 658 City-owned Stationary Sources 7 7 8 9 Total ABAU GHG Emissions 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534 Another common methodology to presenting GHG emissions is to evaluate how efficiently a project or community emits GHG. Under this methodology, a project’s or a community’s GHG GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 34 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 emissions are divided by its population (i.e., per capita) and compared to a regional or statewide average per capita GHG emissions. This methodology is consistent with guidance from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.27 The California Supreme Court recently indicated that evaluating GHG emissions on an efficiency basis may provide a better indicator for evaluating consistency with State GHG reduction goals.28 For projects designed to accommodate long-term growth, such as a General Plan, the issue is not whether growth will increase emissions (California's population and economic activity are forecasted to increase under the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan), but whether the growth is occurring in an efficient manner consistent with State goals. Table 10 presents the City’s BAU and ABAU GHG emissions efficiency on a per capita basis. Table 10: Burlingame BAU / ABAU GHG Emissions Efficiency - 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 Projection / GHG Efficiency 2020 2030 2040 2050 City Population 31,099 33,850 36,600 39,350 BAU Total GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 255,244 273,541 303,460 329,155 Capita BAU GHG Efficiency (MTCO2e/Capita) 8.2 8.1 8.3 8.4 ABAU Total GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534 Capita ABAU GHG Efficiency (MTCO2e/Capita) 7.5 5.3 5.2 4.2 Table 11 provides the future GHG emissions reductions associated with executive and legislative actions included in the ABAU forecast. For a full, detailed breakdown of the BAU and ABAU forecasts, see Appendix B. 27 CAPCOA, 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. August 2010. 28 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest. Supreme Court of California. No. S217763. Decided November 30, 2015. GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 35 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 11: Summary of ABAU GHG Emissions Reductions GHG Reduction Action GHG Emissions Reductions (MTCO2e Per Year) 2020 2030 2040 2050 2019 Revised Energy Code / Building Energy Efficiency Standards 2,281 9,915 16,525 23,134 Renewable Portfolio Standard 3,491 24,314 25,656 60,935 Executive Order B-48-18 / 2016 ZEV Action Plan - 9,080 9,573 10,528 Advanced Clean Cars Program 9,752 29,831 41,018 45,542 Low Carbon Fuel Standard 6,024 19,756 20,744 22,126 Mandatory Commercial Recycling (AB 341) 51 153 255 357 Total 21,598 93,048 113,770 162,621 Burlingame’s Annual GHG Emission Reduction Targets This 2030 CAP Update primarily focuses on reducing annual GHG emissions for 2020 and 2030, consistent with legislatively-adopted State targetsgoals for those years. Although emissions forecasts and reductions are included for 2040 and 2050, it is speculative to demonstrate achievement with these longer-term goals with the information known today. As has been the case over the last decade, it is anticipated that technological advances and future federal and State law will assist Burlingame in reducing its emissions in line with State goals. The State’s GHG emission reduction targets goals are: ● 2020: Reduce annual GHG emissions to 1990 levels (AB 32, 2006) ● 2030: Reduce annual GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels (SB 32, 2016) ● 2050: Reduce annual GHG emissions by 80% below 1990 levels (SB 32, 2016) While the State uses 1990 as its baseline year, local governments tend to not have reliable GHG emission data prior to 2005. According to CARB, an annual GHG emission reduction targetgoal GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 36 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 of 15% below 2005 levels is comparable to a return to 1990 levels. Burlingame, therefore, has used data from 2005 to derive its 2020 goalGHG emission target, which is considered representative of 1990 levels. The City also selected annual GHG emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2050 that align with the State’s GHG emission reduction targetsgoals, and a GHG emission reduction target for 2040 to coincide with the Envision Burlingame General Plan buildout year. The GHG emission reduction target for 2040 is based on the linear trend from 2030 to 2050 necessary to maintain progress towards the State’s GHG emission reduction targetgoal. The 2030 CAP Update GHG emission Rreduction targets are: ● 2020: Reduce annual GHG emissions by 15% below the City’s 2005 GHG emission Bbaseline Iinventory (comparable to 1990 levels) ● 2030: Reduce GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels ● 2040: Reduce GHG emissions by 60% below 1990 levels ● 2050: Reduce GHG emissions by 80% below 1990 levels Table 12 summarizes the City’s annual GHG emission reduction targets for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050, and the emissions gap between the ABAU forecast and the City’s annual GHG emission reduction target. Figure 63-5 presents this information graphically. GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 37 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 12: Burlingame GHG Emission Reduction Targets and Reductions Needed CAP GHG Emission Scenario Annual GHG Emissions Level (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 ABAU GHG Emissions 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534 GHG Emission Reduction Targets 216,916(A) 130,3150(B) 86,766(C) 43,383(D) Additional GHG Emission Reductions Needed 16,730 50,343 102,923 123,151 (A) 216,916 MTCO2e is 15% below the City’s 2005 GHG emission baseline inventory (255,195 MTCO2e; see Table 3). (B) 130,1350 MTCO2e is 40% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e). (C) 86,766 MTCO2e is 60% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e). (D) 43,383 MTCO2e is 80% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e). GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 38 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 FIGURE 6: BURLINGAME GHG EMISSIONS BASELINE, FORECASTS, AND GHG ANNUAL REDUCTION TARGETS GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 39 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 40 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. Page 41 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 4 Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy The City’s GHG emission reduction strategy is based on the Envision Burlingame General Plan – the City’s long-range planning document that strongly emphasizes sustainability through mobility, land use development, natural resources, and community health policy considerations. The General Plan serves as the City’s guidance document, and this CAP acts as its implementation tool for climate action. Each of the climate actions GHG emissions reduction measures discussed below represents GHG reduction measuresa policy selected from the City’s General PlanEnvision Burlingame General Plan along with severalor a new policyies introduced in the sections below as a General Plan amendment (the new and amended policies are duly noted). The 2030 CAP Update focuses on 20 action measures, and each of those measures connects with multiple supporting policies in the General Plan. For example, the Complete Streets action measure relies on an array of supporting General Plan policies that encourage alternative transportation and smart development. The quantified reduction estimates for each climate actionmeasure below reflect both the primary and supporting General Plan policies. The City is on a path to successfully achieve its 2020 and 2030 GHG emission reduction targets, both in terms of total emissions and emission efficiency on a per capita basis. The City’s GHG emission reduction strategy also partially reaches the interpolated 2040 GHG reduction targets at General Plan buildout (on an efficiency basis), and makes serious headway towards reaching the 2050 GHG reduction emission targets. Achievement of these longer-term GHG reduction emission targets is very much a forecast and is not the primary focus of the 2030 CAP Update. The additional, dramatic GHG emission reductions needed to reach the longer-term reduction targets rely on continued technology and regulations toward renewable energy, net zero energy building, carbon free transportation, zero waste, and efficient water conservation. The emission reductions from implementation of the City’s CAP is broken down by individual measures in Table 13. A summary of how the CAP GHG emission reduction measures combine Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 42 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 with the cCity’s ABAU forecast is summarized in Table 14, and Table 15 presents the CAP’s GHG emission efficiency on a per capita basis after accounting for CAP measure reductions. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 43 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 13: CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measures Emissions Summary CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measure GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 1. Mixed Use Development, Transit Oriented Development, and Transit Supporting Land Use 95 166 233 328 2. Transportation Demand Management - 4,563 8,632 9,286 3. Complete Streets - 5,488 6,686 8,726 4. Caltrain Electrification - 2,954 3,276 3,598 5. Bicycle Sharing 3,379 1,697 1,577 1,632 6. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Initiatives 5 29 53 79 7. Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches - 424 821 1,209 8. Burlingame Shuttle Service 8 10 11 13 9. Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment - 516 556 596 10. Construction Best Management Practices - 3,618 4,871 5,218 11. Green Building Practices and Standards - 53 124 133 12. Energy Efficiency - 3,247 7,168 7,309 13. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100 16,533 24,073 24,038 - 14. Residential Solar Power 345 617 1,028 - 15. Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters - 270 315 455 16. Retrofits - 1 2 - 17. Water Conservation - 2 3 - 18. Zero Waste - 2,760 4,140 4,483 5,978 6,435 8,044 19. Municipal Green Building Measures 27 27 66 66 20. Increase in the Public Tree Population 5 17 29 40 Total Reductions from CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measures 20,397 50,532 51,913 63,973 65,467 45,124 46,732(A) (A) GHG emission reductions attributable to CAP measures decreased from 2040 to 2050, because of greater actions taken by the state (e.g., requiring the entire electricity grid by supplied by 100% renewable energycarbon-free electricity by 2045). These reductions are realized in the ABAU scenario. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 44 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 14: CAP GHG Emissions Reductions Summary GHG Emissions Scenario GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 ABAU GHG Emissions Forecast 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534 CAP GHG Emissions Reductions by Sector Built Environment and Transportation 3,487 19,465 26,717 30,685 Energy 16,877 28,260 32,673 7,897 Water 0 3 5 0 Waste 0 2,760 4,140 4,483 5,978 6,435 8,044 Municipal 33 44 94 106 Total GHG Emissions Reductions 20,397 50,532 51,913 63,973 65,467 45,124 46,732 City GHG Emissions with CAP ReductionsGHG Emission Reduction Measures 213,249 129,961 128,581 125,717 124,222 121,410 119,802 2030 CAP Update GHG Emissions Target 216,916 130,150 86,766 43,383 GHG Emissions Target Achieved? Yes Yes No No Additional GHG Emission Reductions Needed None None 38,950 37,456 78,027 76,418 Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 45 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 15: CAP GHG Emissions Efficiency Summary GHG Emissions Scenario GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 City GHG Emissions with CAP ReductionsGHG Emission Reduction Measures(A) 213,249 129,961 128,581 125,717 124,222 121,410 119,802 Population 31,099 33,850 36,600 39,350 City GHG Emission Efficiency MTCO2e/Capita N/A(B) 3.8 3.4 3.1 3.0 2017 Scoping Plan Per Capita Efficiency Target(C) N/A(B) 6.0 4.0 2.0 Emissions Efficiency Targets Achieved? N/A(B) Yes Yes No (A) GHG emissions fromwith CAP reductionsGHG emission reduction measures are from Table 14. (B) CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan does not recommend an efficiency target for 2020. (C) CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan recommends a Statewide GHG efficiency of 6.0 and 2.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2030 and 2050. The 2040 value has been interpolated. Cost Considerations The City’s GHG emission reduction strategy carries economic costs such as capital outlay costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, etc. that will be borne by the City, its residents, and its businesses and their patrons. While it is not possible to identify all the costs or co-benefits (cleaner air, less traffic, etc.) associated with all facets of implementing a General Plan policy or CAP-identified actionGHG emission reduction measure, the relative costs associated with achieving GHG emissions reductions are estimated as follows. Low Costs – Assumes that existing City employees and/or programs can implement the action measure as part of normal job duties and functions, program operations, etc. Assumes that incentives, rebates, or other financial programs are available to partially offset the additional, upfront costs related to a voluntary action taken by a business or resident. Assumes the return on investment or payback for undertaking a voluntary or mandatory action associated with the measure is less than five years (inclusive of any financial incentive). Moderate Costs – Assumes that existing City employees and/or programs could implement the action measure as part of normal job duties and functions, but additional training or part-or full-time staff may be required. Assumes that businesses or residents would bear most of the upfront costs associated with a voluntary action or new mandatory requirement (e.g., extra Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 46 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 duties or new training). Assumes the return on investment or payback for undertaking the voluntary or mandatory action associated with the measure is between five and 10 years (inclusive of any financial incentive). High Costs – Assumes new City employees and/or programs would be required to implement the policy, measure, or actionmeasure. Assumes that businesses or residents would incur short- and long-term costs associated with implementing and maintaining a new program, building system, etc. Assumes the return on investment or payback for a voluntary or mandatory action associated with the measure is more than 10 years. Each action below notes the level of associated costs that will be needed to implement the actionGHG emission reduction measure. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 47 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Built Environment and Transportation GHG Emission Reductions Measures Vision: Establish the City as a bicycle and pedestrian accessible and friendly city with high use of transportation alternatives to reduce single occupancy vehicle driving and associated emissions and impacts. 1. Mixed-Use Development, Transit Oriented Development, and Transit Supporting Land Use General Plan Policy CC-1.2: Mixed Use, Transit Oriented Infill Development. Promote higher- density infill development with a mix of uses on underutilized parcels, particularly near transit stations and stops. General Plan Policy M-6.1: Transit Supportive Land Use. Plan for and accommodate land uses that facilitate development of compact, mixed-use development with the density, diversity of use, and local accessibility supportive of transit use. Description: Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land uses are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transport. For example, when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside the neighborhood to meet their trip needs. Locating a project with high density near transit will facilitate the use of transit and reduce VMT. Actions: The City shall facilitate and encourage mixed-use and high-density residential development near major transit nodes, consistent with the land use map contained in the Envision Burlingame General Plan. Mixed-use and high-density residential developments are located along Broadway, El Camino Real, in the Downtown Specific Planning Area, and other locations throughout the city. Tracking: The City shall track new development within Burlingame, if the development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation, and its proximity to transit services and infrastructure. Relative Costs: Low. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 48 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 16: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Mixed-Use Development, Transit Oriented Development, and Transit Supporting Land Use (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 95 166 233 328 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 2. 2. Transportation Demand Management General Plan Policy CC-1.5: Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Require that all new, major development projects include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, as defined in the City’s TDM regulations, to reduce single-occupancy car trips. “Major development” shall be defined in the TDM regulations by square footage for commercial development, or minimum number of units for residential development. Description: TDM programs identify ways to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and VMT at the project-level. TDM programs allow developers and building managers flexibility to select measures that reduce VMT. Strategies generally include, but are not limited to: carpooling; designating parking for clean air and ridesharing vehicles; transit subsidies; bicycle parking and amenities; employer-sponsored shuttles/bus services; and alternative work schedules. Actions: The City shall require new multi-unit residential developments of 10 units or more and commercial developments of 10,000 square feet or more to incorporate TDM strategies that achieve a 20% reduction in trip generation rates below the standard rate published in the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th edition), or other reputable source. This trip reduction level may be achieved through site design, transit, bicycle, shuttle, parking restriction, carpooling, or other TDM measures. All TDM plans shall have a designated coordinator who will track the effectiveness of the TDM Program over time and provide a report to city staff annually regarding the effectiveness of the TDM plan. The City shall coordinate with businesses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and the Broadway Commercial Area to identify and implement actions and strategies that would reduce single-occupancy car trips and VMT. Strategies may include, but are not limited to: Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 49 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 carpooling, designated parking for clean air and ridesharing vehicles, transit subsidies, bicycle parking, and employer sponsored shuttles. Tracking: The City shall track the number of new projects subject to this measure and, if known, the vehicle trip and/or VMT reductions resulting from TDM programs. TDM coordinators will report program metrics and results effectiveness to the City annually. Projects not meeting TDM requirements will be required to prepare an action plan to achieve the required reductions. Relative Costs: Low (County incentives for alternative transportation and requirements for new development) to Medium (requirements for existing development that cannot readily change parking areas, proximity to transit, etc.). Table 17: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Transportation Demand Management (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 4,563 8,632 9,286 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 4. 3. Complete Streets General Plan Policy M-1.1: Complete Streets. Define and develop a well-connected network of Complete Streets that can move all modes safely, efficiently, and comfortably to promote efficient circulation while also improving public health, safety, and accessibility. Description: Complete Streets are streets designed and operated to enable safe use and support mobility for all users. Infrastructure Complete Streets infrastructure improvement projectss includeing, but not limited to, marked or raised crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, median islands, and street narrowing, etc. will reduce VMT and increase pedestrian and bicycle use, safety, comfort, and accessibility. Actions: The City shall pursue multi-modal enhancements for roadway segments, intersections, and bikeways along City-maintained public roads, particularly near major roads and development. The City shall develop and implement a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan with detailed information on the existing transportation network and Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 50 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 additional multi-modal infrastructure improvements in the city (e.g., filling in sidewalk gaps, expanded safe bicycle routes, etc.). The City will adjust its transportation impact fee to reward projects associated with low VMT. Transportation impact fees are one-time charges assessed by the City against a new development project to help pay for new or expanded transit facilities (e.g., improvements) that address the increased demand and/or impact created by the development. The City will participate in and advocate for inclusion of Burlingame roads in the San Mateo County Sustainable Streets Master Plan prioritization. Tracking: The City shall document track the number of multi-modal improvements projects executed, including the number of roadways (measured in centerline miles) and intersections improved and any other infrastructure projects that promote safe, efficient multi-modal transportation. Relative Costs: Moderate to High, depending on the infrastructure improvement. Table 18: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Complete Streets (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 5,488 6,686 8,726 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 3. 4. Caltrain Electrification General Plan Policy M-4.2: Caltrain Electrification. Support efforts to electrify Caltrain to improve regional transit services to Burlingame, if these improvements do not result in unacceptable safety or noise impacts on the community. Description: Caltrain’s commuter rail line serves the San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Clara Valley. Its trains currently consist of diesel locomotive-hauled, bi-level passenger cars. Burlingame is served by two Caltrain stations and is in proximity to the intermodal Millbrae station. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project will modernize Caltrain by installing an advance signal system and electrifying the rail line. Since the Caltrain line in Burlingame would be served by Peninsula Clean Energy (see Policy IF-1.9), the trains and stations would utilize 100% GHG-emission free electricity by 2030. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 51 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Actions: The City shall support electrification of the Caltrain corridor and work with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, where it can, to advance the modernization process. Tracking: The City shall keep track of the Caltrain modernization process and any City efforts to support this process. Relative Costs: Low. Table 19: Estimated Annual GHG Emissions Reductions from Caltrain Electrification (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 2,954 3,276 3,598 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 13. 5. Electric Vehicle, Bicycle, and Scooter Sharing General Plan Policy M-3.10: Bicycle Sharing. Implement a bicycle sharing program to provide an alternative to driving, enhance bicycle accessibility, and offer a last-mile option to transit. Description: In late 2017, the City welcomed Limebike, a dock-less, bikeshare program, as a pilot program to test bikeshare in the community. A bikeshare system provides shared use bicycles to individuals on a short-term basis. In addition to making it quicker to get around, bikeshare programs help address the last mile of a commute for people who want to take regional transit, but don’t want to walk an extended distance from the transit stop to their destination. By providing a flexible means of transit that connects people with larger regional transit amenities, electric vehicle (EV), bike- and scooter-share programs make it easier for people to avoid single occupancy vehicle trips, thereby reducing VMT and /GHG emissions. Actions: The City shall continue working with a private electric vehicle, bike-, and scooter- share providers, if available and as feasible, to offer City residents and employees a variety of lower VMT and GHG emission non-vehicular transit options. The City shall also consider other forms of shared-transit amenities as these options become available. The City shall strategize on how to increase ridership in Burlingame (e.g., the placement and number of Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 52 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 bikes near transit hubs) and provide information to the community on the benefits of reducing single vehicle occupancy trips. Tracking: As long as there are EV, bike-, and scooter-share providers in the market, the City shall maintain an operational bikesharesuch programs in its jurisdiction and track ridership and document the effectiveness of the program to reach specified GHG emission reduction goals. Relative Costs: Low Table 20: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Bicycle Sharing (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 3,379 1,697 1,577 1,632 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 14. 6. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Initiatives General Plan Policy CC-1.13: Electric Vehicle Network. Support the electric vehicle network by incentivizing use of electric vehicles and installations of charging stations. Description: This measure will support battery electric vehicles (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) purchases. An increasing share of electric vehicles on the roads in and near the city will decrease vehicle fuel combustion and tailpipe emissions from the current fleet of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. Actions: The City shall target the installation of three public EV stations by 2020, 25 charging stations by 2030, 50 by 2040, and 75 by 2050. The City shall require new residential development to include Level 2 charging stations. The City will work with the County of San Mateo and Peninsula Clean Energy to extend and expand rebates and incentives for Level 2 charging stations. The Level 2 charging station requirement will be enacted through an amendment to the Municipal Code by 2020. The amendments shall affect the portion of the Municipal Code covering the 2019 California Building Standards Code, CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11). Single- and multi-family homes (less than or equal to 20 units) shall be constructed such that each home/unit has at least one dedicated parking space with electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) installed. The City shall work with Peninsula Clean Energy and the Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 53 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 San Mateo County Office of Sustainability to develop specific language for the amendment. In addition, Tthe City shall develop an Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan (EVSP) that shall identifiesy existing charging facilities and EV ownership characteristics in the city, priority areas for installing new public EV infrastructure, opportunities for public/private partnerships, and potential City constraints towards supporting local and statewide goals for EV mode share in 2030 and beyond. The EVSP shall identify and document the actions the City will take each year to promote increased EV use including, but not limited to: 1) partnering with the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability to maximize efforts on expanding the use and purchase of EV vehicles; 2) providing robust information on the City’s website and at City functions regarding the benefits of EV vehicles; 3) encouraging the installation of Level 2 high-speed chargers in residential and commercial developments; 4) seeking opportunities to install signs and other wayfinding devices to assist with locating EV charging infrastructure; and 5) developing a task force or working group comprised of City staff and representatives of local automobile dealerships to identify and coordinate regional EV rebate programs, promotions, and other opportunities for EV awareness; and 6) identify a strategy for electrifying the City’s existing, municipal vehicle fleet. Tracking: The City shall identify the number of EV stations installed in the prior year and provide an annual update on the status of the EVSP development and implementation results as part of its aAnnual Sustainability Report, which shall be advertised and made available to the public. Relative Costs: Low (EVSP preparation) to Medium (EV charging infrastructure) Table 21: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Initiatives (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 5 29 53 79 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 15. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 54 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 7. Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches General Plan Policy M-7.1: Parking Pricing. Manage public parking facilities effectively by using dynamic pricing strategies that allow all parking facilities to achieve desired occupancy rates in business and retail districts. General Plan Policy M-7.3: Parking Requirements. Reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements and/or implement parking maximums for housing, commercial, office, and other land uses in mixed use areas and in proximity to frequent transit services. Comprehensively examine parking requirements in the Zoning Code and adjust as needed to evolving vehicle ownership patterns and parking practices. General Plan Policy M-7.5: Creative Parking Approaches. Promote and support creative approaches to parking, including but not limited to use of parking lifts and shared parking, particularly in mixed-use and retail areas. In Downtown and the Live/Work designation, include consideration of “unbundling” parking from residential development projects, whereby parking is provided as an amenity paid for separately from a lease. Description: Reduced parking requirements encourage smart growth development and alternative transportation choices by employees and consumers. To ensure parking does not spill out onto local streets, the City shall utilize a dynamic pricing strategy that allows all parking facilities to achieve desired occupancy rates. By controlling the amount of parking that is available, employees and consumers are encouraged to carpool or use alternative modes of transportation to reach their destination. Actions: The City shall require all new non-residential development to reduce the number of parking spaces provided by the project by 20% below the standard parking requirement (based on ITE or other reputable source requirements). The City will update its Zoning Ordinance to reflect this new requirement. The City shall evaluate and re-adjust public parking pricing, as needed, to manage the parking supply, and evaluate offering free EV charging in city owned public parking lots. Tracking: The City shall report on parking requirement and pricing changes, including observed effects of these strategies on parking demand and trip rates/VMT, if known. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 55 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Relative Costs: Low. Table 22: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 424 821 1,209 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 16. 8. Burlingame Shuttle Service General Plan Policy M-4.7: Shuttle Service. Increase the use of available shuttles in Burlingame by improving signage, outreach, and coordination with co-sponsors. Description: Five free shuttles currently operate in Burlingame: the Burlingame Trolley, the Broadway Millbrae Shuttle, the Red Carpet Trolley, the Burlingame-Bayside Shuttle, and the North Burlingame Shuttle. All shuttles, except for the Burlingame Trolley, have a stop at the Millbrae Transit Station, which is a transfer station for Caltrain and BART served by a variety of other transit services. The shuttles are funded by the City of Burlingame, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, the San Mateo County Transit District, the BAAQMD, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, the Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District, and the Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District. Actions: The City shall continue to coordinate with its partners to provide free shuttle services and strategize with shuttle co-sponsors on ways to raise awareness of shuttle services and increase ridership. The City shall improve wayfinding (i.e., signage) to disseminate information on the location of shuttle stops. Tracking: The City shall coordinate with the San Mateo County Transit District to track shuttle ridership and report on strategies implemented to increase ridership and overall ridership trends. The City will actively engage with shuttle co-sponsors to identify strategies to increase ridership if ridership data shows shuttle use is not matching expectations. Relative Costs: Low. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 56 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 23: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Burlingame Shuttle Service (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 8 10 11 13 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 18. 9. Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment (New) General Plan Policy HP-2.16: Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment. Support the transition of yard and garden equipment from gasoline to electric fuel sources. Description: GHG emissions are generated by the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline) in yard and garden equipment. By transitioning to electric equipment, emissions will be greatly reduced since 1) there will be no direct emissions during use of the equipment, and 2) the electricity used to power the equipment will be supplied by an increasingly GHG-free portfolio. Actions: The City shall adopt an ordinance prohibiting the use of gasoline- and diesel- powered yard and garden equipment within Burlingame. The City shall explore incentive options for residents and entities who voluntarily transition to electric equipment before the ordinance is enacted. Tracking: The City shall provide updates on the progress it has made in adopting an ordinance prohibiting the use of gasoline- and diesel-powered yard and garden equipment, and identify any incentives it or other regional agencies (e.g. BAAQMD) are offering to reduce GHG emissions from yard and garden equipment. Relative Costs: Low to Medium. There is uncertainty on the specific costs of this measure. A 2004 CARB report on electrification for small off-road engines identified electric equipment options that were generally three to five times more expensive than gasoline-powered equipment.29 However, since then, CARB has added zero emission equipment as a compliance option for meeting small off-road engine standards, and the 2016 SIP includes a 29 CARB, 2004. STAFF Report: Report to the Board on the Potential Electrification Programs for Small Off-Road Engines. California Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA. April 2, 2004. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 57 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 measure to incentivize zero emission equipment for this category. Several communities near Burlingame have passed similar ordinances (Palo Alto, Los Gatos, Los Altos). Table 24: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 516 556 596 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 19. 10. Construction Best Management Practices (Amendment) General Plan Policy HP-3.12: Construction Best Practices. Require construction projects to implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Best Practices for Construction to reduce pollution from dust and exhaust as feasible; require construction projects to transition to electrically-powered construction equipment as it becomes available; and seek construction contractors who use alternative fuels in their equipment fleet. Description: Construction emissions can be reduced by replacing fossil fuels used in construction equipment with alternative fuels, such as renewable diesel (a fuel made from nonpetroleum renewable resources such as natural fats, vegetable oils, and greases), or replacing smaller equipment with electric alternatives, such as electric bulldozers, excavators, loaders, or forklifts. As technology has advanced over the years, new options for replacing smaller construction equipment (defined as less than 120 horsepower) with cleaner, alternative options have become available. For example, a Class 1 electric forklift with pneumatic tires can replace a Class 5 internal-combustion truck.30 Other, larger pieces of equipment, such as the Cat 323F digger (162 horsepower) are also being targeted for electrification, and Volvo recently completed testing of a diesel-electric hybrid loader north of San Francisco.31 State and regional agencies, such as the BAAQMD, implement incentive 30 EPRI, 2015. Electric Forklifts. Electric Power Research Institute. <https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/electricity/epri_2015.pdf> 31 Electrive, 2018. “Pon electrified Caterpillar digger Cat 323F”. Web. January 24, 2018. <https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/excavators/medium-excavators/1000032600.html> Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 58 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 programs that provide monetary grants to public and private fleets to clean up emissions from heavy-duty engines beyond that required by law. The City has undertaken a pilot study, testing the efficacy to using renewable diesel for the City’s street sweepers. Actions: During the environmental review process, the City shall encourage contractors and developers to voluntarily commit to using a construction contractor that utilizes alternative fuels, and/or employ the use of electrically-powered pieces of construction equipment. By 2025, the City will pass an ordinance prohibiting the use of petroleum-based fuel sources for construction equipment less than 120 horsepower unless otherwise demonstrated that no alternative, feasible solutions exist when feasible (i.e., such equipment shall be run on a zero GHG emission fuel source). Tracking: The City shall track the number of projects using alternatively-powered pieces of construction equipment until ordinance adoption. Relative Costs: Low to High, depending on the specific equipment being replaced. Table 25: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Construction Best Management Practices (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 3,618 4,871 5,218 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 20. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 59 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Energy GHG Emission Reduction Measures Vision: Strive for 100% greenhouse gas emission -free power and electricity and reduce reliance on fossil fuel generated power. 11. Green Building Practices and Standards General Plan Policy CC-1.9: Green Building Practices and Standards. Support the use of sustainable building elements such as green roofs, cisterns, and permeable pavement. Continue to enforce the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Periodically revisit the minimum standards required for permit approval. Adopt zero-net-energy building goals for municipal buildings. Description: The Title 24 Building Standards contain minimum standards and voluntary measures for new commercial and residential development. The voluntary measures, referred to Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards, increase resource efficiency, improve building and building system performance, and are consistent with environmental, public health, and accessibility statutes and regulations. For the 2019 Title 24 Building Standards, the Tier 1 standards for residential development are 30% more efficient than the baseline standards; for non-residential development, the Tier 2 standards are 15% more efficient than the baseline standards. Actions: The City shall encourage new residential and non-residential development to comply with the State’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 voluntary energy efficiency provisions. The City shall provide project proponents with information on the benefits of designing their buildings to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards during the environmental or building permit review process. If Zero Net Energy (ZNE) standards have not been adopted for residential and non-residential development by 2030, the City will amend its Construction Codes to require that all new residential and non-residential developments meet ZNE standards. The City shall explore ways to eliminate natural gas consumption in new development by restricting and/or banning natural gas utility infrastructure from being supplied to new structures. Alternatively, the City may explore ways to restrict and/or ban the installation of appliances that consume natural gas (e.g., cooking ranges, water heaters, etc.). Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 60 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Tracking: The City shall track and report the number of new developments that comply with the Tier 1 or Tier 2 voluntary energy efficiency requirements or which achieve a ZNE standard and report this number, as well as the total amount of new development in the city. Relative Costs: Low (voluntary provisions) to High (ZNE standards). Table 26: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Green Building Practices and Standards (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 53 124 133 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 21. 12. Energy Efficiency General Plan Policy HP-2.8: Energy Efficiency. Support energy efficiency improvement in the aging building stock citywide. Encourage energy efficiency audits and upgrades at the time of sale for existing homes and buildings. Host energy efficiency workshops, and distribute information to property owners, tenants, and residents. Publicize available programs such as PACE financing and San Mateo Energy Watch programs. Incentivize low-cost retrofits to residents and businesses. Description: Given Burlingame’s relatively older building stock, the City anticipates many homeowners and property owners will pursue upgraded building systems (e.g., HVAC, electrical, etc.) over time. Partial remodels featuring building systems consistent with the 2019 Title 24 building standards are estimated to be approximately 50% and 37% more efficient than the existing building stock for residential and non-residential developments, respectively. Major remodels will be required to demonstrate they meet the 2019 Title 24 building standards (or newer building code standards applicable at that time), as if they were new developments entirely. Actions: The City shall encourage energy efficiency audits and upgrades at the time of sale for existing homes and buildings, host up to three energy efficiency workshops per year, and distribute information to property owners, tenants, and residences. The City shall Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 61 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 encourage those doing major remodels, both residential and non-residential, to comply with the voluntary CALGreen tiers that reach beyond the current State code requirements. During the permitting processes, the City shall provide project proponents with information on the benefits of designing their buildings to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. Tracking: The City shall track and report in its aAnnual Sustainability Report, advertised and made available to the public, the number of minor and major addition, modification, and renovation permits issued in Burlingame and report on the number of projects that incorporated voluntary energy efficiency improvements above and beyond State requirements. Relative Costs: Low (Information Sharing) to High (Tier 2 voluntary provisions). Table 27: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Energy Efficiency (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 3,247 7,168 7,309 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 24. 13. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100 General Plan Policy IF-6.9: ECO100. Increase ECO100 enrollment by residents and businesses. Coordinate with community champions and Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) to expand outreach on ECO100. Description: PCE is San Mateo County’s official electricity provider. PCE was formed by the County of San Mateo and all 20 of its cities to help jurisdictions meet local climate actionGHG emission reduction goals. PCE offers a choice of two electricity options, each with a different percentage of sustainable energy. ECOplus is the default, with 50% of the electricity provided to its customers being sourced renewably. With ECO100, 100% of the electricity is sourced from renewable sources. PCE has a strategic goal of sourcing 100% GHG-free electricity by 2021, and 100% California RPS eligible renewable electricity by 2025. By 20302021, the entire portfolio will be 100% GHG emission free, and customers will no longer have to opt into ECO100 to realize the strides made by PCE (i.e., 100% GHG-free electricity will be the default plan). By the end of 2017, 98% of all accounts within the city Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 62 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 were enrolled in PCE; 2% of these accounts were enrolled in ECO100. All municipal accounts are currently enrolled in ECO100. Actions: The City shall support PCE’s goal of sourcing 100% of its electricity from GHG-free sources by 2021 by keeping all municipal accounts in ECO100 and encouraging community members to do the same. The City shall provide information on the benefits of ECO100 to its citizens through community outreach (e.g., flyers at City events, electronic newsletters, etc.). Tracking: The City shall continue to monitor PCE’s current renewable energy portfolio and track and report the number of Burlingame accounts enrolled in ECO100. Relative Costs: Low. Table 28: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100 (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 16,533 24,073 24,038 - Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 27. 14. Residential Solar Power General Plan Policy HP-2.7: Residential Solar Power. Encourage homeowners to install solar power systems. Provide information to homeowners on the benefits of solar power and funding opportunities. Promote Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs that finance renewable energy systems. Offer incentives for home solar power systems. Description: The PACE program allows property owners to finance the up-front cost of energy or other eligible improvements on a property and then pay the costs back over time through a voluntary assessment. The unique characteristic of PACE assessments is that the assessment is attached to the property rather than to an individual. Over the last five years, approximately 308 residential solar permits have been approved within the city, or about 62 permits per year. By continuing to support PACE programs, the City is helping to ensure that more electricity consumed within Burlingame will be generated by photovoltaic (PV) Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 63 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 systems instead of the electricity grid, which may have electricity still generated by non- renewable sources. Actions: The City shall continue promoting PACE programs through community outreach (e.g., signage, flyers at City events, social media, etc.) and providing information about PACE programs on a City webpage. Tracking: The City shall continue to monitor and track the number of residential solar systems permitted and installed in Burlingame. Consistent with historical performance, the City is targeting approximately 62 new solar applications per year. The City shall report these metrics in its aAnnual Sustainability Report, which shall be advertised and made available to the public. Relative Costs: Low to Moderate. Table 29: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Residential Solar Power (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 345 617 1,028 - Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 29. 15. Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters (New) General Plan Policy HP-2.17: Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters. Support the transition from tank-based, natural gas water heaters to solar, or electrically- powered, or natural gas tankless water heaters in residential development. Description: Historically, residential water heaters have consisted of a large tank (e.g., 40 gallons) that is heated by the combustion of natural gas. These tank-based systems, which continuously heat the water throughout the day, are inefficient, because the water temperature is maintained even when the water may not be used for some time. Tankless water heaters, also known as demand-type or instantaneous water heaters, provide hot water only as it is needed. They do not produce the standby energy losses and related heat loss and cost impacts associated with traditional, tank-based water heaters. Tankless Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 64 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 systems can either be powered by natural gas or electricity and work by heating the water instantaneously as it passes through the unit. Solar water heaters convert sunlight into heat for water heating. There are generally two types of solar water heaters: active, which have circulating pumps and controls, and passive, which don’t. Most solar water heaters require a well-insulated storage tank to store the energy harnessed by the sun. Since solar water heaters rely on the sun to generate hot water, they are typically combined with another, more conventional system (e.g., natural gas or electricity) to account for cloudy days and times of increased demand. This back-up system can either be implemented in a one-tank system or two-tank system. In two-tank systems, the solar water heater preheats water before it enters the conventional water heater. In one-tank systems, the back-up heater is combined with the solar storage in one tank. Actions: The City shall provide permittees with information on the benefits of installing alternatively-powered water heating systems during the permit process, and work with PCE to establish rebate programs for building electrification. Tracking: The City shall track and report the number of solar, electrically-powered, and natural gas tankless water heaters that are installed in Burlingame as part of its aAnnual Sustainability Report, which shall be advertised an made available to the public. Relative Costs: Low (information sharing) to High (installation of alternative water heating systems). The CEC’s evaluation of residential instantaneous water heating systems found that such systems were, on average, $500 more than storage water heaters (not including any component upgrade costs), but that such systems result in less maintenance, replacement, and energy costs over an approximately 13-year period. Table 30: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 270 315 455 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 31. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 65 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Water and Wastewater GHG Emission Reduction Measures Vision: Practice strong water conservation with residents, businesses, and City sectors; assist existing and new construction to comply with water-related building standards; and integrate green infrastructure in new development and redevelopment projects. 16. Water Conservation Retrofits for Businesses General Plan Policy IF-2.11: Retrofits. Implement programs that incentivize businesses and private institutions to replace existing plumbing fixtures with water-efficient plumbing. Description: This measure targets the replacement of existing, indoor water consumption at businesses and private institutions within Burlingame with newer, more efficient water fixtures (e.g., low-flow faucets, toilets, etc.) and encourages the addition of gray water systems for outdoor water use. This measure will reduce overall water consumption and result in lower indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity needed to convey, distribute, and treat water. Actions: The City shall conduct outreach and provide audits to existing businesses and private institutions, informing them of the water- and cost-saving benefits associated with newer, water-efficient plumbing and gray water systems. Tracking: The City shall track the number of businesses and private institutions that upgrade to newer, water-efficient plumbing as part of its aAnnual Sustainability Report, which shall be advertised and made available to the public. Relative Costs: Low. Table 31: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Retrofits (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 1 2 - Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 34. 17. Water Conservation for New Residential Development General Plan Policy HP-6.2: Water Conservation. Promote best practices for water conservation throughout the City, and continue to enforce City ordinances requiring high- Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 66 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 efficiency indoor water fixtures in new development. Educate the public about Burlingame’s water rebate programs, and continue to establish tiered water rates that promote water conservation. Consider water consumption when evaluating development projects. Encourage drought-tolerant landscaping and efficient irrigation systems. Description: This measure improves the water efficiency in new residential development projects by requiring Energy Star rated kitchen faucets, dishwashers, and clothes washers, as well as low-flow faucets, shower heads, and toilets, to reduce water consumption and associated GHG emissions from the conveyance, distribution, and treatment of water. This measure encourages existing residential properties to upgrade their water fixtures to newer, water-efficient technologies; and supports outdoor water conservation by using low-water use plants in the garden and smart irrigation systems. Actions: The City shall require that new residential developments include the installation of Energy Star rated kitchen faucets, dishwashers, and clothes washers, as well as low-flow faucets, shower heads, and toilets. In addition, encourage the use of grey water systems for outdoor water use. Tracking: Prior to project approval, the City shall ensure all residential project designs include a provision for the installation of Energy Star rated kitchen faucets, dishwashers, and clothes washers, as well as low-flow faucets, shower heads, and toilets. The Planning Department shall review project designs (e.g., site plans, engineering diagrams, etc.) to ensure incorporation of this requirement. Relative Costs: Low. Table 32: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Water Conservation (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 2 3 - Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 35. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 67 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Waste GHG Emission Reduction Measure Vision: Attain zero waste in everyday life where most consumables are either recyclable, reusable, or compostable. 18. Zero Waste General Plan Policy IF-5.16: Zero Waste. Participate in negotiations with waste vendor to implement zero waste supportive contracts and services. Description: This measure establishes future waste diversion rate goals for the City of 8590%, 9095%, and 95100% for 2030, 2040, and 2050, respectively. Actions: The City (i.e., Sustainability Coordinator) shall coordinate with Recology and other applicable waste utility providers to reduce the amount of organic and recyclable materials going to the landfill and increase the waste diversions rate. The City shall perform community outreach (e.g., flyers, electronic newsletters, etc.) informing community members and businesses of the environmental benefits of reducing waste and disposing of items properly. In addition, the City shall also develop a Community Zero Waste Plan to guide the community in diverting its waste from landfill disposal, manage resources to their highest and best use, and identify ways to reduce waste at the source. The Community Zero Waste Plan shall set forth specific strategies, implementation goals, and quantifiable metrics to track progress of the Plan. Tracking: The City shall monitor its waste diversion rate by coordinating with Recology, and monitoring waste reports released by CalRecycle. The waste diversion rate and the City’s strategy for the upcoming year to meet or exceed waste diversion goals shall be provided in its aAnnual Sustainability Report, which shall be advertised and made available to the public. Relative Costs: Low. Table 33: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Zero Waste (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 - 2,760 4,140 4,483 5,978 6,435 8,044 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 37. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 68 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Municipal GHG Emission Reduction Measures Vision: Position the City as a leader and role model in sustainability for the benefit of its community, attract green businesses to the City’s growing roster of green companies, and inspire climate action by residents in daily life. 19. Municipal Green Building Measures General Plan Policy HP-2.10 Municipal Green Building. Aim for new construction and major renovations of City facilities to be zero net energy. Description: The term ZNE Standards refers to a building where the amount of energy produced by on-site or adjacent renewable energy resources (e.g., solar panels) is equal to the amount of electrical and natural gas energy consumed by the building annually. Achievement is based on 12 consecutive months of actual energy performance data. The City shall strive for new structures to not only be ZNE, but also all electric, thereby negating potential emissions from natural gas consumption. Actions: The City currently anticipates the need for a new Community Center by 2020, and the reconstruction of City Hall in the next 5-10 years. The City shall require the new Community Center, City Hall, and any other City facilities be designed to ZNE standards, as feasible, and strive for all-electric design. The City shall also pursue electrification of the City’s existing municipal vehicle fleet (see GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 for a discussion of the EVSP that will be developed). Tracking: In the early design phases of the Community Center, City Hall, and other facilities, the City shall work with the design team to ensure new structures are built to ZNE standards, as feasible, and strive for an all-electric design. Relative Costs: Moderate to High, depending on the technology at the time of construction. Table 34: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Municipal Green Building Measures (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 27 27 66 66 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 38. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 69 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 20. Increase the Public Tree Population (Amendment) General Plan Policy CC-2.2: Increase the Public Tree Population. Identify ways to increase the overall population of trees in Burlingame to stem the natural decline of the urban forest and create a more equitable distribution of tree canopy. Description: Plants and trees function as a natural sink for CO2 by taking the CO2 and converting it into oxygen and carbon-based plant matter during the natural carbon cycle. Trees are significant sources of carbon storage and sequestration due to their size and longevity; increasing the number of trees planted in Burlingame will help offset GHG emissions generated in the City’s jurisdiction. Actions: At a minimum, the City shall ensure 33 new trees are planted annually on City- owned or maintained land, in addition to any trees that are planted to offset the removal of trees on City-owned or maintained land. Planting locations may include, but are not limited to: public streets, parks, and government facilities. Tracking: The City’s Parks and Recreation Department shall ensure there is a net positive planting of 33 trees per year. Metrics on the number of trees planted and trees removed are already tracked by the City and will be included in its aAnnual Sustainability Report, which shall be advertised and made available to the public. Relative Costs: Low. Table 35: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Increase the Public Tree Population (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 5 17 29 40 Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 39. Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 70 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 GHG Emission Reduction Measures Not Quantified The General Plan contains numerous other measures that are difficult to quantify but nonetheless offer GHG emission-reduction benefits. For example, policies for community gardens do not directly create GHG emission reductions, but we know that supporting local food programs can have positive impacts on public health and the environment and contribute to reducing transportation emissions. The list to the right highlights sustainability measures in the General Plan with GHG-reduction benefits. These measures are not included in the implementation and tracking of the CAP. They complement and support the CAP’s measures but are not relied on directly to achieve the City’s GHG-emission reduction targets. Integrate Green Infrastructure: CC-1.8: Green Infrastructure and HP-6.9: Green Infrastructure Prevent Stormwater Pollution: CC-1.10: Site Design Support Local Food Programs: CC-1.11: Urban Agriculture; HP-1.11: Access to Healthy Food; HP-1.12: Community Garden Sites; HP-1.13: School Gardens; HP-1.14: Multi-Family Residential Gardens; and HP-1.15: Agriculture in Single-Family Residential Neighborhoods Provide Public Education on Climate Action: CC-1.12: Public Education and Outreach Practice Environmental Purchasing: IF-1.4: Sustainable Practices Explore Recycled Water: IF-2.12: Recycled Water Implement Sustainable Landscaping: IF-2.13: Bay-Friendly Landscaping; HP-4.16: Sustainable Landscaping; and HP-6.8: Water-Efficient Landscaping Promote Green Businesses: HP-2.11: Innovative Technologies and HP-2.12: Green Businesses Avoid Air Pollution: HP-3.5: Woodstove and Fireplace Replacement Page 71 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 5 Preparing for Climate Change The purpose of the City’s 2030 CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions within the city that contribute to global climate change, thereby reducing the impacts of climate change both at the global and local level. The potential impacts of climate change can include, but are not limited to, increases in drought, extreme heat, changes in sea level, and increased flooding and weather events. Some climate change impacts, specifically sea level rise, are already occurring. This Chapter summarizes the steps the City is taking to ensure Burlingame is resilient to climate change impacts. Sea Level Rise Water levels in the San Francisco Bay have risen eight inches over the past 100 years, and the rate of bay rise is expected to quicken in the next century as climate change impacts accelerate. The State projects sea level to rise 14 inches by 2050. In San Mateo County, researchers predict sea level to rise six inches by 2030 and one to two feet by 2050.32 The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the organization responsible for regulating the region’s shoreline, found in a 2009 assessment that most of Burlingame’s Bayfront area could be underwater by 2070. The assessment predicts that Burlingame will become increasingly vulnerable to water inundation during both normal high tides and major storm events. Rising sea level may inundate the land along the Bayfront and flood nearby industrial, commercial, and residential areas. Burlingame’s Bayfront is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. It is one of the few areas on the Peninsula not protected by natural wetlands or levies. Ordinarily, wetlands create a natural buffer between the Bay and built environment and can provide a cost-effective flood protection strategy. The Bayfront has a hard-edge seawall along the waterfront. The low-lying area is 32 County of San Mateo, 2018. “A Prepared and Stronger Community The San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment.” Web. <https://seachangesmc.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/SLR_VA_Highlights_v12_web-spread.pdf> Preparing for Climate Change Page 72 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 composed primarily of fill materials. The Bayfront extends about 2.5 miles along the San Francisco Bay and contains recreation and open spaces, office buildings, and destination restaurants and hotels in proximity to San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Old Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard are the area’s primary access routes and connect travelers from the airport to at least 12 major hotels in the Bayfront. The hotels provide significant income to the City; 35-40% of the City’s annual General Fund budget comes from transient occupancy taxes from Bayfront hotels. The roads also protect underground water mains and utilities that supply the businesses and hotels, and they provide access to a wastewater treatment plant. The regional Bay Trail runs along the Bayfront, providing pedestrian and bicycle recreation opportunities along the Bay. San Mateo County is leading the charge on sea level rise in the region. In 2015, the County launched an initiative called “Sea Change San Mateo County” to bring together and provide resources to local governments and agencies.33 The first task of this effort was to complete a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment to evaluate the impacts of flooding and erosion and identify actionable solutions to protect people and places. Burlingame staff actively engaged with the County on the effort and ongoing actions. The County’s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment projected flooding assuming a baseline scenario (1% annual storm chance, also known as 100-year flood), mid-level (1% annual storm chance plus 3.3 feet of sea level rise), and high-end scenarios of sea level rise (1% annual storm chance plus 6.6 feet of sea level rise) for each of the County’s 20 cities. According to the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, the following sea level rise scenarios are predicted for Burlingame: ● Baseline Sea Level Rise Scenario: 20 acres of land would be inundated, including a portion of Old Bayshore Highway. ● Mid-level Sea Level Rise Scenario: 452 acres inundated, and nearly all of Old Bayshore Highway and Highway 101 and stormwater and energy transmission infrastructure vulnerable. 33 San Mateo County, 2019. “A Prepared and Stronger County”. About. Web. <https://seachangesmc.org/about/> Preparing for Climate Change Page 73 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 ● High-end Sea Level Rise Scenario: 813 acres inundated, and high risk of endangerment across all infrastructure and accessibility. The resulting change in sea level forecasted in each of the three scenarios above and the impact on Burlingame is depicted in Envision Burlingame General Plan Figure CS-4, Anticipated Sea Level Rise. Burlingame staff anticipates seeing infrastructure impacts in the near terms as well, specifically to the City’s storm drain system. Much of the City’s aging storm drain system has a ten-year design storm capacity, not the standard 30-year capacity for regional facilities. Some local storm drain systems also have less than a two-year design storm capacity, where the standard is also ten years. Flood protection improvements to the storm drain system will be necessary to protect life, property, and investments throughout Burlingame. Staff is working with the County on the next phase of the Sea Change San Mateo County effort to identify and implement actionable solutions. The City received a grant from the County for further assessment of potential impacts of sea level rise on the City’s Bayfront. The program will be to build upon the “Asset Vulnerability Profile” prepared for the San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment for the Old Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard study area. The expected outcomes include the identification of potential near-term and long-term adaptation strategies that would be applicable to the particular site conditions of the Bayfront and a high-level assessment that could inform policies and future planning efforts. As part of this effort, the City will be leading outreach with neighboring jurisdictions, including the City of Millbrae, the City of San Mateo, and San Francisco International Airport, to provide consistent messaging on risks across communities. City staff also welcomes regional collaboration opportunities and has met with SFO and Stanford student design teams to explore solutions for the Bayfront. General Plan Policies Related to Climate Change Adaptation Current climate vulnerability, adaptation, and resiliency planning practices build upon the State Natural Resources Agency’s Adaptation Planning Guide and 2018 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. In general, best practices for vulnerability include clear assessment and Preparing for Climate Change Page 74 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 documentation of risk exposure, community and population sensitivity, potential physical effects (e.g., infrastructure impacts, strains on public service providers), and adaptive capacity (e.g., what resources are available to the community). Current best practices for development and a climate adaptation management strategy focus on prioritizing adaptive needs, developing strategies based on the needs, and implementing adaptive strategies in a phased or feasible manner that promotes and does not preclude long-term/higher-capital adaptation responses. Burlingame’s General Plan is the City’s best policy tool to address sea level rise in future land uses and development. Consistent with the State’s Adaptation Planning Guide, the General Plan considers sea level rise in the Bayfront and other vulnerable parts of Burlingame and contains policies and goals to protect existing and future urban uses from sea level rise impacts. The following policies from the Envision Burlingame General Plan specifically implement climate adaptation planning principles: Policy CC-6.7: Sea Level Rise. Require that new and existing development along the Bayfront make provisions for seal sea level rise and flood risks, which may involve payment of assessments to fund City or other efforts to build a unified defense system. Maintain minimum water front set back, with the setback area providing space in the future to accommodate sea level rise and flooding defenses. Design new buildings with habitable areas to minimize potential damage from exceptional storm events. Policy IF-4.2: Localized Flooding. Identify and correct problems of localized flooding. Promote the use of green infrastructure, whenever feasible, to mimic a natural hydrologic system that uses stormwater as a resource. Policy IF-4.3: Guard against Sea Level Rise. Pursue the policies outlined in the Safety Element related to sea level rise. Policy IF-4.4: Green Stormwater Infrastructure. Plan for and implement Low Impact Development (LID) retrofits, such as green infrastructure which uses vegetation and soil to capture, treat, and retain stormwater runoff. Promote the use of pervious surfaces, green streets, and rainwater harvesting to achieve multiple benefits, such as creating open space, Preparing for Climate Change Page 75 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 improving stormwater quality, and increasing groundwater recharge. Avoid or minimize the impact of stormwater discharges on local receiving waters, including San Francisco Bay. Goal CS-5: Protect vulnerable areas and infrastructure from flooding related to rising sea levels in the San Francisco Bay. Policy CS-5.1: Monitor Rising Sea Level. Regularly coordinate with regional, State, and Federal agencies on rising sea levels in San Francisco Bay and major tributaries to determine if additional adaptation strategies should be implemented to address flooding hazards. This includes monitoring FEMA flood map updates to identify areas in Burlingame susceptible to sea level rise, addressing changes to State and regional sea and bay level rise estimates, and coordinating with adjacent municipalities on flood control improvements. Policy CS-5.2: Vulnerability Assessment and Planning. Continue to coordinate with San Mateo County on the county-wide Sea Level Rise vulnerability assessments and planning that will identify regional sea level rise risk factors and areas, as well as emerging options for response. Policy CS-5.3: New Development in Vulnerable Areas. Continue to require appropriate setback and building elevation requirements for properties located along the Bayshore, lagoons, and in other low-lying areas that are susceptible to the effects of sea level rise. Consider other strategies to support resiliency through design. Policy CS-5.4: Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Provide to the public, as available, up-to-date Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that identify rising sea levels and changing flood conditions. Monitoring and Updates. Adaptation planning is a young field, and there is still much to learn as cities grapple with climate change impacts. Burlingame will continue to monitor and participate in regional adaptation planning efforts. The City expects to conduct future high-level assessments to inform and refine its approach to protect and prepare the Bayfront and residents and businesses for sea level rise. Preparing for Climate Change Page 76 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Page 77 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 6 Implementation and Monitoring This Chapter describes how the City will implement and monitor progress towards achieving its annual GHG emission targets. Responsibility and Implementation Methods The City’s Sustainability Coordinator will have the primary responsibility for implementing and monitoring CAP progress as follows: ● Overseeing implementation of CAP GHG emissions reduction strategiesmeasures ● Coordinating with City departments that have a primary or supporting role or responsibility for implementing the City’s CAPGHG emission reduction measures ● Partnering with San Mateo County’s RICAPS to prepare annual municipal and community-wide GHG emissions inventories ● Preparing and submitting an Annual Sustainability Report to the City Council ● Monitoring and evaluating CAP progress over time ● Providing recommendations to change, modify, or amend the CAP if it is not achieving its proposed GHG emission reduction targets ● Updating the CAP document approximately every five years ● Participating (or designating participants) and working closely with City staff, residents, and businesses during CAP-related planning efforts (e.g., development of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan or a new specific plan), CAP-related meetings (e.g., work group, task force, or other City sustainability-related meetings), or other CAP- related initiatives ● Securing funding, as necessary and feasible, that supports CAP implementation, monitoring, and/or progress towards meeting CAP GHG emission reduction goals Implementation and Monitoring Page 78 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 ● Tracking new regional, State, and federal regulations that affect the City’s GHG emissions levels In addition to the above items, the City’s Sustainability Coordinator will also work with the Burlingame School District to inform the younger generation of the City’s goals for addressing climate change and the importance of sustainable practices. Outreach and educational activities could include, but are not limited to, presenting at school assemblies or classrooms, or working with teachers directly on ways to incorporate climate change and sustainability segments into the science curriculum. While the Sustainability Coordinator holds the primary responsibility for implementing and monitoring the CAP, other City departments play an important role implementing the CAP and contributing to its success. Monitoring and Updates The GHG emissions reductions in this CAP will be achieved through a combination of regulations, ordinances, programs, incentives, and outreach activities. As time progresses, technologies may change, development may proceed differently than forecasted, and new GHG reduction regulations and/or programs may take effect. The CAP will need to be periodically updated to reflect and respond to changing environmental, regulatory, technological, demographic, and market conditions. The City will monitor and update the 2030 CAP through the preparation of aAnnual Sustainability Reports, annual emission inventory updates, and periodic updates, ensuring the City’s CAP remains a dynamic document. Annual Sustainability Report The City’s Sustainability Coordinator will prepare and submit to the City Council an Annual Sustainability Report, the presentation of which is marketed and available to the public. This report provides a summary of the programs and policies implemented by the City to improve sustainability in the City’s operations and on a community-wide level. Following adoption of the 2030 CAP Update, the Sustainability Coordinator will include an annual summary progress Implementation and Monitoring Page 79 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 report of CAP implementation and monitoring. The summary shall include a brief description of each measure’s implementation status and progress towards achieving the measure’s outcome using the metrics and timeframes listed in Table 36, 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program. Such a summary will be included in each subsequent annual reportAnnual Sustainability Report presented to the City Council. Emission Inventory Updates The 2030 CAP Update’s GHG emissions inventories and forecasts are based on the best available information and current best practices for preparing GHG emissions estimates. However, emissions forecasts are based on projected market development and other conditions that are subject to change. Accordingly, the City will continue to partner with San Mateo County’s RICAPS program to provide an annual GHG emission inventory update for both municipal and community-wide GHG emissions levels. These annual emissions inventories will incorporate the latest data and assumptions regarding the City’s energy usage, VMT, waste generation, etc. and will measure and track the City’s progress towards meeting its GHG emission reduction goals. Periodic CAP Update To ensure the City remains on track to meet its GHG reduction goals, the City will update the CAP every five years, including robust community input, beginning in 2025. CAP updates shall reflect the City’s findings presented in its Annual Sustainability Report, advertised and made available to the public, and annual GHG emission inventory update, and will include, as necessary, updated GHG emissions inventories and forecasts and new or modified GHG emission reduction measures. The need for new or modified GHG emission reduction measures would be required if specific GHG emission reduction measures identified in the currently adopted CAP are not fully implemented or effective at reducing GHG emissions. The City will measure and evaluate the performance of individual GHG emission reduction measures through its Annual Sustainability Report and updated emissions inventories. If a specific measure is not achieving the desired outcome or performing as expected, the City will use the CAP update to adjust its GHG emission reduction strategy and measures. By providing a CAP Implementation and Monitoring Page 80 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 update in the 2025 timeframe, the City will have the opportunity to fully evaluate progress and take additional actions necessary to meet its 2030 GHG emission reduction target. CEQA Streamlining The City’s Envision Burlingame General Plan and 2030 CAP Update analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions at a programmatic level and set forth the City’s strategy for reducing GHG emissions from existing and new land uses and development projects. The City has prepared the General Plan and 2030 CAP Update to satisfy all of the qualifications set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, as well as the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines 34, by including the following components: ● A quantified inventory of GHG emissions resulting from development within the city for CAP baseline year 2005, existing inventory year 2015, projected year 2020, projected year 2030, projected General Plan buildout year 2040, and projected year 2050 conditions. ● A level of emissions, based on substantial evidence, which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the General Plan would not be cumulatively considerable. ● Identification and analysis of GHG emissions anticipated because of development pursuant to the Envision Burlingame General Plan. ● Specific General Plan policies and CAP actions, including all feasible GHG emission reduction measures that will be implemented on a project by-project basis in Burlingame. ● The quantification of GHG emissions reductions and evaluation of whether General Plan policies and CAP actions would collectively achieve the City’s specified GHG emissions levels and reduction targets. 34 BAAQMD, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. Implementation and Monitoring Page 81 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 ● Mechanisms to monitor the CAP’s progress toward achieving the City’s GHG emissions levels and reduction targets and to require amendment if the CAP is not achieving the specified GHG emissions levels. ● Adoption in a public process following environmental review. The qualified 2030 CAP Update, by definition from the BAAQMD, provides opportunities for the City to tier from and/or incorporate by reference the CAP’s programmatic review of GHG emissions and impacts into future project-specific CEQA documents and streamline the environmental review process. Development projects that are consistent with the land use projections and GHG reduction measures in the CAP will be eligible for CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 following CAP adoption. Projects that involve a General Plan amendment with increased densities or development intensities beyond those allowed by the General Plan will most likely not be eligible for CEQA streamlining because they would not be consistent with the General Plan and the underlying assumptions in the CAP GHG emissions forecast and GHG emissions reduction strategy. The City will determine project-level consistency with the 2030 CAP Update through the CAP Implementation Checklist. The Checklist is the mechanism City staff will use to demonstrate consistency with General Plan policies and CAP actions on a project-by-project basis. In general, new development projects will need to incorporate all applicable CAP measures and supporting efforts to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. These measures will be enforced as conditions of approval for ensuring that compliance is confirmed before the project can be implemented. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 requires that an environmental document that relies on a qualified CAP for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the CAP that apply to the project and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project. The Implementation Checklist will serve to specify the requirements for individual projects and will be conditioned to ensure incorporation and implementation of CAP measures. The Checklist will ensure that reductions are achieved on a project-by-project basis. Implementation and Monitoring Page 82 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 CAP Implementation and Monitoring Program The City would use the CAP consistency checklist to track project compliance on an individual level. Newly proposed, residential and non-residential development projects would be required to fill out the checklist, which documents project consistency with various CAP components. The checklist should be included in a project’s submittal package to the City. Projects that are consistent with the CAP could rely on the CAP for streamlining under CEQA. This checklist generally serves as the City’s day-to-day document for tracking project compliance with the CAP. For the checklist to be deemed complete, it must be filled out to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Although the Checklist would be used most frequently by the City for assessing project consistency with the CAP, there are a number of implementing actions that would be required on the City’s end (i.e., independent of project review). Funding The implementation of the GHG reduction measures by Burlingame residents, businesses, and municipal government operations requires financial resources derived from various sources. The City will monitor funding opportunities and financing mechanisms to successfully implement CAP measures. Potential funding sources to support GHG reduction measures include: Federal: Grants and energy efficiency tax credits offered by the federal government. State Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF): Proceeds from the State’s Cap and Trade Program support a wide range of programs and projects that reduce GHG emissions. Some GGRF-funded programs that may benefit the City of Burlingame include: CARB Low Carbon Transportation Investments and Air Quality Improvement Program; Recycling grants; CEC programs; and California Growth Council climate programs. State (non-GGRF): The State supports other programs and projects that reduce GHG emissions with non-GGRF funds such as energy efficiency tax credits and Energy Upgrade and Solar Roof programs. Regional: The following regional agencies currently provide funding for GHG reduction efforts: Implementation and Monitoring Page 83 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 ● The BAAQMD offers grant funding to public agencies for trip reduction, bicycle facilities, and clean air vehicle projects. ● The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency offers rebates to install water- efficient indoor and outdoor fixtures. ● The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Climate Initiatives Program provides funding for projects that reduce transportation-related emissions. County: The San Mateo County Energy Watch Program provides certain no-cost energy efficiency services and information on financing energy efficient projects. City of Burlingame: The City’s General Fund and Capital Improvement Budget provide funding for City projects. Utility Providers: The City’s utility providers, including PG&E and Peninsula Clean Energy, periodically offer rebates and incentives to replace old equipment with new equipment, support electric vehicles, and install energy efficient upgrades. Loan Programs: Municipal bonds and energy efficiency finance programs, such as the PACE Program, are examples of loan funding and financing options for energy efficiency and other GHG reduction measures and programs. Private: Private equity and crowdfunding can support a variety of demonstration, energy efficiency, and GHG reduction measures and programs. Implementation and Monitoring Page 84 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 36: 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program Measure Title and Action Expected Outcome Mandatory / Voluntary Responsibility Timeframe 1.Mixed Use Development and Transit-Oriented Infill Development, and Transit Supportive Land Use (General Plan Policies CC-1.2 and M-6.1) Require new developments to comply with the Implementation Checklist. Support applications that are consistent with the General Plan land use designations, increase goods and services in proximity to residential areas, and bring residential units near transit stations. Reduce VMT by 9% through mixed-use development City: Mandatory Community Development Ongoing Enforce land use designations during the early planning stages of new development, particularly for land uses within PDAs identified in Plan Bay Area 2040. (https://www.planbayarea.org/pda-tpa- map) Reduce VMT by 15% by locating a project with high density near transit (i.e., in PDA) City: Mandatory Community Development Ongoing 2. Transportation Demand Management (General Plan Policy CC-1.5) Adopt TDM Policy for new developments and integrate policy into Zoning Code by 2020. Reduce VMT by 20% from new development City: Mandatory Sustainability Coordinator, Community Development By 2020 Adopt TDM Policy Incentive for existing development. Reduce VMT by 20% from existing development City: Mandatory Community: Voluntary Community Development By 2030 Update the Zoning Code to reflect the City’s General Plan vision. Reduce VMT by 20% from existing development City: Mandatory Community Development By 2040 3. Complete Streets (General Plan Policy M-1.1) Prepare and Implement a Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Reduce overall VMT by 10-15% by increasing development intensity, improving and expanding the City’s non-modal infrastructure, and implementing traffic calming measures. City: Mandatory Public Works By 2025 4. Caltrain Electrification (General Plan Policy M-4.2) Support Caltrain’s efforts to electrify the rail line. Reduce GHG emissions from diesel combustion. City: Mandatory Public Works Ongoing Implementation and Monitoring Page 85 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 36: 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program Measure Title and Action Expected Outcome Mandatory / Voluntary Responsibility Timeframe 5. Bicycle Sharing (General Plan Policy M-3.10) Track annual bicycle ridershiprideshare use, and coordinate with Limebike and/or other companies to expand the use of EV, bike- and scooter-share program(s) in the city as long as such companies exist in the market. Transition approximately 3% of vehicle trips to EV, bicyclebike- and/or scooter-share trips to reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions. City: Mandatory City Manager’s Office, Sustainability Coordinator Ongoing 6. EV Infrastructure and Initiatives (General Plan Policy CC-1.13) Develop and adopt an Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan (EVSP). Facilitate installation of a minimum of 25 new, public charging stations in Burlingame per decade starting in 2020. City: Mandatory Sustainability Coordinator, Community Development, Public Works By 2022 Amend zoning code to require new residential development to install Level 2 charging stations. Increase number of new residential units with access to fast, EV ready charging stations. City: Mandatory Community Development By 2020 7. Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches (General Plan Policies M-7.1, M-7.3, and M-7.5) Update parking supply requirements in the zoning code Reduce parking supply by 20% in all new, non-residential development, when compared to standard ITE parking rates. City: Mandatory Community Development, Public Works, Economic Development By 2025 Evaluate and re-adjust public parking pricing Implement dynamic pricing strategies to minimize spill out onto local streets and help parking facilities achieve desired occupancy rates City: Mandatory Community Development, Public Works, Economic Development, Code Compliance Ongoing 8. Burlingame Shuttle Service (General Plan Policy M-4.7) Increase signage, outreach, and coordination with shuttle co-sponsors Increase shuttle ridership by approximately 5% each decade. City: Mandatory Public Works, Sustainability Coordinator Ongoing 9. Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment (General Plan Policy HP-2.16) Adopt an ordinance banning the use of gasoline- and diesel-powered yard and garden equipment Eliminate GHG emissions from fuel combustion City: Mandatory Community Development, Code Compliance, By 2025 Implementation and Monitoring Page 86 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 36: 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program Measure Title and Action Expected Outcome Mandatory / Voluntary Responsibility Timeframe Sustainability Coordinator 10. Construction Best Management Practices (General Plan Policy HP-3.12) Adopt an ordinance banning the use of gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment less than 120 horsepower Eliminate emissions from construction equipment with engine rating of less than 120 horsepower City: Mandatory Community Development, Code Compliance, Sustainability Coordinator By 2025 11. Green Building Practices and Standards (General Plan Policy CC-1.9) Enforce the CALGreen Code and encourage new development to comply with the voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. Require new development to be substantially more efficient than previous construction. City: Mandatory Community: Voluntary Community Development Ongoing Amend the Municipal Code for ZNE standards Require buildings constructed post-2030 to have zero net energy GHG emissions Mandatory Community Development, Economic Development, Sustainability Coordinator By 2030 12. Energy Efficiency (General Plan Policy HP-2.8) Encourage energy efficiency audits at the time of sale for existing homes and buildings, and outreach existing County and other incentives for low-cost retrofits to residents and businesses. Increase building owners’ awareness of current energy consumption and the number of retrofits occurring during the time of sale. Target 1% of the building stock for retrofits, annually. City: Mandatory Community: Voluntary Community Development, Finance, Sustainability Coordinator Ongoing Encourage major remodels to comply with voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 CALGreen standards. Improve the energy efficiency of new buildings already subject to the latest version of the CALGreen requirements. City: Mandatory: Community: Voluntary Community Development, Sustainability Coordinator By 2030 Implementation and Monitoring Page 87 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 36: 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program Measure Title and Action Expected Outcome Mandatory / Voluntary Responsibility Timeframe 13. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100 (General Plan Policy IF-6.9) Coordinate with community champions and PCE to expand outreach on ECO100. Increase the number of residents / businesses signed up for ECO100. City: Mandatory Sustainability Coordinator Ongoing Support PCE’s efforts to supply the electric grid with 100% renewable electricity. Reduce GHG emissions by sourcing 100% of electricity used in the city from renewable resources. City: Mandatory Sustainability Coordinator By 2030 14. Residential Solar Power (General Plan Policy HP-2.7) Encourage homeowners to install solar power systems; provide information on PACE programs; and offer incentives for home solar power systems. Install on average 62 PV systems per year on existing residential homes. City: Mandatory Community: Voluntary Community Development, Finance, Sustainability Coordinator Ongoing 15. Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters (General Plan Policy HP-2.17) Encourage residents to install solar, electrically-powered, or natural gas tankless water heaters during the permitting process. Target 10% of all water heaters replaced to be alternatively powered. City: Mandatory Community: Voluntary Community Development, Sustainability Coordinator Ongoing 16. Water Conservation Retrofits for Businesses (IF-2.11) Conduct outreach to businesses and private institutions, and develop programs that incentivize businesses to replace existing plumbing fixtures. Reduce annual water consumption by 2.58 million gallons each decade. City: Mandatory Community: Voluntary Community Development, Sustainability Coordinator Ongoing 17. Water Conservation for New Residential Development (HP-6.2) Require high-efficiency indoor water fixtures be installed in new residential development. Reduce GHG emissions associated with water consumption. City: Mandatory Community Development, Sustainability Coordinator Ongoing 18. Zero Waste (IF-5.16) Develop a Community Zero Waste Plan Identify concrete strategies to increase the waste diversion rate to 90% by 2030, 95% by 2040, and 95% by 2050. City: Mandatory Sustainability Coordinator By 2025 Coordinate with Recology and community Increase the waste diversion rate City: Sustainability Ongoing Implementation and Monitoring Page 88 City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019 Table 36: 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program Measure Title and Action Expected Outcome Mandatory / Voluntary Responsibility Timeframe leaders to increase the waste diversion rate from Burlingame, and adopt policies identifying these goals. to 85% by 2030, 90% by 2040, and 95% by 2050. Mandatory Coordinator 19. Municipal Green Building Measures (HP-2.10) Design the new Community Center, City Hall, and all other local government facilities to ZNE standards to the extent financially feasible. Construct new government buildings to be zero net energy to the extent feasible. City: Mandatory Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Sustainability Coordinator Ongoing 20. Increase the Public Tree Population (CC-2.2) Plant a net positive of 33 trees per year Plant 33 new public trees annually to sequester CO2 in the atmosphere. City: Mandatory Parks and Recreation Ongoing CAP Consistency Checklist Submittal Application City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 2019 ➢The purpose of this checklist i s to ensure development projects in Burlingame are consistent with the City’s 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) and to provide a streamlined review process for projects undergoing CEQA review. ➢The CAP represents Burlingame’s strategy to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions ef fect may be determined to not be cumulatively considerable, if it complies with the requirements of the CAP. ➢Projects that are consistent with the CAP (as demonstrated using this Checklist) may rely on the CAP for the impact analysis of GHG emissions, as required under CEQA. Projects not consistent with the CAP should prepare a project -specific GHG analysis, including a qualitative/quantitative analysis of project GHG emissions and identification appropriate mitigation measures. Application Information Project Name and Location Project No./Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Property Address: _______________________________________________________________________ Applicant Information Applicant Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Applicant Company: _______________________________________________________________________ Applicant Phone: _________________________ Applicant Email : _________________________ Was a consultant retained to complete this checklist? ☐Yes ☐No If “Yes” complete the following Consultant Name: _________________________ Consultant Phone _________________________ Consultant Company: _________________________ Consultant Email: _________________________ Project Information 1.What is the size of the project (acres)?___________________________________________ 2.Identify all applicable proposed land uses: ☐Single-family Residential (# of units):___________________________________________ ☐Multi -family Residential (# of multi -family units): ___________________________________________ ☐Commercial (total square footage):___________________________________________ ☐Industrial (total square footage):___________________________________________ ☐Other (describe):___________________________________________ 3.Is the project located in a Priority Development Area? https://www.planbayarea.org/pda -tpa -map ☐Yes ☐No 4.Provide a brief description of the proposed project: CAP Consistency Checklist Questions City of Burlingame Step 1: Land Use Consistency Th e first step in the Checklist allows the City to determine whether a project is consistent with the land use assumptions used in the CAP and Burlingame’s General Plan. Step 1: Land Use Consistency Checklist Item (Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd supporting documentation for your answer) Yes No A.Is the proposed project consistent with the existing, General Plan’s land use and zoning designations? OR ☐ ☐ B.If the proposed project is not consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations, does the project include a land use or zoning designation amendment that would result in an equivalent or less GHG-intensive project, when compared to the existing designation? If the answer to either of the questions above is “No,” this checklist cannot be used to streamline the project’s GHG analysis under CEQA. The project should conduct a full, project -specific GHG analysis during CEQA review, and incorporate each of the measures identified in the section below, as they are appropriate to the project. Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency The second step in the Checklist review the project’s consistency with applicable CAP measures. Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency Checklist Item (Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for your answer) Yes No N/A Mixed Use Development and Transit -Oriented Infill Development, and Transit Supportive Land Use The City shall Support new, mixed-use development and high -density residential development in proximity to major transit stations and stops. Is the project located within a quarter mile of a Caltrain Station? ☐ ☐ ☐ Is the project near any other transit stations? ☐ ☐ ☐ What is the project’s walking score? https://www.walkscore.com/CA/Burlingame _____________________________ Details : 2030 CAP Update August 2019 City of Burlingame Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency Checklist Item (Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for your answer) Yes No N/A Transportation Demand Management Require all new, major development projects (10 units or 10,000 sq ft or more) include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupancy car trips by 20%. By 2040, require all qualifying, existing businesses and residential developments to implement TDM programs. Does the project have a TDM program, and does it meet the 20% reduction in VMT when compared to standard ITE trip generation rates? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details (e.g., shuttles, carpool, transit incentives, TDM coordinator, % reduction in VMT achieved, etc.): Complete Streets Develop a well -connected network of Complete Streets that cane move all modes safely, efficiently, and comfortably to promote efficient circulation, public health, and safety. Does the project include a pedestrian, transit, or cycling improvements to streets, such as, but not limited to: traffic calming measures, bike lanes, or shuttle stops? ☐ ☐ ☐ Does the project qualify for an adjusted transportation impact fee or achieving low VMT? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details (e.g., improvements): EV Network and Electric Vehicles Support the electric vehicle network by incentivizing use of electric vehicles and installations of charging stations. The City shall target the installation of three (3) public EV stations by 2020, 25 charging stations by 2030, 50 by 2040, and 75 by 2050. The City shall expand upon the EV requirements outlined in the Title 24 Building Code by requiring new residential development to include Level 2 charging stations by 2020. Does the project comply with the City’s EV charging station requirements? (Residential projects are required to include level 2 charging stations, and commercial projects are highly encouraged to install level 2 charging stations.) ☐ ☐ ☐ Is the project utilizing any EV charging grant opportunities (e.g., from PCE or the BAAQMD)? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details (e.g., how many EV charging stations, what grant opportunities, etc.): 2030 CAP Update August 2019 City of Burlingame Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency Checklist Item (Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for your answer) Yes No N/A Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches Manage public parking facilities to encourage alternative transportation and less driving. The City will update its Zoning Ordinance to required new non -residential development reduce parking supply by 20 percent by 2025. Does the proposed project include any creative parking approaches to reduce parking supplies? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details: Shuttle Service Increase the use of available shuttles in Burlingame. Will the project applicant provide tenants with shuttle information ? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details: Yard and Garden Equipment Support the transition of yard and garden equipment from gasoline to electric fuel sources. The City shall adopt an ordinance by 2025 prohibiting the use of gasoline- and diesel -powered yard and garden equipment within the City. The City will explore inventive options for residents and entities who voluntarily transition to electric equipment before the ordinance is enacted. Will the project applicant provide tenants with information on the City intent to adopt an ordinance by 2025 to prohibit the use of such landscape equipment? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details: 2030 CAP Update August 2019 City of Burlingame Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency Checklist Item (Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for your answer) Yes No N/A Construction Best Management Practices Require construction projects to implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Best Practices for Construction. Also require construction projects to transition to electrically -powered construction equipment as it becomes available, and seek construction contractors who use alternative fuels in their equipment fleet for municipal construction projects. Will the project comply with the BAAQMD’s BMPs and utilize available electric /alternatively-powered construction equipment? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details: Green Building Practices and Standards Support, enforce, and expedite green building practices and standards . Will the project comply with CALGreen voluntary tiers or other green building elements that reach beyond CALGreen requirements? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details (e.g., which tier, and/or features): Energy Efficiency Encourage energy efficiency audits at the time of sale for existing homes, and incentivize low-cost retrofits for residents and businesses . Does the proposed project consist of either a minor or major retrofit? ☐ ☐ ☐ Has an energy efficient audit been conducted for the structure(s)? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details (e.g., what is being done to the building, did the audit influence any components of the retrofit, etc.): 2030 CAP Update August 2019 City of Burlingame Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency Checklist Item (Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for your answer) Yes No N/A ECO100 Increase ECO100 enrollment by residences and businesses. Support PCE’s goal of sourcing 100% of its electricity from GHG free sources by 2021 . Will the project applicant either comply with, or provide tenants with, information in Peninsula Clean Energy and specifically encourage enrollment in ECO100? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details (e.g., strategy): Residential Solar Power Encourage homeowners to install solar power systems . The City is targeting 62 new solar applications per year. Does the project include any renewable energy ? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details (e.g., strategy): Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters Support transition from traditional to solar, electrically-powered, or natural gas tankless water heaters in residential development Does the project include alternatively-powered water heaters? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details: Water Conservation Retrofits Replace existing plumbing fixtures with water -efficient plumbing in buildings. Does the project include water conservation element that go beyond CALGreen requirements (e.g., efficient landscaping, drip irrigation, and rain barrels )? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details: 2030 CAP Update August 2019 City of Burlingame Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency Checklist Item (Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for your answer) Yes No N/A Zero Waste Implement zero waste supportive contracts and services and achieve waste diversion goals of 85% by 2030, 90% by 2040, and 95% by 2050. Does the project include facilities to collect garbage, recycling, and compost? ☐ ☐ ☐ Will the project applicant inform tenants of the benefits of recycling and composting? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details: Increase the Public Tree Population The City’s Parks and Recreation Department shall ensure there is a net positive planning of 33 trees per year. Does the project consist of a City project that include either the removal and/or planting of trees? ☐ ☐ ☐ Details (i.e., how many trees removed, how many planted): 2030 CAP Update August 2019 Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report SCH#: 2017082018 June 19, 2019 Consultant to the City Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame Table of Contents June 19, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Regulatory Guidance ..............................................................................................1-2 1.3 Environmental Review Process ..............................................................................1-2 1.4 Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................1-3 1.5 Addendum Organization .........................................................................................1-5 Chapter 2 Project Description ...............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................2-1 2.2 City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan and General Plan EIR .................................2-1 2.3 City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan ..................................................................2-1 2.4 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................2-8 2.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals .................................................2-8 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist and Findings ...............................................................3-1 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Burlingame 2040 General Plan CEQA Analysis ......................................................3-1 3.3 Methodology for Analysis ........................................................................................3-2 3.4 Environmental Analysis ..........................................................................................3-3 Chapter 4 References and EIR Addendum Preparers .........................................................4-1 4.1 References .............................................................................................................4-1 4.2 EIR Addendum Preparers .......................................................................................4-1 TABLES Table 2-1 Burlingame GHG Reduction Targets ........................................................................2-3 Table 2-2 BAU / ABAU GHG Emissions Projections – 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 ................2-3 Table 2-3 CAP GHG Reduction Measures Summary ...............................................................2-6 Table 2-4 2030 CAP Update GHG Emission Reductions Summary .........................................2-7 Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame Table of Contents June 19, 2019 LIST OF ACRONYOMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS Acronym / Symbol Full Phrase or Description AB Assembly Bill ABAU Adjusted Business as Usual ACC Advanced Clean Cars BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BAU Business as Usual CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code CAP Climate Action Plan CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent EIR Environmental Impact Report EO Executive Order GHG Greenhouse Gas GWP Global Warming Potential LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Regulation LEV Low-Emission Vehicle MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents SB Senate Bill VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 1. Introduction June 19, 2019 Page 1-1 1. Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND As a community committed to protecting the environment, Burlingame prepared its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2009 to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the city through the year 2020. Over the last decade, Burlingame has implemented multiple programs and efforts that significantly reduced GHG emissions from City operations and the community and brought other benefits to Burlingame. Since the 2009 CAP only targeted GHG emission reductions through the year 2020, the implementation of a new strategy is required to address GHG emissions in the future. In 2015, the City of Burlingame commenced a three-year endeavor that updated the community’s vision for the future and set forth policies to implement this vision. These policies constitute the Burlingame 2040 General Plan, also known as Envision Burlingame. On January 7, 2019, the Burlingame City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2017082018) for the City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan, and adopted the 2040 General Plan (Burlingame, 2019a). Chapter 10 of the EIR, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, included background information on climate change and GHG emissions; regulatory climate actions to date; an overview of State, regional, and local GHG emissions levels; and a preliminary analysis of the environmental effect of the General Plan on global climate change. The EIR’s GHG analysis presented estimates of existing GHG emissions within the city, forecasted future GHG emissions levels in the city, and estimated GHG reductions attributable to State legislation and General Plan policies. The EIR analysis indicated adoption of the General Plan and the implementation of the policies contained therein, as written at the time of the EIR’s release, would not reduce the City’s GHG emissions to levels consistent with State GHG reduction goals and, therefore, would have a significant impact on global climate change and GHG emissions. The proposed 2030 Climate Action Plan Update (2030 CAP Update) compiles all the climate action related goals and policies contained in the General Plan into a single, comprehensive document for addressing GHG emissions in the city (Burlingame, 2019b). The proposed CAP update is intended to address Goal HP-2 of the General Plan (achieve GHG emissions consistent with State goals) and is one of the specific implementation programs identified in the General Plan (IP-52: Climate Action Plan). The proposed 2030 CAP Update provides new estimates of existing GHG emissions within the city; forecasts future GHG emissions for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050; and identifies GHG reductions resulting from State legislation and GHG reduction measures contained in the CAP. Although nearly all measures identified in the proposed 2030 CAP Update are directly tied to the City’s General Plan policies, the 2030 CAP Update modifies and adds several policies to the General Plan. These actions, adopting the 2030 CAP Update and amending the General Plan to incorporate all 2030 CAP Update GHG reduction measures, are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and constitute the subject of this EIR addendum. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 1. Introduction June 19, 2019 Page 1-2 1.2 REGULATORY GUIDANCE CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) provides that when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the Lead Agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that one or more of the following circumstances exist: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions to the EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; C) Mitigation or alternatives previously found not feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D) Mitigation or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects on the environment but the project proponent decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 provides that a Lead Agency can prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 is required and only minor additions or changes are needed to make the previous EIR adequate to address the changed situation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides that the Lead Agency may prepare an Addendum to a certified EIR if none of the conditions described in §15162 have occurred. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to §15162 must be included in the addendum, Lead Agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the City has reviewed the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments, public comments received on the Draft 2030 CAP Update to date, and the certified EIR for the 2040 General Plan to determine: 1) The extent to which the potential impacts resulting from the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments have been addressed by the previously certified EIR for the General Plan; 2) Whether the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments create new significant or more severe project impacts, 3) Whether new circumstances or new information create new significant or more severe impacts or require new analysis, and Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 1. Introduction June 19, 2019 Page 1-3 4) Whether any identified new significant or more severe impacts are adequately addressed by previously approved project mitigation. The City has determined that the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments would have similar or reduced environmental impacts from those described in the certified EIR. There are no new significant environmental impacts or previously identified significant impacts made more severe by project changes, new circumstances, or new information. Therefore, the City has determined not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15162. Rather, the City has determined that an EIR addendum should be prepared as the appropriate CEQA document to address adoption of the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15164. CEQA Guideline Section 15164(c) provides that an addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. 1.4 TIERING AND STREAMLINING THE ANALYSIS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(a) includes the following provisions for addressing GHG emissions: (a) Lead agencies may analyze and mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions at a programmatic level, such as in a general plan, a long range development plan, or a separate plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Later project-specific environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference that existing programmatic review. Project-specific environmental documents may rely on an EIR containing a programmatic analysis of greenhouse gas emissions as provided in section 15152 (tiering), 15167 (staged EIRs) 15168 (program EIRs), 15175-15179.5 (Master EIRs), 15182 (EIRs Prepared for Specific Plans), and 15183 (EIRs Prepared for General Plans, Community Plans, or Zoning). (b) Plan for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Public agencies may choose to analyze and mitigate significant greenhouse gas emissions in a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions or similar document. A plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be used in a cumulative impacts analysis as set forth below. Pursuant to section 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d), a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation program under specified circumstances. (1) Plan Elements. A plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions should: (A) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; (B) Establish a level, based on substantial evidences, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emission from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; (C) Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; (D) Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (E) Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; (F) Be adopted in a public process following environmental review. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 1. Introduction June 19, 2019 Page 1-4 This Addendum analyzes the the potential environmental impacts that may result from the implementation of the 2030 CAP Update and corresponding General Plan amendments. It can facilitate future environmental review of projects by enabling them to tier from and/or incorporate by reference, the analysis presented in the City’s Envision Burlingame EIR, inclusive of this EIR Addendum. The City has prepared the 2030 CAP Update to satisfy all of the qualifications set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, as well as the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, by including the following components in the 2030 CAP Update (BAAQMD, 2017). • A quantified inventory of GHG emissions resulting from development within the City for CAP baseline year 2005, existing inventory year 2015, projected year 2020, projected year 2030, projected General Plan buildout year 2040, and projected year 2050 conditions (2030 CAP Update Chapters 2 and 3) • A level of emissions, based on substantial evidence, below which the the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the General Plan would not be cumulatively considerable (2030 CAP Update Chapters 2 and 3) • Identification and analysis of GHG emissions anticipated because of development pursuant to the Envision Burlingame General Plan (2030 CAP Update Chapter 3) • Specific General Plan policies and CAP actions, including all feasible GHG reduction measures identified by the City, that will be implemented on a project by-project basis in the City (2030 CAP Update Chapter 4 and Chapter 6) • The quantification of GHG emissions reductions and evaluation of whether General Plan policies and CAP actions would collectively achieve the City’s specified GHG emissions levels and reduction targets (2030 CAP Update Chapter 4 and Chapter 6) • Mechanisms to monitor the CAP’s progress toward achieving the City’s GHG emissions levels and reduction targets and to require amendment if the CAP is not achieving the specified GHG emissions levels (2030 CAP Update Chapter 6) • Adoption in a public process following environmental review The 2030 CAP Update demonstrates the City’s efforts to address climate change by reducing local GHG emissions, with an emphasis on improving the energy efficiency of buildings, renewable energy, and preparing the City to adapt to a changing climate. The 2030 CAP Update builds on General Plan policies and actions to reduce local GHG emissions, and identifies how the City would achieve a GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below baseline (i.e., year 2005) levels by the year 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. To achieve the community-wide GHG emission reduction targets for years 2020 and 2030, the City intends to implement a variety of GHG reduction measures addressing energy efficiency and renewable energy, transportation, water consumption, solid waste, and City government operations. Following adoption, the 2030 CAP Update would be the City’s primary tool to implement General Plan goals and policies related to the reduction of GHG emissions. The actions and tracking requirements identified in the 2030 CAP Update and General Plan would be integrated into City development review processes, trigger ordinance updates, and initiate policy and procedure revisions. The City’s Sustainability Coordinator would lead implementation of the 2030 CAP Update in coordination with other departments, support integration of the 2030 CAP Update into City operations, and work with City Planners to review future projects for consistency with CAP measures and actions. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 1. Introduction June 19, 2019 Page 1-5 1.5 ADDENDUM ORGANIZATION This document is organized as follows: • Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an introduction and overview describing the intended use of the General Plan EIR Addendum. • Chapter 2, Project Description, describes the project location, objectives, and characteristics. • Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, contains an analysis of environmental topic areas that were addressed in the City General Plan EIR and their relationship to proposed 2030 CAP Update measures and actions. • Chapter 4, References and EIR Preparers, provides a list of references and identifies the individuals who were involved in the preparation of this document. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 1. Introduction June 19, 2019 Page 1-6 This page intentionally left blank. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 2. Project Description June 19, 2019 Page 2-1 2. Project Description This Chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed Burlingame 2030 CAP Update. Please refer to Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, for the evaluation of the potential environmental effects of this project in relation to the the Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR. 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Burlingame is located on the San Mateo Peninsula, 16 miles south of San Francisco. It is surrounded by the cities of Millbrae to the north, San Mateo to the south, the San Francisco Bay to the east, and Hillsborough to the west (see Draft EIR Figure 2-1, Regional Map). Major transportation facilities serving the City include Interstate 280, US Route 101 (Highway 101), two Caltrain commuter rail stations (Broadway and Downtown), and San Francisco International Airport. A Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)/Caltrain multimodal transit station is located just north Burlingame, in the City of Millbrae. 2.2 CITY OF BURLINGAME 2040 GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN EIR California state law requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city or county and any land outside its boundaries that bears relation to its planning (California Government Code Section 65300). The general plan expresses the community’s development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land uses, both public and private. A city or county’s zoning, specific plans, subdivisions, capital improvements, development agreements, and many other land use actions must be consistent with the adopted general plan. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65302, a general plan must address seven issue areas. These issue areas, typically addressed as general plan elements, consist of land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. California Government Code Section 65300.5 specifically requires that the elements and associated policy provisions are internally consistent and that no one element or provision of a general plan carries greater weight than another. The 2040 General Plan identifies the City’s development tools and polices relative to the distribution of future land uses, provides a basis for local governmental land use decisions, and informs citizens, developers, and decision-makers of the guidelines for development in the city. The City of Burlingame adopted and certified the 2040 General Plan and corresponding 2040 General Plan EIR, respectively, on January 7, 2019. The 2040 General Plan updated six of the seven mandated elements for a General Plan, including the Land Use Element, Housing Element, Circulation Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, and Health and Safety Element. The only element not updated as part of the Envision Burlingame process was the Housing Element. Integrated throughout the 11 chapters of the General Plan are goals and policies that address sustainability, conservation, and climate change. The potential environmental effects of these policies were analyzed in the certified 2040 General Plan EIR. 2.3 CITY OF BURLINGAME CLIMATE ACTION PLAN The City developed the 2030 CAP Update to carry out General Plan Implementation Program 52: Climate Action Plan, which directs the City to prepare a climate change sustainability Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 2. Project Description June 19, 2019 Page 2-2 assessment strategy that evaluates the city’s susceptibility to climate change and identifies tool/strategies to mitigate impacts, and General Plan Policy CC-1.1: Climate Action Plan, which directs the City to maintain up-to-date Climate Action Plan policies and continue to provide sustainability reports. The 2030 CAP Update’s GHG reduction goals are also consistent with General Policy HP-2.3: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets, which requires the City to work to achieve GHG emissions reductions locally that are consistent with the targets established in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Global Solutions Act of 2006) and subsequent supporting legislation (e.g., Senate Bill (SB) 32). 2.3.1 Purpose of the Climate Action Plan The City of Burlingame initiated the 2030 CAP Update as part of the 2040 General Plan. The 2030 CAP Update implements specific General Plan goals, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, addresses climate change adaptation, and is intended to improve overall quality of life in the city. The 2030 CAP Update also supports statewide GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32 and SB 375. Implementation of the measures and actions in the 2030 CAP Update would help the city grow efficiently, ensure long-term resiliency to a changing environmental and economic climate, and improve transportation. The 2030 CAP Update would also serve as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy under CEQA, potentially simplifying development review for new projects that are consistent with the General Plan and 2030 CAP Update. Development of the 2030 CAP began with re-establishing the City’s baseline GHG emission inventory to reflect new recommendations in GHG inventory development. Consistent with the 2009 CAP, the 2030 CAP Update retains 2005 as the City’s baseline GHG emission inventory year. The 2005 community-wide inventory focuses on GHG emissions generated by certain activities occurring within Burlingame City limits, including: residential energy, commercial/industrial energy, transportation, solid waste, water, wastewater, and City-owned stationary sources. In total, 2005 community-wide GHG emissions are estimated to be 255,195 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e)1. The updated 2005 community-wide baseline GHG emission inventory provides the benchmark from which the 2030 CAP Update’s GHG reduction goals are established.2 The 2030 CAP Update primarily focuses on reducing GHG emissions for 2020 and 2030, consistent with legislatively-adopted State targets. Although emission forecasts and reductions are included for 2040 and 2050, it would be speculative to demonstrate achievement with these longer-term goals with the information known today. As has been the case with the last decade, it is anticipated technological advances and future federal and State law will assist Burlingame in reducing its emissions in line with State goals. The 2030 CAP GHG reduction targets are: • 2020: Reduce GHG emissions by 15% below the City’s 2005 GHG Baseline Inventory (comparable to 1990 levels; AB, 2006) • 2030: Reduce GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels (SB 32, 2016) • 2040: Reduce GHG emissions by 60% below 1990 levels 1 The potential for a particular GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its glob al warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is carbon dioxide (CO2), which has a GWP of one. By comparison, methane has a GWP of 28, which means that one molecule of methane has 28 times the effect on global warming as one molecule of CO2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHG by their GWP determines their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which enables a project’s combined GWP to be expressed in terms of mass CO2 emissions equivalents. 2 While the State uses 1990 as its baseline year, local governments tend to not have reliable GHG data prior to 2005. According to CARB, a reduction target of 15% below 2005 levels is comparable to a return to 1990 levels. Burlingame, therefore, has used data from 2005 to derive its 2020 goal , which is considered representative of 1990 levels. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 2. Project Description June 19, 2019 Page 2-3 • 2050: Reduce GHG emissions by 80% below 1990 levels (SB 32, 2016) Table 2-1 summarizes the City’s GHG reduction targets for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. Table 2-1: Burlingame GHG Reduction Targets CAP GHG Scenario GHG Emissions Level (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 GHG Reduction Targets 216,916(A) 130,350(B) 86,766(C) 43,383(D) (A) 216,916 MTCO2e is 15% below the City’s 2005 GHG baseline inventory (255,195 MTCO2e). (B) 130,350 MTCO2e is 40% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e). (C) 86,766 MTCO2e is 60% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e). (D) 43,383 MTCO2e is 80% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e). The 2030 CAP Update identifies how the City would achieve or demonstrate substantial progress towards the GHG emissions targets presented in Table 2-1. The 2030 CAP also identifies measures and actions to reduce emission from City government operations and adapt to a changing climate. 2.3.2 State and Regional Climate Actions Burlingame’s strategy for climate protection must be set within the context of the Bay Area and the state, where much of the momentum for reducing GHG emissions originates. The State policies and regulations most relevant to the City’s 2030 CAP Update are briefly described below. The first three bullet points present the major milestones that have driven all climate change planning efforts across California. • Executive Order S-3-05 9 (2005): In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 establishing the State’s GHG emission targets for 2010 (reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels), 2020 (reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels), and 2050 (reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels). • Assembly Bill 32 (2006): Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006, mandating caps on statewide GHG emissions, a deadline of December 31, 2020 for achieving GHG reduction levels, and the requirement for the State to prepare a Scoping Plan with the State’s GHG strategy to achieve such reductions by such date. • Executive Order B-30-15 (2015): Governor Edmund Brown issued EO B-30-15 to set a GHG emissions target for 2030 (reduce GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels) and to require the State’s climate adaptation strategy to be updated every three years. • SB 375 - Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (2008): The intent of SB 375 is to better integrate regional planning of transportation, land use, and housing to reduce sprawl and ultimately reduce GHG emissions and other air pollutants. SB 375 tasks the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set GHG reduction targets for each of California’s 18 regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). • AB 341 - Mandatory Commercial Recycling (2012): AB 341 requires that at least 75% of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. • Advanced Clean Cars Program (2012): In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) Program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The components of the ACC program are the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations and the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation. • Low Carbon Fuel Standard (2018): CARB initially approved the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulation in 2009. Originally, the LCFS regulation required at least a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2020 Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 2. Project Description June 19, 2019 Page 2-4 (compared to 2010). In 2018, CARB approved changes to the LCFS regulation that require a 20% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030. • SB 100 - California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (2018): SB 100 revised the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program to require retail sellers of electricity to serve 50% and 60% of the total kilowatt-hours sold to retail end-use customers be served by renewable energy sources by 2026 and 2030, respectively, and requires 100% of all electricity supplied come from renewable sources by 2045. • Executive Order B-48-18 - Zero Emission Vehicles (2018): EO B-48-18 establishes a target to have five million ZEVs on the road in California by 2030. The executive order is supported by the State’s 2018 ZEV Action Plan Priorities Update, which expands upon the State’s 2016 ZEV Action Plan. • Title 24 Energy Standards (2019): Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). CALGreen contains both mandatory and voluntary measures. California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The 2019 standards will go into effect on January 1, 2020 and improve upon existing standards. The 2019 standards include new requirements for installation of solar photovoltaics for newly constructed low-rise residential buildings and also propose several smaller improvements in energy efficiency. 2.3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emission Forecasts After establishing the city’s 2005 community-wide baseline inventory, data were gathered to evaluate how emissions within the city limits had changed over the course of a decade. Community-wide emissions in Burlingame during 2015 are estimated to be approximately 242,523 MTCO2e, or about five percent less than the 2005 community-wide inventory. Using the 2015 community-wide GHG emission inventory and growth projections contained in the 2040 General Plan (for housing, population, and employment) and Plan Bay Area 2040 (for vehicle miles travelled, or VMT), emission forecasts were developed for the years 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. A GHG emissions forecast predicts future emissions levels based on the continuation of current trends and activities in GHG emissions sectors and accounting for population and employment growth. GHG emissions forecasts provide a basis for determining the amount of GHG emissions reductions needed to achieve GHG reduction targets. The 2030 CAP Update contains two emissions forecasts: • The “Business As Usual” (BAU) projection – This forecast estimates what GHG emissions would be if the Burlingame community continued to act as it currently does as it grows and takes no actions to reduce emissions. The 2030 CAP BAU projection assumes population, housing, and employment will increase over time from Year 2015, reaching General Plan buildout levels by 2040, and result in a corresponding increase in GHG emission from the various GHG emissions sectors (e.g., energy, transportation, water, etc.). The 2030 CAP Update also includes projections for 2050 to align with State GHG reduction planning efforts. • The “Adjusted Business As Usual” (ABAU) projection –The ABAU forecast accounts for legislative actions adopted after 2015 (or resulting in GHG emission reductions after 2015) that would reduce future GHG emissions regardless of whether or not the City adopted the 2030 CAP Update. The inventory and forecasts presented in the 2030 CAP Update are based on the GHG emissions inventory and forecasts contained in the General Plan EIR, but include several minor revisions to data sources and methodologies that provide for a more accurate estimate of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 2. Project Description June 19, 2019 Page 2-5 community-wide GHG emissions3. The 2005 and 2015 baseline emissions inventory estimates contained in the 2030 CAP Update are slightly lower than the emissions inventory estimates contained in the General Plan EIR. Similarly, the BAU and ABAU forecasts are slightly smaller than presented in the General Plan EIR. Finally, since baseline emissions projections are slightly less than estimated in the Draft EIR, the 2030 CAP Update’s GHG reduction targets are slightly lower than presented in the Draft EIR (in terms of total emissions, but not percentage reduction). The 2030 CAP update also specifically quantifies and forecasts GHG emissions in 2050. These minor changes do not constitute new information of substantial importance as identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(A–D). Table 2-2 summarizes the city’s BAU and ABAU forecasts, and identifies the emissions gap between the ABAU forecast and the City’s GHG reduction targets. Table 2-2: BAU / ABAU GHG Emissions Projections - 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 Forecast Scenario Emissions (MTCO2e / yr) 2020 2030 2040 2050 BAU GHG Emissions Projection 255,244 273,541 303,460 329,155 ABAU GHG Emissions Projection 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534 GHG Reduction Targets(A) 216,916 130,350 86,766 43,383 Additional GHG Reductions Needed 16,730 50,343 102,923 123,151 (A) See Table 2-1. As shown in Table 2-2, legislative actions taken by the state would greatly reduce GHG emissions in the decade to come; however, absent additional, local action, the City will not meet its 2020 and 2030 GHG reductions target. The 2030 CAP Update identifies 20 measures to reduce 2020 and 2030 GHG emissions below the established targets, and puts the city on a path forward to meeting its GHG reduction goals in 2040 and 2050. These 20 GHG reduction measures are described in the next section. 2.3.4 Climate Action Plan GHG Reduction Measures The proposed 2030 CAP Update focuses on 20 GHG reduction measures that would reduce GHG emissions to levels that meet the City’s goals for 2020 and 2030 and demonstrate substantial progress towards meeting the City’s goals for 2040 and 20504. Due to the integral relationship between the General Plan and the 2030 CAP Update (i.e., the CAP is one of the General Plan’s implementation programs), many of the 2030 CAP Update’s GHG reduction measures tied to policies contained in the 2040 General Plan. Of the 20 GHG reduction measures: • Sixteen (16) of the measures are directly tied to policies in the adopted 2040 General Plan (and thus were evaluated and analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR); 3 The 2030 CAP update relies on actual water use estimates instead of estimates based on per capita consumptive rates. The Draft EIR estimated emissions reductions associated with General Plan Policies C C-1.2, CC-1.5, CC-1.9, HP-2.7, HP-2.8, M-6.1, and IF-6.9. The 2030 CAP Update includes these reductions plus additional reductions associated with General Plan Policies CC-1.13, CC-2.2, HP-2.7, HP-2.8, HP-2.10, HP-2.16, HP-2.17, HP-3.12, HP- 6.2, IF-2.11, IF-5.16, M-1.1, M-3.10, M-4.2, M-4.7, M-7.1, M-7.3, and M-7.5. 4 The Draft EIR estimated emissions reductions associated with General Plan Policies CC -1.2, CC-1.5, CC-1.9, HP- 2.7, HP-2.8, M-6.1, and IF-6.9. The 2030 CAP Update includes these reductions plus additional reductions associated with General Plan Policies CC-1.13, CC-2.2, HP-2.7, HP-2.8, HP-2.10, HP-2.16, HP-2.17, HP-3.12, HP- 6.2, IF-2.11, IF-5.16, M-1.1, M-3.10, M-4.2, M-4.7, M-7.1, M-7.3, and M-7.5. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 2. Project Description June 19, 2019 Page 2-6 • Two (2) of the measures would amendment policies in the adopted 2040 General Plan; and • Two (2) of the measures are the new and are not part of the adopted 2040 General Plan. These new policies are being proposed for inclusion the 2040 General Plan. Table 2-3 shows the 20 proposed GHG reductions measures contained in the 2030 CAP Update, identifies if the measure would amend an existing General Plan policy or create a new General Plan policy, and presents the estimated GHG reductions attributable to the measure. Table 2-4 summarizes how the GHG reduction measures combine with the ABAU forecast to reduce GHG emissions in the city. Table 2-3: CAP GHG Reduction Measures Emissions Summary CAP Reduction Measure GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2040 2050 1. Mixed Use Development, Transit Oriented Development, and Transit Supporting Land Use 95 166 233 328 2. Transportation Demand Management - 4,563 8,632 9,286 3. Complete Streets - 5,488 6,686 8,726 4. Caltrain Electrification - 2,954 3,276 3,598 5. Bicycle Sharing 3,379 1,697 1,577 1,632 6. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Initiatives 5 29 53 79 7. Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches - 424 821 1,209 8. Burlingame Shuttle Service 8 10 11 13 9. Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment (New General Plan Policy) - 516 556 596 10. Construction Best Management Practices (Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12) - 3,618 4,871 5,218 11. Green Building Practices and Standards - 53 124 133 12. Energy Efficiency - 3,247 7,168 7,309 13. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100 16,533 24,073 24,038 - 14. Residential Solar Power 345 617 1028 - 15. Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters (New General Plan Policy) - 270 315 455 16. Retrofits - 1 2 - 17. Water Conservation - 2 3 - 18. Zero Waste - 2,760 4,483 6,435 19. Municipal Green Building Measures 27 27 66 66 20. Increase the Public Tree Population (Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2) 5 17 29 40 Total Reductions from CAP Measures 20,397 50,532 63,973 45,124 Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 2. Project Description June 19, 2019 Page 2-7 Table 2-4: 2030 CAP Update GHG Emission Reductions Summary Forecast Scenario Emissions (MTCO2e / yr) 2020 2030 2040 2050 ABAU GHG Emissions Projection 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534 City GHG Emissions with CAP Reductions 213,249 129,961 125,717 121,410 GHG Reduction Targets(A) 216,916 130,350 86,766 43,383 GHG Emissions Target Achieved? Yes Yes No No (A) See Table 2-1. As shown in Table 2-3, the implementation of GHG reduction measures identified in the 2030 CAP Update would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 20,400 MTCO2e by 2020, and by approximately 50,500 MTCO2e by 2030. These GHG reductions would reduce community-wide GHG emissions to levels that are below the year 2020 and 2030 targets (see Table 2-4). The reductions, would not however, reduce emissions below the year 2040 and 2050 targets. Table 2-3 also lists the proposed 2030 CAP Update measures that would require either an amendment to an existing General Plan policy or the addition of a new policy entirely to the General Plan. These four measures are highlighted below. For a full list of GHG reductions measures, as they are presented in the 2030 CAP, see Appendix A. Proposed amendments that would add text to a policy are shown in underline, and proposed amendments that would remove text are shown in strikethrough. • CAP Measure 9, Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment, would add a new policy to the General Plan. Proposed General Plan Policy HP-2.16: Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment would state, “Support the transition of yard and garden equipment from gasoline to electric fuel sources.” • CAP Measure 10, Construction Best Management Practices, would amend existing General Plan Policy HP-3.12: Construction Best Management Practices to state, “Require construction projects to implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Best Practices for Construction to reduce pollution from dust and exhaust as feasible; require construction projects to transition to electrically-powered construction equipment as it becomes available; and seek construction contractors who use alternative fuels in their equipment fleet.” The proposed text amendment clarifies the City’s intent to incorporate best management practices that reduce exhaust emissions, as cleaner equipment becomes available. • CAP Measure 15, Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters, would add a new policy to the General Plan. Proposed General Plan Policy HP-2.17: Alternatively- Powered Residential Water Heaters would state, “Support the transition from tank- based, natural gas water heaters to solar, electrically-powered, or natural gas tankless water heaters in residential development.” • CAP Measure 20, Increase the Public Tree Population, would amend existing General Plan Policy CC-2.2: Increase the Public Street Tree Population to state, “Identify ways to increase the overall population of street trees in Burlingame to stem the natural decline of the urban forest and create a more equitable distribution of tree canopy.” The proposed text amendment broadens the City’s goal of increasing the overall tree population it the city (e.g., at public parks, government facilities, etc.), in addition to street trees. Since all other GHG reduction measures proposed in the 2030 CAP Update are directly tied to the policies contained in the adopted 2040 General Plan, the potential environmental effects of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 2. Project Description June 19, 2019 Page 2-8 these policies are considered to have been evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR. This Addendum, therefore, evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the adoption and implementation of the four policies listed above. 2.4 Project Objectives The primary objective of the proposed 2030 CAP Update is to comply with Burlingame 2040 General Plan implementing program IP-52: Climate Action Plan, and Policies CC-1.1: Climate Action Plan and HP-2.3: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets. As such, the 2030 CAP Update is considered a subsequent project under the City’s General Plan. Specifically, the proposed 2030 CAP is designed to achieve the following project objectives: 1. Provide a scientific and regulatory framework for addressing climate change and GHGs at the local level. 2. Identify sources of GHG emissions within the city and estimate how these emissions may change over time. 3. Forecast emissions to reflect the City’s desired growth projections without regulatory or technical intervention to reduce GHG emissions. 4. Provide emissions reduction targets consistent with AB 32 and SB 32. 5. Provide energy use, transportation, solid waste, water, and municipal strategies to reduce community-wide GHG emission and quality potential emissions reduction to be achieved by implementing these strategies. 6. Provide methods to reduce city GHG emission consistent with the State’s goals and Public Resources Code Section 21083.3. 7. Present an implementation program to assist with monitoring, tracking, and reporting GHG emission reductions achieved by the 2030 CAP Update, as well as the periodic updating of the 2030 CAP Update. 2.5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS The 2030 CAP Update is a program-level document that does not authorize or permit any specific development project. Accordingly, no permits or approvals are required from other agencies for the proposed 2030 CAP Update. Nonetheless, the success of the 2030 CAP Update relies on collaborative and dynamic partnerships with the private sector, community groups, other agencies, and stakeholders. Specifically, the following agencies and organizations are identified as partners to assist the City in implementing the 2030 CAP Update: • Bay Area Air Quality Management District • County of San Mateo, Office of Sustainability • City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County • Peninsula Joint Powers Board • SamTrans • Caltrain • City of Millbrae • City of San Mateo • Peninsula Clean Energy • Downtown Burlingame Business Association • Broadway Improvement District Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-1 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings 3.1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter provides analysis and substantial evidence that supports the City’s determination that the adoption of the measures and actions in the proposed 2030 CAP Update do not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and are consistent with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. As shown in the analysis below, the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments do not involve substantial changes to the General Plan due to a new significant impact or a substantial increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(1). As identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the 2030 CAP Update would be equivalent to, or less then, the impacts previous analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR and, in some cases, the 2030 CAP Update would result in beneficial actions that promote energy-efficient new development, renewable energy, reduced water and energy use, and reduced waste generation. In addition, there have been no changes to the environmental conditions or other circumstances under which the General Plan or the 2030 CAP Update would be undertaken that would cause a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2). Finally, as detailed in this chapter, there is no new information of substantial importance (which was not known or could not have been known at the time of the 2040 General Plan adoption on January 7, 2019) that shows any of the following: • The 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments would result in a significant effect not discussed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(A); • The 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments would substantially increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(3)(B); • Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible that would now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified in the General Plan EIR, but the City is declining to adopt such measures or alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(C); or • Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City is declining to adopt such measures or alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(D). 3.2 BURLINGAME 2040 GENERAL PLAN CEQA ANALYSIS The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR was certified by the Burlingame City Council on the same date the Burlingame 2040 General Plan was adopted, January 7, 2019. Upon complete analysis of the 2040 General Plan, the EIR determined that implementation of the 2040 General Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-2 Plan would result in the following significant and unavoidable project impacts, which are also cumulatively considerable: • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Impacts 10-1 and 10-2) • Noise (Impact 15-3) All impacts in the subject areas of aesthetics and visual resources; agricultural and forestry resources; air quality; biological resources; geology, soils, and minerals; hazards and hazardous materials; historic and cultural resources; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; population and housing; public services; transportation and circulation; tribal cultural resources; and utilities and service systems resulted in no impacts, less-than-significant impacts, or less- than-significant impacts with mitigation. 3.3 METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS The 2030 CAP Update has been developed as a result of General Plan implementation program IP-52: Climate Action Plan and General Plan Policies CC-1.1: Climate Action Plan and HP-2.3: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets. The 2030 CAP Update is consistent with the goals of the 2040 General Plan as well as with all city land use designations. The 2030 CAP Update does not propose any new development or construction of facilities beyond those considered in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Although implementation of the 2030 CAP would not generate development or construction, existing and future development and construction subject to the 2030 CAP Update would also be subject to all existing City development standards, as well as environmental review according to existing City and State CEQA requirements. As indicated previously, this Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR focuses on the physical changes to the environment that could occur with implementation of the proposed 2030 CAP Update and the following policies proposed for amendment or addition into the 2040 General Plan: • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16: Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12: Construction Best Management Practices • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17: Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2: Increase the Public Tree Population Section 3.4 evaluates the four, proposed policy amendments/additions for each environmental resource analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The assessment conducted uses an environmental checklist that summarizes: • Where the impact was analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, • If proposed changes involve new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts, • If there are any new circumstances that involve new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts, • If there is any new information requiring new analysis or verification, and • If the previously adopted mitigation measures address/resolve new impacts. The environmental checklist contained in Section 3.4 uses updated language from the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, which was approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 28, 2018 (i.e., after the 2040 General Plan EIR had undergone public review). Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-3 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL AN ALYSIS 3.4.1 Aesthetics Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Draft EIR, pp. 5-5 to 5-8 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict would applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No No No Not Applicable(A) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Planning area or its surroundings? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.1.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Aesthetics and Visual Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 5-1 to 5-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.1.2 Discussion Responses a) – d). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on aesthetic and visual resources. The proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-4 These additional tree plantings may, in general, occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (pg. 5-1), Burlingame is a designated “Tree City,” due to its canopies of diverse, mature, and expansive trees along public streets, private property, and parks and natural areas. The planting of approximately 33 trees per year in various locations around the city would not result in new or more severe impacts on aesthetic and visual resources. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace some aging or failing tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters. Residential water heaters are located within a physical structure and are not visible to public. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. It would not alter any land use designations, development intensities, or sources of light or glare. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not alter any land use designations, development intensities, or sources of light or glare. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not alter any land use designations, development intensities, or sources of light or glare. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Aesthetics and Visual Resource impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-5 3.4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Draft EIR pp. 6-3 to 6-5 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No No No Not Applicable(A) 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))? No No No Not Applicable(A) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No No No Not Applicable(A) 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? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.2.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Agricultural and Forestry Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 6-1 to 6-2. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-6 3.4.2.2 Discussion Responses a) – e). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on agricultural and forestry resources. The proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the 2030 CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general, occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (pg. 6-3), Burlingame is an almost fully-developed, urbanized area that does not contain any areas zoned or designated solely for commercial agriculture or forestry resources. The planting of approximately 33 additional trees per year would not result in new or more severe impacts on agricultural or forestry resources. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on agricultural or forestry resources. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on agricultural or forestry resources. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on agricultural or forestry resources. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Agricultural and Forestry Resource impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-7 3.4.3 Air Quality Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Draft EIR pp. 7-18 to 7-39 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) 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? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No No No Not Applicable(A) d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.3.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Air Quality environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 7-1 to 7-16. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.3.2 Discussion Responses a) – d). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on air quality. The proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. The administrative change in the implementation of CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Street Tree Population) would not change the action undertaken by the City (i.e., planting more trees) analyzed in the certified EIR. The proposed policy amendment for CC-2.2 would not result in new or more severe impacts on air quality. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-8 tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar), as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement, providing a potential benefit for air quality in the City. Therefore, this policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on air quality. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would provide a potential benefit to air quality resulting from fewer emissions and, therefore, would not result in new or more severe impacts on air quality. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would provide a potential benefit to air quality resulting from fewer emissions and, therefore, would not result in new or more severe impacts on air quality. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Air Quality impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-9 3.4.4 Biological Resources Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Draft EIR pp. 8-9 to 8-19 No No No Not Applicable(A) 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No No No Not Applicable(A) d) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No No No Not Applicable(A) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No No No Not Applicable(A) 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? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-10 3.4.4.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Biological Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 8-1 to 8-8. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.4.2 Discussion Responses a) – f). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-significant impacts on biological resources. The proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. The administrative change in the implementation of CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Street Tree Population) would not change the action undertaken by the City (i.e., planting more trees) analyzed in the certified EIR. The proposed policy amendment for CC-2.2 could be a potential benefit to biological resources because of the additional habitat generated from the increase in trees. Therefore, it would not result in new or more severe impacts on sensitive biological resources. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would encourage the replacement of tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. As the policy does not trigger development, it would not result in new or more severe impacts on biological resources. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on biological resources. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on biological resources. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Biological Resource impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-11 3.4.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Draft EIR pp. 12-5 to 12-11 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.5.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Cultural Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 12-1 to 12-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.5.2 Discussion Responses a) – c). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on cultural resources. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 12-1 on pp. 12-7 through 12-10), impacts on cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, the new tree plantings would continue to be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 12-1 of the certified EIR. Furthermore, the additional tree plantings would only occur in developed areas, which would have a low potential to contain cultural resources. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on cultural resources. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar), as the Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-12 existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. This new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 12-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 12-7 through 12-10), including the State Historic Building Code. The State Historic Building Code contains standards that establish specific requirements for protecting historic buildings. Therefore, proposed Policy HP-2.17 not result in new or more severe impacts on cultural resources. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. The proposed activity is not a new activity occurring within the city, it would only change the types of equipment that could be used for the activity. These new pieces of equipment would continue to be subject to the policies listed in Table 12-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. pp. 12-7 through 12-10). Proposed Policy HP-2.16 would not result in new or more severe impacts on cultural resources. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace diesel- and gasoline-equipment that would be operated in the City in the future; it would not change the activity that was analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. These new pieces of equipment would continue to be subject to the policies listed in Table 12-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. pp. 12-7 through 12-10). Proposed Policy HP-3.12 would not result in new or more severe impacts on cultural resources. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Cultural Resource impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-13 3.4.6 Energy Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Draft EIR pp. 10-22 to 10-56 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.6.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Energy environmental and regulatory setting is presented in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions chapter of the Draft EIR pp. 10-1 to 10-22. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.6.2 Discussion Responses a) – b). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on energy. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 10-18 on pp. 10-41 through 10-56), impacts to energy would be reduced to less than significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not conflict with plans for energy efficiency or adversely impact energy resources. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts to energy. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-14 encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. This new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in the Draft EIR (Table 10-18 on pp. 10-41 through 10-56), including the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC contains standards that establish specific requirements for energy efficiency. Proposed Policy HP-2.17 would not result in new or more severe impacts on energy. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 10-18 of the Draft EIR. Proposed Policy HP-2.16 would not result in new or more severe impacts on energy. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in the Draft EIR (Table 10-18 on pp. 10-41 through 10-56). The proposed amendment to Policy HP-3.12 would not result in new or more sever impacts on energy. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe energy impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-15 3.4.7 Geology and Soils Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Draft EIR pp. 9-4 to 9- 9 and 12-5 to 12-11 No No No Not Applicable(A) 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? Note: Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No No No Not Applicable(A) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No No No Not Applicable(A) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No No No Not Applicable(A) iv) Landslides? No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No No No Not Applicable(A) 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? No No No Not Applicable(A) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No No No Not Applicable(A) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No No No Not Applicable(A) f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No No No Yes (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-16 3.4.7.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Geology and Soils environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 9-1 to 9-3. Paleontological resources are discussed separately in the Cultural Resources chapter on Draft EIR pp. 12-1 to 12-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.7.2 Discussion Responses a) – f). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-significant impacts on geology and soils. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 9-1 on pp. 9-6 through 9-8), impacts on geology and soils would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not affect the physical environmental from a geological perspective. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in any new or more severe impacts on geology and soils. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. This new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 9-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 9-6 through 9-8), including the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC contains standards that establish specific requirements for seismic safety. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in any new or more severe impacts on geology and soils. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the City in the future. It would affect neither geology or soils nor exacerbate dangers to people as a result of geological occurrences beyond the effects of existing gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment operation. This new equipment would be subject to the policies listed in Table 9-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 9-6 through 9-8). Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in any new or more severe impacts on geology and soils. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would affect neither geology or soils nor exacerbate dangers to people as a result of geological occurrences beyond the existing effects of gasoline- Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-17 powered construction equipment. This new equipment would be subject to the policies listed in Table 9-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 9-6 through 9-8). Therefore, the proposed policy amendment would not result in any new or more severe impacts on geology and soils. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Geology and Soils impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-18 3.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Draft EIR pp. 10-23 to 10-30 No No No Yes b) Conflict with an applicable, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No No No Yes 3.4.8.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Greenhouse Gas Emissions environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 10-1 to 10-22. As described in Section 2.3, the 2030 CAP Update presents updated information on 2005, 2015, 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 GHG emissions levels in the city. This update information does not substantially change the overall environmental or regulatory setting contained in the Draft EIR. There have been no other changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.8.2 Discussion Responses a) – b). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. As shown in Table 2-4, adoption of the 2030 CAP Update would reduce GHG emissions to levels that are below the City’s year 2020 and 2030 GHG reduction targets and demonstrate substantial progress towards 2040 and 2050 GHG reduction targets. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not generate additional GHG emissions. Rather, this amended policy would serve to reduce GHG emissions below that considered in the EIR. Therefore, this amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from GHGs. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-19 tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement, thereby reducing GHG emissions below that considered in the EIR. Therefore, this new policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from GHG emissions. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the City in the future, thereby reducing GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Therefore, this new policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from GHG emissions. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the City in the future, thereby reducing GHG emissions below that considered in the EIR. Therefore, this amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from GHGs. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Although the 2030 CAP Update (and policies proposed in this EIR Addendum) would substantially reduce the city’s GHG emissions and achieve the City’s 2020 and 2030 GHG reductions goals, GHG impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for year 2040 (the General Plan’s buildout year) and 2050, since emissions would not be below the reduction goals established for that year. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-20 3.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Draft EIR pp. 11-7 to 11-15 No No No Not Applicable(A) 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? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No No No Not Applicable(A) 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? No No No Not Applicable(A) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No No No Not Applicable(A) f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No No No Not Applicable(A) g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-21 3.4.9.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Hazards and Hazardous Materials environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 11-1 to 11-6. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.9.2 Discussion Responses a) – g). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on hazards and hazardous materials. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 11-1 on pp. 11-9 through 11-14), impacts from hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not generate additional hazards or hazardous materials. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. This new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 11-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 11-9 through 11-14), which establishes specific requirements for hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 11-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 11-9 through 11-14). Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 11-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 11-9 through 11-14). Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-22 As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Hazards and Hazardous Materials impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-23 3.4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Draft EIR pp. 13-4 to 13-5 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: No No No Not Applicable(A) i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; No No No Not Applicable(A) ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; No No No Not Applicable(A) iii) 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; or No No No Not Applicable(A) iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? No No No Not Applicable(A) d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No No No Not Applicable(A) e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-24 3.4.10.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Hydrology and Water Quality environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 13-1 to 13-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.10.2 Discussion Responses a) – e). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on hydrology and water quality. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 13-1 on pp. 13-7 through 13-14), impacts on hydrology and water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not pose additional risk to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts on hydrology and water quality. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement, resulting in less water use and, therefore, a potential benefit to hydrology and water quality. The installation of this new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 13-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 13-7 through 13-14. The table contains standards that establish specific requirements for hydrology and water quality. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts on hydrology and water quality. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 13-1 (pp. 13-7 through 13-14). Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts on hydrology and water quality. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 13-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 13-7 through 13-14). Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts on hydrology and water quality. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-25 As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Hydrology and Water Quality impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-26 3.4.11 Land Use and Planning Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Physically divide an established community? Draft EIR pp. 14-8 to 14-14 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.11.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Land Use and Planning environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 14-1 to 14-8. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.11.2 Discussion Responses a) – b). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on land use and planning. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 14-3 on pp. 14-11 through 14-13), impacts related to land use and planning would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not generate additional impacts related to land use and planning. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to land use and planning. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. It would not alter any land use designations or planning. Therefore, the Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-27 proposed policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to land use and planning. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the City in the future. It would not alter any land use designations or planning. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to land use and planning. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not alter any land use designations or planning. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to land use and planning. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Land Use and Planning impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-28 3.4.12 Mineral Resources Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? 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? Draft EIR pp. 9-4 to 9-9 No No No Not Applicable(A) 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? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.12.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Mineral Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 9-1 to 9-3. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.12.2 Discussion Responses a) – b). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on mineral resources. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. It would not affect any mineral resources. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to mineral resources. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. It would not affect any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to mineral resources. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-29 • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the City in the future. It would not affect any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to mineral resources. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not affect any mineral resources. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to mineral resources. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Mineral Resource impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-30 3.4.13 Noise Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable standards of other agencies? Draft EIR pp. 15-22 to 15-50 No No No Yes b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.13.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Noise environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 15-1 to 15-20. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.13.2 Discussion Responses a) – c). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on noise associated with increases in vehicle trips on the local roadway system. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 15-11 on pp. 15-24 to 15-25; Table 15-13 on pp. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-31 15-29; Table 15-16 on pp. 15-35 to 15-38; Table 15-19 on pp. 15-46 through 15-48; Table 15-20 on pp. 15-49 to 15-50), noise impacts from development activities would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not generate substantial additional noise impacts. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe noise impacts. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. The proposed policy would not result in new or more severe noise impacts. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Tables 15-11, 15-13, 15-16, 15-19, and 15-20 of the Draft EIR (pp. 15-24 to 15-25, 15-29, 15-35 to 15-38, 15-46 to 15-48, and 15-49 to 15-50, respectively). In addition, electric equipment is generally quieter than combustion-based equipment. The proposed policy would not result in new or more severe noise impacts. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment, as well as construction activities in general, would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Tables 15-11, 15-13, 15-16, 15- 19, and 15-20 of the Draft EIR (pp. 15-24 to 15-25, 15-29, 15-35 to 15-38, 15-46 to 15- 48, and 15-49 to 15-50, respectively). Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe noise impacts. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Noise impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. Though the 2040 General Plan EIR found a significant and unavoidable noise impact with regard to traffic noise. Neither the 2030 CAP Update nor the General Plan policy amendments propose land use changes that would affect trip generation. Rather, the adoption of the 2030 CAP Update is anticipated to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled within the City. The implementation of the 2040 General Plan would still result in a significant and unavoidable noise impact with regard to traffic noise. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-32 3.4.14 Population and Housing Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Induce a substantial unplanned 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)? Draft EIR pp. 16-3 to 16-8 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.14.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Population and Housing environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 16-1 to 16-2. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.14.2 Discussion Responses a) – b). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on population and housing. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. The planting of approximately 33 additional trees per year would not result in new or more severe impacts on population or housing. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on population or housing. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-33 • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on population or housing. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on population or housing. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Population and Housing impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-34 3.4.15 Public Services Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Draft EIR pp. 7-5 to 7-13 No No No Not Applicable(A) i) Fire protection? No No No Not Applicable(A) ii) Police protection? No No No Not Applicable(A) iii) Schools? No No No Not Applicable(A) iv) Parks? No No No Not Applicable(A) v) Other public facilities? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.15.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Public Services environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 17-1 to 17-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.15.2 Discussion Responses ai) – v). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on public services. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on public services. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-35 • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on public services. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on public services. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on public services. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe public services impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-36 3.4.16 Recreation Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Draft EIR pp. 7-5 to 7-13 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.16.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Recreation environmental and regulatory setting is presented in the Public Services chapter of the Draft EIR on pp. 17-1 to 17-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.16.2 Discussion Responses a) – b). The Envision Burlingame General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update would result in less-than-significant impacts on recreation. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. The amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on recreation. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begin to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. The proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on recreation. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-37 lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. The proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on recreation. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. The amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on recreation. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe recreation impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-38 3.4.17 Transportation Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Draft EIR pp. 18-6 to 18-19 No No No Not Applicable b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No No No Not Applicable(A) d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.17.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Transportation environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 18-1 to 18-5. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.17.2 Discussion Responses a) – d). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on transportation. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 18-6 on pp. 18-16 through 18-19), impacts on transportation would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not affect Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-39 transportation. The amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on transportation. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on transportation. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in in Table 18-6 of the Draft EIR (pp. 18-16 through 18-19). Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on transportation. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the City in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in in Table 18-6 of the Draft EIR (pp. 18-16 through 18-19). Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on transportation. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Transportation impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-40 3.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place cultural landscape that is geographica lly defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Draft EIR pp. 19-3 to 19-7 No No No Not Applicable(A) ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.18.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Tribal Cultural Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 19-1 to 19-3. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.18.2 Discussion Responses ai) – ii). The Envision Burlingame General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update would result in less-than-significant impacts on tribal cultural resources. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-41 These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 19-1 on pp. 19-5 through 19-7), impacts on tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not result in new or more severe impacts on tribal cultural resources. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. The policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on tribal cultural resources. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the City in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 19-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 19-5 through 19-7). The policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on tribal cultural resources. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 19-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 19-5 through 19-7). The policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on tribal cultural resources. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Tribal Cultural Resource impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-42 3.4.19 Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Draft EIR pp. 20-5 to 20-13 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No No No Not Applicable(A) d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No No No Not Applicable(A) e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.19.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Utilities and Service Systems environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 20-1 to 20-5. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-43 3.4.19.2 Discussion Responses a) – e). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update would result in less-than-significant impacts on utilities and service systems. The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 20-1 on pp. 20-8 through 20-12), impacts to utilities and service systems would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not generate additional use of utilities and service systems. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from utilities and service systems. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. This new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 20-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 20-8 through 20-12). The policies and regulations in the table contain standards that establish specific requirements for impacts to utilities and service systems. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from utilities and service systems. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 20-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 20-8 through 20-12). resulting in less than significant to utilities and service systems. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from utilities and service systems. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the City in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 20-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 20-8 through 20-12). Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from utilities and service systems. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe utilities and service systems impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-44 3.4.20 Wildfire Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Draft EIR pp. 9-8 and 11-7 to 11- 15 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No No No Not Applicable(A) d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.20.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Wildfire environmental and regulatory setting is presented in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter of the Draft EIR pp. 11-1 to 11-6. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. 3.4.20.2 Discussion Responses a) – d). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than- significant impacts on wildfire. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-45 The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. As described in the Draft EIR (Table 11-1 on pp. 11-9 through 11-14), impacts to wildfire risk would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not generate additional wildfire risk. Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on wildfire. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. The proposed policy would neither result in new nor more severe impacts with regard to wildfire. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 11-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 11-9 through 11-14). The proposed policy would neither result in new nor more severe impacts with regard to wildfire. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 11-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 11-9 through 11-14). The proposed policy would neither result in new nor more severe impacts with regard to wildfire. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Wildfire impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-46 3.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA Where Impact was Analyzed in the EIR? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do the Previously Adopted Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts? a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Draft EIR pp. 22-1 to 22-25 No No No Not Applicable(A) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the efforts of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No No No Not Applicable(A) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No No No Not Applicable(A) (A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue. 3.4.21.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting The Mandatory Findings of Significance environmental and regulatory setting is presented in the CEQA Mandated Components chapter of the Draft EIR pp. 22-1 to 22-25. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-47 3.4.21.2 Discussion Responses a) – c). The Mandatory Findings of Significance presented in the Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in cumulatively considerable impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Noise. The proposed CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR for the following reasons: • Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not change the conclusions drawn in the Mandatory Findings of Significance Chapter of the EIR. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters) would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. This policy would not change the conclusions drawn in the Mandatory Findings of Significance Chapter of the EIR. • New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This policy would not change the conclusions drawn in the Mandatory Findings of Significance Chapter of the EIR. • Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices) would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the city in the future. This policy would not change the conclusions drawn in the Mandatory Findings of Significance Chapter of the EIR. As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to the Mandatory Findings of Significance than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings June 19, 2019 Page 3-48 This page intentionally left blank. Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 4. References and EIR Addendum Preparers June 19, 2019 Page 4-1 4. REFERENCES AND EIR ADDENDUM PREPARERS 4.1 REFERENCES The following references were used to prepare this Addendum. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. Burlingame, City of (Burlingame), 2019a. City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082018. Certified January 7, 2019. Burlingame, City of (Burlingame), 2019b. Draft 2030 Climate Action Plan Update. 4.2 EIR ADDENDUM PREPARERS MIG, Inc. 800 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 845-7549 www.migcom.com Environmental Analysis and Document Preparation Chris Dugan – Director of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Services Phillip Gleason – Senior Analyst I Shelby Kendrick – Analyst II Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR City of Burlingame 4. References and EIR Addendum Preparers June 19, 2019 Page 4-2 This page intentionally left blank. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE ADDEDNUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BURLINGAME CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND AMENDMENT TO THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65300 et seq., the City of Burlingame prepared a new general plan for the physical development of the City (2040 General Plan); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in June 2018 that analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the 2040 General Plan, including potential impacts from GHG emissions, energy use, and other effects of global climate change (State Clearinghouse No. 20170820180); and WHEREAS, the preparation of a 2030 CAP Update was introduced in the DEIR as a mitigation measure to reduce GHG emissions levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the General Plan and certified the General Plan Final EIR (FEIR) on January 7, 2019; and WHEREAS, a Draft 2030 CAP Update was prepared as a mitigation measure to reduce GHG emissions levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals, and to further augment and inform the Goals, Policies and Actions of the 2040 General Plan; and WHEREAS, adoption of the 2030 CAP Update would include amendments to the 2040 General Plan; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), the City Council of the City of Burlingame ("Council") is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with general governmental powers; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame, as lead agency, determined that an Addendum to the General Plan EIR should be prepared as the appropriate CEQA document to address project revisions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and WHEREAS, the Addendum to the FEIR found that the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments would result in similar or lower magnitude environmental impacts than identified in the certified 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new significant environmental impacts or previously identified significant impacts made more severe by project changes, new circumstances, or new information; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame reviewed the findings of the Addendum to the FEIR for at a duly noticed public hearing held on August 12, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby resolves as follows: Section 1. On the basis of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified by the Burlingame City Council on January 7, 2019, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum dated June 19, 2019 and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the 2030 CAP Update and General Plan Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment beyond those that were previously evaluated in the certified FEIR for the 2040 General Plan, dated June 2018, and the Addendum to the FEIR is hereby approved. Section 2. The findings of the Planning Commission articulated herein represent the independent judgement of the Burlingame Planning Commission following its deliberations relative to the project during a duly noticed public hearing on August 12, 2019. Section 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 2019, by the following vote: Secretary A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE UPDATE OF THE BURLINGAME CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND AMENDMENT TO THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame prepared its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2009 to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the city; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the CAP in 2009, the City has implemented multiple programs and efforts to significantly reduce GHG emissions from City operations and the communit y, and is on track to achieve the 2020 GHG reduction goal set by the original 2009 CAP; and WHEREAS, in 2016, the State Legislature passed SB 32, setting a mandated reduction target for GHG emissions of 40% below 1990 by 2030, and an intermediate target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, set in Executive Order S-3-05; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65300 et seq., the City of Burlingame prepared a new general plan for the physical development of the City (2040 General Plan); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in June 2018 that analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the 2040 General Plan, including potential impacts from GHG emissions, energy use, and other effects of global climate change (State Clearinghouse No. 20170820180); and WHEREAS, the preparation of a 2030 CAP Update was introduced in the DEIR as a mitigation measure to reduce GHG emissions levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the General Plan and certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019; and WHEREAS, a Draft 2030 CAP Update was prepared as a mitigation measure to reduce GHG emissions levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals, and to further augment and inform the Goals, Policies and Actions of the 2040 General Plan; and WHEREAS, adoption of the 2030 CAP Update would include amendments to the 2040 General Plan, as outlined in Exhibit “A” attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Draft 2030 CAP Update was introduced at a Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting on April 27, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Draft CAP was presented at the Burlingame Citizens Environmental Council (CEC) meeting on May 8, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, after proceedings duly and regularly held and noticed as provided by law, did on August 12, 2019 review and consider the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that it adopt said Update to the Climate Action Plan and Amendment to the General Plan. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 2019, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT “A” Amendments to the 2040 General Plan to implement the 2030 Climate Action Plan Update:  New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 – Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment: Support the transition of yard and garden equipment from gasoline to electric fuel sources.  Amend General Plan Policy HP-3.12 – Construction Best Management Practices: Require construction projects to implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Best Practices for Construction to reduce pollution from dust and exhaust as feasible; require construction projects to transition to electrically-powered construction equipment as it becomes available; and seek construction contractors who use alternative fuels in their equipment fleet.  New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 – Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters. Support the transition from tank-based, natural gas water heaters to solar, or electrically- powered water heaters in residential development.  Amend General Plan Policy CC-2.2 – Increase the Public Street Tree Population: Identify ways to increase the overall population of street trees in Burlingame to stem the natural decline of the urban forest and create a more equitable distribution of tree canopy. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION will hold a public hearing to consider adoption of the City of Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan and Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Planning Commission will review the proposed Climate Action Plan and Addendum to the EIR, and make a recommendation to the City Council. The hearing will be held on Monday, August 12, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. The Draft Climate Action Plan and Addendum to the EIR may be viewed at www.burlingame.org/climateactionplan. The staff report and draft documents may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department, Planning Division, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and on the City's website at www.burlingame.org. For additional information please call the Planning Division at (650) 558-7250. To be published by Friday, August 2, 2019. LOT LINEBRICK CHIMNEY CLAY FLUE BY SUPERIOR CLAY CORP., INC. SIERRA PACIFIC OR EQUAL WOOD WINDOWS W/ S.D.L. TYP. WINDSOR ONE TRIM DETAILS (PAINT) CEDAR OUTRIGGERS W/ EXPOSED SOFFIT, W/ T&VG BOARDS, TYP. (PAINT) G.S.M. OGEE GUTTERS (PAINT) WINDSOR ONE LAP SIDING, 4" EXP. BRICK FOUNDATION FACADE TYP.4'-0"41'-0"5'-0 3/8"LOT LINE6'-0"2'-0" CEDAR GABLE VENT AREA TO BE PROUD OF TYP. WALL FRAMING 6" CEDAR TRELLIS (PAINTED TO MATCH HOUSE TRIM COLOR WD. GARAGE DR. CEDAR WATER TABLE CONTIN. AROUND BLDG. 12 12 EGRESS CEDAR BRACKET 8X8 or 6x6 DESIGN 12 12 3" ROUND GSM DOWNSPOUTS 3" ROUND GSM DOWNSPOUTS CEDAR TRELLIS 16'-0"7'-6"SOLAR PANEL 32x62 SUNPOWER OR EQUAL (PRE-WIRE FOR FUTURE USE) 812 HOUSE # PER CITY CODE 18.08.010 3012 CBCB 501.2 12'-0"45° DIAMOND SHAPED ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES GRACE UNDER- LAYMENT TYP., TYP. DHE101.25'9'-6"1'-0 3/4"9'-1"SUB-FLOOR SUB-FLOOR 2ND FL. T.P. T.P. 45° 102.25'12'-0"DHE 101.12' 111.75' 112.81' 121.89' RIDGE HEIGHT 129.55'7'-8"2'-0" ROOF EAVES SHALL NOT PROJECT WITHIN 2" OF THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE SETBACK IS 4' PER 2016 CRC § TABLE R302.1 (1) OR 2016 CBC TABLE 705.2. ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE FIRE- RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE- RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CRC §R302.1 (1) OR 2016 CBC §705.2.3'-2"5'-6"2'-6" 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 30'-0"100.44'AVG. T.O.C. 130.44'11"T.P.8'-1"@ DORMERS120.89'@ M. BED & BATHSOLAR PANEL 32x62 SUNPOWER OR EQUAL (PRE-WIRE FOR FUTURE USE) (OPTIONAL LOCATION)9'-6"1'-0 3/4"9'-1"SUB-FLOOR SUB-FLOOR 2ND FL. T.P. T.P. 4'-0"37'-8"11'-4" B.B.Q. AREA W/ SPOTS FOR 2 APPLIANCES FOR FUTURE USE, 24" EACH TERRACE IN BACKGROUND MAIN HOUSE IN BACKGROUND BRICK FOUNDATION FACADE TYP. CEDAR WATER TABLE CONTIN. AROUND BLDG. 3" ROUND GSM DOWNSPOUTS 3" ROUND GSM DOWNSPOUTS 3" ROUND GSM DOWNSPOUTS WINDSOR ONE TRIM BDS., PER DETAIL (PAINT), TYP. RIDGE HT.7'-8"6 12 DIAMOND SHAPED ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES GRACE UNDER- LAYMENT TYP., TYP. CONFIRM W/ NEIGHBORING RESIDENCE TOP FLOOR IF FROSTED LOWER PANEL REQUIRED. HIGH WINDOWS FOR NEIGHBOR AND OWNER PRIVACY 102.25' 111.75' 112.81' 121.89' 129.55' 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 30'-0"100.44'AVG. T.O.C. 130.44'11"T.P.8'-1"120.89'@ DORMERS@ M. BED & BATH Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings.Rev.:001002003004005006Description :Date :Revisions one DESIGN PLANNING form 4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304 Park City, UT 84098 Gambrioli Residence812 Linden AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Title :Project :Date :03/08/2019Drawn :TIM RADUENZ19_009Job No. :Owner :APN#: 029-032-160Contractor :PLANNING SETZoning: -BUILDING SETMR. + MRS. GREG GAMBRIOLI812 LINDEN AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Gambrioli Developments Contact: Greg Gambrioli 2415 Summit Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 P: 650-333-6844Proposed ElevationsSee Details A3.0 A3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 1PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION A3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 2PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION 9'-6"1'-0 3/4"9'-1"SUB-FLOOR SUB-FLOOR 2ND FL. T.P. T.P. 4'-0"LOT LINELOT LINE30' HEIGHT LIMIT 30'-0"24'-11 7/8"6'-0"2'-0" (N) 6' HT. CEDAR FENCE KITCHEN WD. BUMPOUT 10" SOLAR PANEL 32x62 SUNPOWER OR EQUAL (PRE-WIRE FOR FUTURE USE) EGRESS EGRESS 3" ROUND GSM DOWNSPOUTS 12 12 WINDSOR ONE BDS., PER DETAIL (PAINT), TYP. 17'-0 1/8" 45° 102.25' 100.44'12'-0"DHE 101.12' DHE 12'-0"45° AVG. T.O.C. 111.75' 112.81' 121.89' 130.44' 101.25' RIDGE HEIGHT 129.55'7'-8"DIAMOND SHAPED ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES GRACE UNDER- LAYMENT TYP., TYP. B.B.Q. AREA, BRICK FACADE, DESIGN TBD. EGRESS11"ROOF EAVES SHALL NOT PROJECT WITHIN 2" OF THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE SETBACK IS 4' PER 2016 CRC § TABLE R302.1 (1) OR 2016 CBC TABLE 705.2. ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE FIRE- RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE- RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CRC §R302.1 (1) OR 2016 CBC §705.2.3'-2" 2'-0" 2'-6"5'-0"4'-0"2'-6" 2'-9"5'-6"T.P.8'-1"@ DORMERS120.89'@ M. BED & BATH9'-6"1'-0 3/4"9'-1"SUB-FLOOR 1ST FL. SUB-FLOOR 2ND FL. T.P. T.P. 12'-3" KITCHEN WINDOW BUMP-OUT, W/ 4x6 CEDAR BRACKETS TYP. BRICK FOUNDATION FACADE TYP. BLUE LABEL CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF DETAIL 7'-6" CLAY FLUE BY SUPERIOR CLAY CORP., INC. BRICK CHIMNEY SIERRA PACIFIC OR EQUAL WOOD WINDOWS W/ S.D.L. TYP. WINDSOR ONE TRIM DETAILS (PAINT) CEDAR OUTRIGGERS W/ EXPOSED SOFFIT, W/ T&VG BOARDS, TYP. (PAINT) G.S.M. OGEE GUTTERS (PAINT) BLUE LABEL CEDAR SHINGLES OVER TRIM DETAIL 1'-9" 2'-0" STONE PLATFORM FOR POTS FOR LANDSCAPING 4"-5" EXP. W. WINDSOR ONE LAB SIDING BLUE LABLE CEDAR SHINGLES OVER TRIM DETAIL CEDAR OUTRIGGERS W/ EXPOSED SOFFIT, W/ T&VG BOARDS, TYP. (PAINT) 3" ROUND GSM DOWNSPOUTS WINDSOR ONE TRIM BDS., PER DETAIL (PAINT), TYP. EGRESS SOLID BOTTOM PANEL 12 12 52'-6" RIDGE HEIGHT 7'-8"SOLID BOTTOM PANEL DIAMOND SHAPED ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES GRACE UNDER- LAYMENT TYP., TYP. 102.25' 111.75' 112.81' 121.89' 129.55' 2'-6"5'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMIT 30'-0"100.44'AVG. T.O.C. 130.44'11"T.P.8'-1"120.89'@ DORMERS@ M. BED & BATH Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings.Rev.:001002003004005006Description :Date :Revisions one DESIGN PLANNING form 4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304 Park City, UT 84098 Gambrioli Residence812 Linden AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Title :Project :Date :03/08/2019Drawn :TIM RADUENZ19_009Job No. :Owner :APN#: 029-032-160Contractor :PLANNING SETZoning: -BUILDING SETMR. + MRS. GREG GAMBRIOLI812 LINDEN AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Gambrioli Developments Contact: Greg Gambrioli 2415 Summit Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 P: 650-333-6844Proposed ElevationsSee Details A3.1 A3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 1PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION A3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 2PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION FRONT SETBACK 16'-6" (N) 6' WD. FENCE FIRE AND WATER LINES. ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICE OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION, AND ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVE WAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE TO BE REPLACED ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS TO BE PLUGGED. (N) 4" LATERAL TO BE INSTALLED. (N) 6' WD. GATE (N) GAS LINE (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE)SIDE SETBACK 4'-0"REAR SETBACK 15'-0" (N) MEADOW (N) LANDSCAPE (N) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE F.F. 102.25' (N) SINGLE STALL GARAGE (N) DRIVEWAY (N) LANDSCAPE (N) TERRACE (N) LAWN & LANDSCAPING (N) PATIO (N) 6' WD. GATE (N) O.D. KITCHEN 3' TALL (N) STONE FIREPIT, 2' TALL (E) CONC. PORCH AND (E) DRIVE WAY TO BE REMOVED, (N) DRIVEWAY TO BE PLACED ON PARCEL FOR 816 LINDEN AS THAT IS THE RESIDENCE IT SHALL SERVE. (E) DRIVEWAY APRON TO BE REMOVED AND RELOCATED TO (N) DRIVEWAY LOCATION, (E) DRIVEWAY APRON TO BE FILLED AND ADJACENT CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK TO BE REPLACED PER CITY STANDARDS. ONE HOUR FIRE-RESITSTANT RATED CONSTRUCTION FOR EAVES WITHIN 2-5 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE (E) BUILDING TO BE REMOVED (N) DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDS (N) CONC. PAVER PATH CONC. PAVERS STONE 1R 3R 2R 4R (REMOVE) 5R (REMOVE) 6R (REMOVE) 7R (REMOVE) 8R 9R 10R 13R (REMOVE) 11R (REMOVE) 12R 14R 15P/R 16P/R 17R 18R 19R 20R 21R 22P 23R 24R 25R 26P D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.(N) ELECTRIC LINE TO GO TO (E) O.H. LINE (N) 200 AMP. ELECT. METER (N) GAS METER (E) GAS LINE (E) SANITARY SEWER LINE (E) WATER LINE (E) ELECT. LINE WIDTH OF (N) DRIVEWAY, DIMENSION FROM LOT LINE TO (E) PORCH SIDE SETBACK 4'-0"OUTLINE OF SECOND FLOOR Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings.Rev.:001002003004005006Description :Date :Revisions one DESIGN PLANNING form 4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304 Park City, UT 84098 Gambrioli Residence812 Linden AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Title :Project :Date :03/08/2019Drawn :TIM RADUENZ19_009Job No. :Owner :APN#: 029-032-160Contractor :PLANNING SETZoning: -BUILDING SETMR. + MRS. GREG GAMBRIOLI812 LINDEN AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Gambrioli Developments Contact: Greg Gambrioli 2415 Summit Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 P: 650-333-6844Proposed Site PlanSee Details A1.0 Scale: 1"= 10'-0" 1PROPOSED SITE PLAN A1.0 GENERAL NOTES & SCOPE 1. PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONSULT ARBORIST AS REQUIRED. 2. NO EXISTING TREES OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREE MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE PERMIT FROM THE PARKS DIVISION (558-7330) NO TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT. 3. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE NOT REQUIRED SINCE LANDSCAPE WILL NOT BE REHABILITATED AS NOTED ON PLANS. 4. A PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, TO MANAGE STORM WATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CGC 4.106.2 & CGC 4.106.3 5. ALL SPRINKLER DRAINAGE SHALL BE PLACED INTO LANDSCAPING AREAS 6. (N) A/C EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL OF 60 DBA DAYTIME (7AM-10PM OR DBA NIGHTTIME (10 PM-7 AM) AS MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. PER BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE 25.58.050. STREET TREES 1. PROTECT ALL STREET TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION PUBLIC WORKS NOTES 1. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITES ENCHROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO (1) REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2) PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OF FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER =CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION. (4) AND OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF WAY. 2. GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. STORMWATER CHECKLIST NOTES 1. DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF INTO CISTERNS OR RAIN BARRELS AND USE RAINWATER FOR IRRIGATION OR OTHER NON-POTABLE USE. 2. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND/OR PATIOS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS. 3. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS AND/OR UNCOVERED PARKING LOTS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS. 4. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS AND/OR PATIOS WITH PERMEABLE SURFACES. 5. USE MICOR-DETENTION, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTED LANDSCAPE-BASED DETENTION. 6. PROTECT SENSITIVE AREAS, INCLUDING WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS, AND MINIMIZE CHANGES TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY. 7. MARK ON SITE INLETS WITH THE WORDS "NO DUMPING! FLOWS TO BAY" OR EQUIVALENT. 8. (A.) RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION AS PRACTICABLE (B) SELECT DIVERSE SPECIES APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. INCLUDE PLANTS THAT ARE PEST- AND/OR DISEASE-RESISTANT, DROUGHT-TOLERANT, AND/OR ATTRACT BENEFICIAL INSECTS. (C) MINIMIZE USE OF PESTICIDES AND QUICK -RELEASE FERTILIZERS. 9. DESIGN FOR DISCHARGE OF FIRE SPRINKLERS TEST WATER TO LANDSCAPE OR SANITARY SEWER. 10. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROLS TO STABILIZE ALL DENUDED AREAS UNTIL PERMANENT EROSION CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED. 11. DELINEATE WITH FIELD MARKERS THE FOLLOWING AREAS: CLEARING LIMITS, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, SENSITIVE OR CRITICAL AREAS,BUFFER ZONES, TREES TO BE PROTECTED AND RETAINED, DRAINAGE COURSES. 12. PROVIDE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS OR ATTACHEMENTS DESCRIBING THE FOLLOWING: (A) CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS, INCLUDE INSPECTION FREQUENCY; (B) METHODS AND SCHEDULE FOR GRADING, EXCAVATION, FILLING, CLEARING OF VEGETATION , AND STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED OR CLEARED MATERIAL, (C) SPECIFICATIONS FOR VEGETATIVE COVER & MULCH, INCLUDE METHODS AND SCHEDULES FOR PLANTING AND FERTILIZATION (D) PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND OR PERMANENT IRRIGATION 13. PERFORM CLEARING AND EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES ONLY DURING DRY WEATHER 14. USE SEDIMENT CONTROLS OF FILTRATION TO REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN DEWATERING AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. 15. PROTECT ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS IN VICINITY OF SITE USING SEDIMENT CONTROLS (E.G. BERMS, SOCKS, FIBER ROLLS OR FILTERS) 16. TRAP SEDIMENT ON-SITE, USING BMP'S SUCH AS SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS, EARTHEN DIKES OR BERMS, SILT FENCES, CHECK DAMS, COMPOST BLANKETS OR JUTE MATS, COVERS FOR SOIL STOCK PILES, ETC. 17. DIVERT ON-SITE RUNOFF AROUND EXPOSED AREAS; DIVERT OFF-STE RUNOFF AROUND THE SITE (E.G SWALES AND DIKES) 18. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND UNDISTURBED AREAS FROM CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS USING VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS, DIKES,MULCHING OR OTHER MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE. 19. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS. 20. NO CLEANING, FUELING OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON-SITE, EXCEPT IN A DESIGNATED AREA WHERE WASHWATER IS CONTAINED AND TREATED. 21. STORE, HANDLE AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/WASTES PROPERLY TO PREVENT CONTACT WITH STORMWATER. 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRAIN AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO ALL EMPLOYEES/SUBCONTRACTORS RE: CONSTRUCTION BMP'S. 23. CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING PAVEMENT CUTTINGWASTES,PAINTS,CONCRETE, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS,CHEMICALS,WASHWATEROR SEDIMENTS, RINSE WATER FROM ARCHITECTURAL COPPER, AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORM DRAINS AND WATERCOURSES. A4.0 1 A4.0 1 A4.0 2 A4.0 2 RIDGE HI P RIDGE RIDGE D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S.D.S. BRICK CHIMNEY (2) CLAY CHIMNEY POTS, SUPERIOR CLAY OR EQUAL SLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE Flat Roof TAR&GRAVEL SYSTEM Roof Roof DIAMOND SHINGLES (ASPHALT) G.S.M. 6" OGEE GUTTERS, W/ 3" RND. DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. (PAINT) G.S.M. 6" OGEE GUTTERS, W/ 3" RND. DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. (PAINT) G.S.M. 6" OGEE GUTTERS, W/ 3" RND. DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. (PAINT) G.S.M. 6" OGEE GUTTERS, W/ 3" RND. DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. (PAINT) SLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPE SOLAR PANEL 32x62 SUNPOWER OR EQUAL (PRE-WIRE FOR FUTURE USE) (OPTIONAL LOCATION) ALL DOWNSPOUTS TO BE HARD-LINED INTO STORAGE SYSTEM, DETAILS TO FOLLOW ALL DOWNSPOUTS TO BE HARD-LINED INTO STORAGE SYSTEM, DETAILS TO FOLLOW ALL DOWNSPOUTS TO BE HARD-LINED INTO STORAGE SYSTEM, DETAILS TO FOLLOW DIAMOND SHINGLES (ASPHALT)SLOPESLOPEShed Roof DIAMOND SHINGLES (ASPHALT)RIDGEVALLEYV A L L E YVAL L EY SOLAR PANEL 32x62 SUNPOWER OR EQUAL (PRE-WIRE FOR FUTURE USE) V A L L E Y V A L L E Y VALLEYVALLE Y OPTIONAL LOCATION CRICKET SLOPE SLOPE D.S.D.S.D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S.SLOPESLOPEVENT VENT VENT VENT VENT VENT VENT VENT VENT VENT VENT VENTVENT VENTVENT VENTVENTVENTVENTVENTRIDGEV A L L E Y VALLE Y SLOPE SLOPE ROOF EAVES SHALL NOT PROJECT WITHIN 2" OF THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE SETBACK IS 4' PER 2016 CRC § TABLE R302.1 (1) OR 2016 CBC TABLE 705.2. ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE FIRE- RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE- RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CRC §R302.1 (1) OR 2016 CBC §705.2. NOTES: 1. (OGEE) G.S.M. GUTTERS, & (3" GSM) DOWNSPOUTS: LINE ALL VALLEYS WITH GSM, AT LEAST 20" WIDE WITH WITH 1/4" EDGE TURNED OVER AND FASTENED WITH CLEATS. LAP JOINTS AT LEAST 4", BUT DO NOT SOLDER. 2. ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE 40 YR ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES, SEE CUT SHEET ABOVE, COLOR TO BE DETERMINED, ANTIQUE BLACK OR PEWTER GREY 3. WHEN INSULATION IS INSTALLED IN ENCLOSED RAFTER SPACES WHERE CEILINGS ARE APPLIED DIRECT TO THE UNDERSIDE OF ROOF RAFTERS, A MINIMUM AIR SPACE OF 1 INCH MUST BE PROVIDED, INSULATION BAFFLE NEEDED. 4. FLASHINGS AND COUNTER FLASHINGS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 0.016-INCH (28-GAGE) CORROSION RESISTANT METAL, AND VALLEY FLASHING 5. AT THE JUNCTURE OF THE ROOF & VERTICAL SURFACES, FLASHING & COUNTERFLASHINGS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 0.019-INCH (26 GAUGE) 6. NA 7. TERMINATION OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL AIR DUCTS SHALL BE A MIN. OF 3'-0" FROM PROPERTY LINES OR ANY OPENING INTO THE BUILDING (I.E. DRYERS, BATH& UTILITY FANS, ETC., MUST BE 3'-0" AWAY FROM DOORS, WINDOWS, OPENING SKYLIGHTS OR ATTIC VENTS, PER CODE 8. (AS REQUIRED) THE TRUSS PLAN AND THE TRUSS CALC. SHALL BE REVIEWED & APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD BEFORE SUBMITTING TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION. TRUSS PLANS SHALL BE WET SIGNED & WET STAMPED BY TRUSS DESIGN ENGINEER. 9. FURNACE LOCATED IN ATTIC SPACE SHALL BE LISTED FOR ATTIC LOCATION AND PROVIDED WITH 24" WIDE SOLID FLOORING ACCESS WAY AND 30" WORKING SPACE AT CONTROLS. 10. ATTIC VENTILATION AT CALIFORNIA FRAMING TO RECEIVE LOW PROFILE VENTS OR OPENING IN THE ROOF SHEATHING BELOW 11. ROOF EAVES SHALL NOT PROJECT WITHIN 2" OF THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE SETBACK IS 4' PER 2016 CRC § TABLE R302.1 (1) OR 2016 CBC TABLE 705.2. ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE FIRE- RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE- RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CRC §R302.1 (1) OR 2016 CBC §705.2. 11. (AS REQUIRED) ALL TRUSS/RAFTER BLOCKING TO RECEIVE 2" DIA HOLES IN EVERY BLOCK TYPICAL FOR EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF AIR FLOW. 12. ATTIC IS GETTING NEW INSULATION,VERIFY (E) FANS/VENTS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED ER CURRENT CODE.Proposed Roof PlanSee Details A2.2 A2.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 1PROPOSED ROOF PLAN MAIN HOME PLUMBING & HVAC NOTE: 1. GROUP ALL EXHAUST FLUES TOGETHER WHEN POSSIBLE & LOCATE ON ROOFS SLOPING TO THE REAR OF HOUSE TYP. VERIFY LOCATION W/ DESIGNER. ATTIC FURNACE NOTES: 1. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING FOR ATTIC FURNACES (CMC SECTION 904.04) A. PASSAGEWAY TO EQUIPMENT LESS THAN 6'-0" IN HEIGHT SHALL BE NOT MORE THAN 20'-0" IN LENGTH WHEN MEASURED ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF PASSAGEWAY FROM THE ACCESS OPENING TO THE EQUIPMENT. SECTION 904.10.1. B. UN-OBSTRUCTED PASSAGEWAY W/ A SOILD FLOORING AT LEAST 24" WIDE THROUGH-OUT ITS LENGTH. SECTION 904.10.2 C. A 30"x30" LEVEL WORKING PLATFORM IN FRONT OF THE SERVICE SIDE OF THE APPLIANCE. SECTION 904.10.3 D. A PERMANENT 120V RECEPTACLE OUTLET AND LIGHTING FIXTURE NEAR THE APPLIANCE. SECTION 904.10.4. E. UPRIGHT FURNACES MAYBE INSTALLED IN ATTIC OR CRAWLSPACE MORE THAN 5'-0" IN HEIGHT, PROVIDED THAT REQUIRED LISTINGS, DUCT AND FURNACE CLEARANCES ARE OBSERVED. SECTION 904.10.5 F. CLARIFY THE LOCATION OF THE FURANCE ON PLANS BY DASHED LINE OR OTHER SYMBOL. SOLAR CONDUIT NOTE: PROVIDE A PIPE FOR SOLAR CONDUIT FOR FUTURE USE. *SOLAR PANEL AREA TO BE NO LESS THEN 150 SQ.FT. HOUSE VENTILATION CALC: SQ. FT. OF (N) ROOF: 2,261 SQ. FT. (N) 2,216/150 = 14.77 SQ. FT. OF VENTILATION IN NEW ROOF (N) ROOF VENTS (20 ea. X .75 SQ.FT.) = 15 SQ.FT. TOTAL VENTILATION INSTALLED = 15 SQ.FT. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings.Rev.:001002003004005006Description :Date :Revisions one DESIGN PLANNING form 4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304 Park City, UT 84098 Gambrioli Residence812 Linden AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Title :Project :Date :03/08/2019Drawn :TIM RADUENZ19_009Job No. :Owner :APN#: 029-032-160Contractor :PLANNING SETZoning: -BUILDING SETMR. + MRS. GREG GAMBRIOLI812 LINDEN AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Gambrioli Developments Contact: Greg Gambrioli 2415 Summit Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 P: 650-333-6844 7122.512 10'-0"1ST FLR F.F.TOP PLATE2ND FLR(SUB. FLR)2ND FLR T.O.P. 7'-4"GRADE26'-8 3/8"30' HEIGHT LIMITRIDGE LINE30'-0"AREA OF WORK(E) ARCHITECTURALSHINGLES(E) GSM GUTTERS(E) PORCH TO BEREDUCED TO ALLOWFOR DRIVEWAY TO BEBUILT ON LOT.PROTECT REMOVE (E) WOOD SIDING(E) BRICK VENEER(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) LOT LINE(E) NO WORK 10'-0"1ST FLR F.F.TOP PLATE2ND FLR(SUB. FLR)2ND FLR T.O.P. 7'-4"GRADE26'-8 3/8"30' HEIGHT LIMITRIDGE LINE30'-0"7122.512(E) ARCHITECTURALSHINGLES(E) GSM GUTTERS(E) WOOD SIDING(E) BRICK VENEER(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) LOT LINE(N) DRIVEWAY(N) PAVERS FOR DRIVE(E) NO WORK(N) 6' FENCE BY 812 LINDENAREA OF WORK Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001 002 003 004 005 006 Description :Date : Revisions oneDESIGN PLANNING form4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Gambrioli Residence 816 Linden Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :03/08/2019Drawn :TIM RADUENZ19_010Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-032-160 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 BUILDING SET MR. + MRS. GREG GAMBRIOLI 816 LINDEN AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Gambrioli Developments Contact: Greg Gambrioli 2415 Summit Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 P: 650-333-6844 Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.0A3.01EXISTING FRONT ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"A3.02PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 7122.512 10'-0"1ST FLR F.F.TOP PLATE2ND FLR(SUB. FLR)2ND FLR T.O.P. 7'-4"GRADE27'-3 1/8"30' HEIGHT LIMITRIDGE LINE30'-0"(E) ARCHITECTURALSHINGLES(E) GSM GUTTERS(E) WOOD SIDING(E) BRICK VENEER(N) WINDOWS TO BELIKE IN KIND TO (E)3'-0"5'-11"4'-6"3'-0"(N)(N)(N)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)AREA OF WORKAREA OF WORK7122.512 10'-0"1ST FLR F.F.TOP PLATE2ND FLR(SUB. FLR)2ND FLR T.O.P. 7'-4"GRADE27'-3 1/8"30' HEIGHT LIMITRIDGE LINE30'-0"(E) ARCHITECTURALSHINGLES(E) GSM GUTTERS(E) PORCH TO BEREDUCED TOALLOW FORDRIVEWAY TOBE BUILT ON LOT.(E) WOOD SIDING(E) BRICK VENEER(E) BAY TO BEREMOVED TO ALLOWFOR (N) DRIVEWAY TOBE BUILT ON LOT(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001 002 003 004 005 006 Description :Date : Revisions oneDESIGN PLANNING form4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Gambrioli Residence 816 Linden Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :03/08/2019Drawn :TIM RADUENZ19_010Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-032-160 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 BUILDING SET MR. + MRS. GREG GAMBRIOLI 816 LINDEN AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Gambrioli Developments Contact: Greg Gambrioli 2415 Summit Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 P: 650-333-6844 Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.1A3.11EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"A3.12PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E)(E)(E)(E)HVAC(E)23'-4"7 1/2"4'-0 1/2"2'-2"12'-8"2'-2"8"4'-0 1/2"23'-4"18'-4"(E) GAME ROOM27'-4 1/2"18'-4"27'-4 1/2"(BUILDING CONVERTED ILLEGALLYBY PREVIOUS OWNER, TO BECONVERTED BACK TO GARAGE)(E)23'-4"7 1/2"4'-0 1/2"2'-2"12'-8"2'-2"8"4'-0 1/2"23'-4"18'-4"(E) GARAGE27'-4 1/2"18'-4"27'-4 1/2"(BUILDING CONVERTED ILLEGALLYBY PREVIOUS OWNER, TO BECONVERTED BACK TO GARAGE)10/0 O.H.GARAGE DOORTEMP.001LEGEND:EXISTING WALLSWALLS/ITEMS TO BE REMOVESNEW WALLS Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001 002 003 004 005 006 Description :Date : Revisions oneDESIGN PLANNING form4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Gambrioli Residence 816 Linden Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :03/08/2019Drawn :TIM RADUENZ19_010Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-032-160 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 BUILDING SET MR. + MRS. GREG GAMBRIOLI 816 LINDEN AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Gambrioli Developments Contact: Greg Gambrioli 2415 Summit Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 P: 650-333-6844 Existing & Proposed Garage See DetailsG1.0G1.01EXISTING GAME ROOMScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"(TO BE CONVERTED BACK TO AGARAGE)G1.02PROPOSED GARAGEScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"(TO BE CONVERTED BACK TO AGARAGE) City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 503 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: August 12, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for a new attached garage. Applicant and Designer: Jo Ann Gann APN: 029-274-250 Property Owners: Joseph and Judith Hamilton Lot Area: 5,500 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Site Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing single-story, single family dwelling and a detached garage. There is a 3-foot wide private easement on the property located along the left side property line. This non-exclusive easement is related to the adjacent property at 143 Dwight Road and is for ingress and egress, sewers, existing fences and encroachment of an existing garage over the subject property. Project Description: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-car detached garage and build first and second story additions to the main dwelling and a new, single-car attached garage. With this project, the floor area will increase to 2,680 SF (0.49 FAR) where 2,860 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including front-facing covered porch exemptions). With this application, there is an increase in the number of bedrooms, from two to four, in the main dwelling. Two off-street parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for the main dwelling. The new attached garage (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space and one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway leading to the garage. The proposed dormers on the second story slightly encroach into the declining height envelope by 25 SF, but qualify for the window encl osures exemption in Code Section 25.26.075 (b) (2). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application s:  Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010(a)(2)); and  Special Permit for a new attached garage (CS 25.26.035(a)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 9b Design Review Study Design Review and Special Permit 503 Howard Avenue 2 503 Howard Avenue Lot Area: 5,500 SF Plans date stamped: July 18, 2019 Existing Proposed Allowed/ Required Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): Attached Garage: 19'-8" n/a n/a no change 52’-0” 44’-5” 15'-0" 20'-0" 25’ (single car garage) Side Setback (left): (right): 18’-4” 2’-10” to wall1 4'-0" 4’-0” (to addition) 4'-0" 4'-0" (for driveway) Rear Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 40'-4" n/a 16’-0” (to addition) 20’-0” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,717 SF 21.2% 2,142 SF 38.9% 2,200 SF 40% FAR: 1,651 SF 0.30 FAR 2,680 SF 0.49 FAR 2,860 SF2 0.52 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20') 1uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 22’-0” 25'-8" (to addition) 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: Existing attic space encroaches by 60 SF (4’ x 15’) on right side 3 Addition encroaches by 25 SF (1’-3” x 20’) 4 C.S. 25.26.075 1 Existing, non-conforming right side setback to the first floor (2’-10" existing where 4'-0" is required). 2 (0.32 x 5,500 SF) + 1,100 SF = 2,860 SF (0.52 FAR). 3 Existing attic space encroaches into DHE, but is non-habitable space. 4 The proposed second story encroachment into DHE complies with window enclosure exemption (CS 25.26.075 (b) (2)). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:  Windows: vinyl clad wood with simulated true divided lites; wood stucco trim to match existing.  Doors: wood and vinyl clad wood doors on house; wood garage door.  Siding: existing stucco siding; proposed stucco siding to match existing.  Roof: composition asphalt shingle roofing.  Other: stucco chimney and stone base veneer. Staff Comments: The scale on right elevations show the dormers at between 10’-7” to 11’. Scale will need to be updated to reflect the dimensions shown on floor plans, which show dormers measuring at 10’ wide. Design Review and Special Permit 503 Howard Avenue 3 Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural com ponents. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a -d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural character istics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Michelle Markiewicz Assistant Planner c. Jo Ann Gann, applicant and designer Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Letter of Concern Submitted by Neighbor, received August 8, 2019 Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 2, 2019 Area Map Jim & Lynn Lenardon Burlingame, CA 94010 August 8, 2019 Ms. Markiewicz, 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 503 Howard Avenue Design Review Dear Ms. Markiewicz, I have had a chance to review the plans for the remodel at 503 Howard Avenue. The plans look very nice and I am sure this remodel will fit in very well with the neighborhood. However, my husband and I are concerned with the new placement of the new garage. We had spoken with Mr. Horan previously and asked that a garage not be placed right next to our only kitchen window. But, upon review of the plans, it looks as if we will be looking directly at a wall only 5’ away. We also believe that we will lose most of the natural light in our kitchen. At this time, we do not know if anything can be done, but would like to go on record with our objection. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions on my cell phone # Sincerely, Jim and Lynn Lenardon (hours) Type I-F.R. Type II One-HR. Type IV-H.T. Type II-N x 3.785 for II-F.R.1 III One-HR.1 V-One-Hr.1 II-N1 L/min. 0-22,700 0-12,700 0-8,200 0-5,900 0-3,600 1,500 22,701-30,200 12,701-17,000 8,201-10,900 5,901-7,900 3,601-4,800 1,750 30,201-38,700 17,001-21,800 10,901-12,900 7,901-9.800 4,801-6,200 2,000 38,701-48,300 21,801-24,200 12,901-17,400 9,801-12,600 6,201-7,700 2,250 48,301-59,000 24,201-33,200 17,401-21,300 12,601-15,400 7,701-9,400 2,500 59,001-70,900 33,201-39,700 21,301-25,500 15,401-18,400 9,401-11,300 2,750 70,901-83,700 39,701-47,100 25,501-30,100 18,401-21,800 11,301-13,400 3,000 83,701-97,700 47,101-54,900 30,101-35,200 21,801-25,900 13,401-15,600 3,250 97,701-112,700 54,901-63,400 35,201-40,600 25,901-29,300 15,601-18,000 3,500 112,701-128,700 63,401-72,400 40,601-46,400 29,301-33,500 18,001-20,600 3,750 128,701-145,900 72,401-82,100 46,401-52,500 33,501-37,900 20,601-23,300 4,000 145,901-164,200 82,101-92,400 52,501-59,100 37,901-42,700 23,301-26,300 4,250 164,201-1;83,400 92,401-103,100 59,101-66,000 42,701-47,700 26,301-29,300 4,500 183,401-203,700 103,101-114,600 66,001-73,300 47,701-53,000 29,301-32,600 4,750 203,701-225,200 114,601-126,700 73,301-81,100 53,001-58,600 32,601-36,000 5,000 225,201-247,700 126,701-139,400 81,101-89,200 58,601-65,400 36,001-39,600 5,250 247,701-271,200 139,401-152,600 89,201-97,700 65,401-70,600 39,601-43,400 5,500 271,201-295,900 152,601-166,500 97,701-106,500 70,601-77,000 43,401-47,400 5,750 295,901-Greater 166,601-Greater 106,501-115,800 77,001-83,700 47,401-51,500 6,000 " " 115,801-125,500 83,701-90,600 51,501-55,700 6,250 " " 125,501-135,500 90,601-97,900 55,701-60,200 6,500 " " 135,501-145,800 97,901-106,800 60,201-64,800 6,750 " " 145,801-156,700 106,801-113,200 64,801-69,600 7,000 " " 156,701-167,900 113,201-121,300 69,601-74,600 7,250 " " 167,901-179,400 121,301-129,600 74,601-79,800 7,500 " " 179,401-191,400 129,601-138,300 79,801-85,100 7,750 " " 191,401-Greater 128,301-Greater 85,101-Greater 8,000 4 FIRE AREA (square feet) FIRE FLOW (gallons per minute)X 0.0929 for m2 Type V-N1 FLOW DURATION 2 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 7, 2019 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 12, 2019 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager SUBJECT: FYI – UPDATE REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE AT 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (ANZA PARKING), ZONED AA. Summary: An application for renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for long term airport parking as an interim use for a five-year term at 615 Airport Boulevard (Anza Parking), was approved by the Planning Commission on May 14, 2018 (see attached May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). In order to ensure that redevelopment of the site progresses in a timely manner, the Planning Commission voted to approve the renewal based upon the following condition of approval:  that the applicant shall be required to meet the following reporting milestones to provide assurance that satisfactory progress is made towards development of the site: a. On the first and third anniversaries of the renewal (July 2019 and July 2021), the applicant shall provide a written update regarding the progress of the development of the site; the written update will be presented as an FYI item to the Planning Commission. b. On the second and fourth anniversaries of the renewal (July 2020 and July 2022), the applicant shall provide an in-person report at a Planning Commission meeting; the report on the second anniversary, July 2020, shall include written evidence (along with the oral report) that all owners consent to the future development of the site. Please refer to the attached letter submitted by Robert C. Herr, Esq., representing Anza Parking, dated July 31, 2019, in response to the Commission’s direction as it pertains to the condition of approval above. In his letter, Mr. Herr notes that significant progress has been made towards developing the site, including “interviewing and engaging consultants to assist them in the effort to consolidate ownership of the parcels in a single entity and to evaluate and negotiate the development of the consolidated parcels, and conducting meetings with the various owners of the thirteen parcels in attendance to discuss the consolidation and restructuring of their ownership interests.” Please refer to the attached letter for additional details of the meetings held and steps to be taken in the coming year. Staff would note that this is the first anniversary of the renewal, requiring that the applicant provide a written update regarding the progress of the development of the site to be presented as an FYI to the Planning Commission. In July 2020, the applicant will be required to provide an in-person report, which will need to include written evidence that all owners consent to the future development of the site. Community Development Department Memorandum August 7, 2019 Page 2 Ruben Hurin Planning Manager Attachments: Letter submitted by Robert C. Herr, Esq., dated July 31, 2019 May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 14, 2018 e.615 Airport Boulevard, zoned AA - Application to renew a Conditional Use Permit for long term airport parking as an interim use. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. (Airport Parking LLC, applicant and property owner) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent had a brief email exchange with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Where does the State Lands Commission appear on the roster of owners? (Hudak: believes the roster only includes the individual property owners of the parcels, and does not include State Lands. The roster is a comprehensive list. Some owners don't live in the area, or even in the country, hence the challenge in getting all owners on-board.) >What is the potential of having the one remaining individual sign -off on development of the property? (Hudak: is primarily a matter of logistics.) >Had a conversation with the State Lands Commission; when does the lease expire? (Hudak: expires in 2038. It is a delicate negotiation; need to figure out what State Lands wants, then provide it.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Would like to see the plan of action and have full details in two years. Ensure that all owners have signed-off on the agreement to develop. Would prefer a comprehensive list of milestones that can always be revised in the future if needed. >Noted that condition 2a requires an update from the property owners on the second and fourth years . (Meeker: perhaps provide written evidence be submitted that the final owner provides consent to development with the oral report to the Commission at year two as part of condition 2b.) Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2019 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Understands the need to have the long -term agreements to allow the operations to function. Would prefer to have the matter come back for reconsideration of an extension at two years (i.e. have the conditional use permit expire in two years). >Could the term of the conditional use permit be modified? (Meeker: yes, it is the prerogative of the Commission.) >Developers need a longer period of time to design the project, seek funding and entitlements. >Is comfortable with the conditions of approval as proposed. >If the Commission sees no progress in the future, the Commission will be unlikely to consider future extensions. >Is comfortable with the proposal. The applicant's discussion of the market conditions is compelling . Five years doesn't seem unreasonably long. >Could the Commission ask for proof of the additional owner's consent in six -months? (Meeker: since the City doesn't have control over the timing, two -years is not unreasonable. Noted that the State Lands Commission and Bay Conservation and Development Commission are both involved in entitling development on the property; a five-year time for this process is certainly not unreasonable.) >Would be helpful to see a graphic showing the individual owners of each parcel. The five -year timeframe provides a reasonable certainty with potential developer partners. >Could the City help coordinate with the State Lands Commission? (Meeker: the City has no influence over the agency's process. Kane: the City is in discussions with the agency on other issues, so could perhaps communicate the City's interests.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the application with an amendment to condition 2b requiring evidence of the remaining owner's consent to developing the property by the end of year two. Discussion of Motion: >Feels that five-years is too long. >Some concerns expressed at the study discussion regarding this item, were misplaced as they were more related to another proposal. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Nay:Kelly1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2019