Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2018.05.29Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMTuesday, May 29, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 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. 25 Arundel Road, zoned R -1 - Application for a One -Year Permit Extension for a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing split -level house. This project is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Channing and Carrie Chen, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon a. 25 Arundel Rd - Staff Report 25 Arundel Rd - Attachments 25 Arundel Rd - Notice and Aerial Photo Attachments: Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/25/2018 May 29, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (James Neubert, applicant and architect; Michael Stein, property owner) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit b. Staff Report 1125 Jackling Rd - Attachments 1125 Jackling Rd - Plans - 05.29.18 Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 709 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Jesse Guerse, designer; Luai Kaileh, applicant; Ibrahim and Maha Kaileh, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. Staff Report 709 Plymouth Way -Attachments 709 Plymouth Way - Plans - 05.29.18 Attachments: 21 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map for a new 3-story, 7-unit residential condominium building . The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (167 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b. 21 Park Rd - Staff Report 21 Park Rd - Attachments 21 Park Rd - Plans - 05.29.18 Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/25/2018 May 29, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five-story, 21-unit residential condominium with below -grade parking (VMK Design Group, designer; Roman Knop, property owner) (950 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner c. 556 El Camino Real - Staff Report 556 El Camino Real - Attachments 556 El Camino Real - Plans - 05.29.18 556 El Camino Real - 2nd Revised Initial Study May 2018 556 El Camino Real - Revised Initial Study Appendix D Geotechnical Investigation 556 El Camino Real - Revised Initial Study Appendix E Traffic Queuing Analyses 556 El Camino Real - Appendix A Shade and Shadow Analysis 556 El Camino Real - Appendix B Construction Health Risk Assessment 556 El Camino Real - Appendix C Tree Survey Attachments: 1818 Gilbreth Road, zoned IB - Application for a Parking Variance for a class use in an existing office building. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 Class I. (Carol Chou, Ingenious Learning, applicant; George and Jenny Chang Trust, property owners) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit d. Staff Report 1818 Gilbreth Rd - Attachments 1 1818 Gilbreth Rd - Attachments 2 1818 Gilbreth Rd - Attachments 3 Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 2104 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J. Deal Associates, Jerry Deal, applicant and designer; Tom and Katie Eiseman, property owners) (107 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon a. 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 05.29.18 Attachments: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. (Winges Architects, Inc., Jerry Winges, applicant and designer; Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners) (133) noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal b. 209 Channing Rd - Staff Report 209 Channing Rd - Attachments 209 Channing Road - Plans - 5.29.18 Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/25/2018 May 29, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1697 Broadway, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. (Chu Design and Associates, Inc ., James Chu, applicant and designer, Huan Wang, property owner) (109 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal c. 1697 Broadway - Staff Report 1697 Broadway - Attachments 1697 Broadway - Plans - 5.29.18 Attachments: 1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling. (Best Construction, applicant; Cornelia Haber, designer; Symagny LLC, propert owner) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal d. 1104 Clovelly Ln - Staff Report 1104 Clovelly Ln - Attachments 1104 Clovelly Ln - Plans - 5.29.18 Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting May 21, 2018 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 May 29, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 8, 2018, 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 $533, 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 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/25/2018 City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1125 Jackling Road Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Request: Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling . Applicant and Architect: James Neubert, Architect APN: 027-154-210 Property Owner: Michael Stein and Annat Elazari Lot Area: 11,467 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Site description: The address of 1125 Jackling Drive consists of two separate parcels, which currently have the same owner. Parcel 2 (APN: 027 -331-030, 17,980 SF) runs adjacent to Jackling Drive and is the town of Hillsborough. This lot is not suitable for development because Easton Creek runs through the majority of the parcel. Parcel 1 (APN: 027-154-210, 11,467 SF) is located just beyond Parcel 2, is in the City of Burlingame, and is the site of a residence which was substantially rem odeled/rebuilt in 2004. Parcel 1 has no frontage on a public right-of-way; the property is accessed by a wood and steel auto bridge that runs from Jackling Drive and across Parcel 2 at a point intersecting with the right side property line for Parcel 1. The front property line for Parcel 1 (the subject property) measures 67.79' and is located at the southwest side of the parcel. This designation was made because the Burlingame Zoning Code defines the lot front as the shortest frontage. Because of the foliage in and around the creek and because of the width of Parcel 2, Parcel 1 and the existing house are not visible from Jackling Drive at almost any point except for across the access bridge. At the shortest distance, the existing house on Parcel 1 is app roximately 90 feet from the asphalt of Jackling Drive. Parcel 1 slopes up approximately 24 feet from the front and right side property lines to the rear, left corner of the lot. There are existing retaining walls that run along the left side and rear of the property. On Parcel 2, adjacent to Jackling Drive, there is a steep slope down from Jackling Drive into the creek bed and then up to the other side (leading to Parcel 1). There are two, 4-foot wide Public Utility Easements on the property that run adjacent to the front and right side property lines; one is a sewer easement and the other is a PG&E easement. Project Description: The existing house is considered a single -story house with a lower level half story and a basement. The lower level half story at the right side includes stairs, a bedroom, and portions of the den and bathroom. Some areas adjacent to the lower level, including the full wine cellar and portions of the den and the bathroom meet the definition of a basement and are therefore exempted from floor area calculations. The existing house has and a large roof area, with existing 10'-10" ceiling heights on the main floor and a 14:12 pitch roof above. There is no permanent access, such as a stair, to the area over the existing first floor and this space is unfinished attic area. The applicant proposes a second story for the existing, single story house with a lower level and a basement. The total proposed floor area is 4,519 SF (0.39 FAR), where 4,769 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including the basement exemption). Item No. 7b Consent Calendar Design Review 1125 Jackling Drive -2- The proposed additions will take place on the first floor to the left of the entrance and in the existing attic area, which will be made accessible with a staircase, will be enlarged with dormers in the existi ng roof line, and the space will be finished as habitable area. The ridges of the proposed dormers are 10 inches lower than the existing highest roof ridge. The existing attached garage will not be altered except to remove the cabinets that currently encroach into the required covered parking length. With the removal of the cabinets, there are two covered parking spaces (20' x 20') in the garage and an additional uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage. The existing house has 4 bedrooms and with the new second story, the number of bedrooms on site will increase to 5. The 3 existing parking spaces meet the code requirement for a 5-bedroom house. The existing site contains a total of six protected sized trees, 2 oak trees in the left side yard, 2 oak trees and 1 bay tree in the front yard, and 1 bay tree at the right side of the rear yard. No existing trees are proposed to be removed nor does any of the proposed construction infringe on any tree protection zones . All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 1125 Jackling Drive Lot Area: 11,467 SF Plans date stamped: May 17, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 20'-0" --- No change 63'-6" 15'-0" 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 12'-11" 14'-8" No change No change 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): (dormer 2nd flr): 11'-7" 1 22'-0" --- No change No change 20'-4" 15'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 3,292 SF 29% 3,349 SF 29.2% 4,586 SF 40% FAR: 3,556 SF 0.31 FAR 4,519 SF 0.39 FAR 4769 SF ² 0.42 FAR Basement: The wine cellar and portions of the den and bathroom (up to 600 SF can be exempt, 369 SF No change --- Design Review 1125 Jackling Drive -3- EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D meets exemption) # of bedrooms: 4 5 --- Parking: 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') No change 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 19'-6" 18'-6" to new dormer ridges 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 ¹ Existing, non-conforming rear setback. ² (0.32 x 11,467 SF) + 1100 SF = 4,769 SF (0.42 FAR) Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on May 14, 2018, the Commission had one suggestion regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped May 17, 2018, to address the Planning Commission’s suggestion that all of the proposed dormers be revised to have a hip roof that reflects the existing roof hip on the house. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 a dopted 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: The proposed second floor for the house is tucked in to the existing roofline so that the primary massing for the house is not altered and does not significantly impact any neighboring properties. The details for the proposed addition, including the hipped dormer slate roof, the pre-cast concrete window sills, and the foam stucco mold trim are compatible with the existing architectural style of the house. The significant amount of large -scale landscaping on the subject site and on the adjacent parcel that runs parallel to Jackling Drive screen the proposed addition from the right -of-way and from neighboring properties. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Design Review 1125 Jackling Drive -4- 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 shoul d 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 May 17, 2018, sheets A1 through A12, and including Boundary and Topographic Survey dated May 2017; 2. that construction-related vehicles shall utilize all available on -site parking prior to utilizing available parking in the pull-out area along Jackling Drive; that for all work in the right -of-way the owner/applicant shall comply with the Town of Hillsborough Planning, Building, and Public Works permit requirements; and that prior to submitting for a Building Permit in the City of Burlingame, the owner shall provide documentation that they have consulted with the Town of Hillsborough regarding these requirements; 3. 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); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as de termined by the Community Development Director; 6. 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 a ll the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. 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 a dopted 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 modi fied or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; Design Review 1125 Jackling Drive -5- THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. 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; 12. 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 submit ted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. 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 14. 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. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. James Neubert, applicant Attachments:  Minutes from the May 14, 2018 Design Review Study hearing  Application to the Planning Commission  Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)  Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 18, 2018  Address Map City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 709 Plymouth Way Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Request: Design Review for first and second story addition s to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage. Applicant: Luai Kaileh APN: 029-071-120 Designer: Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design Lot Area: 5,400 SF Property Owners: Ibrahim and Maha Kaileh Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the Ca lifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project History: An application for Design Review for first and second story additions at 709 Plymouth Way was submitted in 2016 and went to the October 11, 2016, Planning Commission meeting for Design Review Study. At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to refer the project to a design review consultant (see the attached October 11, 2016 Planning Commission minutes and the plans date stamped September 19, 2016). The project did not go through any of the design review consultant process; instead the owner elected to engage a new designer. The currently proposed project is substantially different from the project proposed in 2016 and therefore is returning to the Planning Commission as a Design Review Study item. The original plans and Planning Commission minutes are included for reference. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing single-story dwelling and an attached garage. The applicant proposes to demolish the covered courtyard patio and some of the walls of the living room at the front of the house, and to add a front covered porch entry and a second story to the existing, single story house. The total proposed floor area is 2,820 SF (0.52 FAR), where 2,828 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including the front covered porch exemption). The existing parking on site is non-conforming, with the attached garage providing one code-compliant covered parking space (10' x 18') and no uncovered spaces in the driveway leading to the garage. The existing 3- bedroom house requires two parking spaces, one of which must be covered. With the proposed addition, the number of bedrooms on site will increase from 3 to 4 bedrooms, but the parking requirement does not change; the non-conforming parking conditions are allowed to remain because the parking requirements are not intensified with an increase to 5 or more bedrooms in the house. The existing landscaping on site consists primarily of fruit trees and a line of mature hedges (Eugenia and Pittosporum) at the rear of the lot. Fruit trees do not meet the code definition of a landscape tree and cannot be applied towards the landscape requirement for the property, which will be 3 landscape trees with the proposed addition. Hedges can count towards the landscape requirement depending on their species, maintenance and maturity. The applicant has submitted an Arborist Report in which the Arborist recommends no additional trees be planted on site based on the size of the lot and the landscaping in place. The City Arborist has reviewed this report and agrees with this conclusion. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). Item No. 8a Regular Action Design Review 709 Plymouth Way -2- 709 Plymouth Way Lot Area: 5,400 SF Plans date stamped: May 17, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 14'-10" (to face of garage) --- 20'-0" (to new porch supports) 22'-11 " 15'-1" (is the block average) 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 4'-7" 5'-8" No change No change 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16'-4" --- No change 54'-5" 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,131 SF 39.5 % 2,056 SF 38% 2,160 SF 40% FAR: 2,106 SF 0.39 FAR 2,820 SF 0.52 FAR 2,828 SF 1 0.52 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Parking: 1 covered (10' x 18') 0 uncovered 2 No change 1 covered (9' x18') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 15'-5" 28'-0" 30'-0" DH Envelope: --- complies C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 5,400 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,828 SF (0.52 FAR) ² Existing, non-conforming on-site parking (1 covered space existing, 10' x 18', where 2 spaces - 1 covered and 1 uncovered – are required). Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on May 11, 2018, the Commission had a discussion regarding the size of the proposed second floor covered decks and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached May 11, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped May 17, 2018, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. The applicant made the following revisions to the prop osed plans and detailed the following items in the response letter: 1. The second floor rear deck was reduced by 20.9 SF (from 84.9 SF to 64 SF) by eliminating 1'-5" from the depth of the covered deck. 2. The second floor front deck was reduced by 10.4 SF (from 62 SF to 51.6 SF) by eliminating 1 foot from the depth of the covered deck. 3. The applicant points out that the decks are only accessed from bedrooms and not from any common living spaces; this access and the size of the decks will limit their use to one or two people gathering. 4. The applicant notes that the rear second floor deck does not abut any open space or yard on the neighboring property, which limits any noise impact of the deck on the adjacent property. Design Review 709 Plymouth Way -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 components. Suggested Findings for Design Review : The design is compatible with the existing structure in that the large porch helps to centralize the mass of the proposed second story while still retaining the unique existing courtyard. The proposed attached garage is typical for the neighborhood, but the proposed front porch shifts the focus from the garage door to the house. The proposed second floor decks exceed the required setbacks from neighboring properties and are not adjacent to or oriented towards any existing neighboring outdoor gathering areas. The varied roof lines and second floor overhangs in the design help to break up the massing and provide variety in the proposed residence. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review 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 includ e 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 May 17, 2018, sheets A.1 through AD.2, and including a Topographic and Boundary Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 issu ed 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 approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; Design Review 709 Plymouth Way -4- 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 Demo lition 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 Buil ding and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, 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, sha ll 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 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 bee n built according to the approved Planning and Building plans . Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Luai Kaileh, applicant Attachments:  Applicant's Response to Commission's comments  Minutes from the May 14, 2018 Design Review Study Meeting  Application to the Planning Commission  Arborist Report, dated May 30, 2016  Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)  Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 18, 2018  Address Map PROJECT LOCATION 21 Park Road Item No. 8b Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map Address: 21 Park Road Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map for a new three-story, seven-unit residential condominium building. Applicant: Levy Design Partners APN: 026-233-130 Property Owner: GGH Investment LLC Lot Area: 8,800 SF General Plan: Medium High Density Residential Zoning: BMU Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (Bayswater Mixed Use District) Adjacent Development: Multi-family and single-family dwellings, offices, commercial Current Use: Single family dwelling and detached garage Proposed Use: Seven-unit residential condominium building Allowable Use: Multi-family dwellings, services, offices, civic/cultural Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects, which consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described below (see pages 7-9 for additional information). (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. History: In 2013 and 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a new, three-story, eight-unit residential condominium building proposed by a different property owner and architect. Issues raised by the commissioners and neighbors at that time included side setbacks, design of side elevations, sun access and shading, and quantity of parking provided. Since that time, the property was sold to the current owner and the applicant was withdrawn. The current property owner engaged Levy Design Partners to design the currently proposed seven-unit residential condominium. Since the previous application was withdrawn and the proposed project is substantially different in design and configuration, it is considered to be a new application. October 23, 2017 Design Review Study Meeting: At the October 23, 2017, Planning Commission design review study meeting, the Commission had several questions and suggestions regarding this project (see attached October 23, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The architect submitted a response letter and revised plans dated April 30, 2018 to address the Commission’s comments. Listed below are the Commission's comments and responses by the applicant. 1. Would like the design softened a bit more on the front, in particular, perhaps add more wood.  The architect notes that all of the balconies contain 2x wood guardrails. The renderings have been updated to correctly show wood guardrails (previously shown as white cement plaster). See revised Exterior Renderings, sheet A3.0. Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 2 The architect also revised the material of the exposed portions of the fencing along the south property line (to a point located 48’-0” back from the property line along Park Road) from wood to metal grid fencing with vegetation (vines). See revised Landscape Plan and Exterior Renderings, sheets L1.1 and A3.0, respectively. 2. Reach out the neighbors to see if there is something to address their concerns about the trees. Look at additional screening on the neighbors' side either on-site or on their property.  The architect’s letter notes that discussions were held with the adjacent residents regarding the potential loss of privacy due to the removal of the existing vegetation between 21 and 33 Park Road. The applicant has agreed to plant evergreen hedges on the 33 Park Road side of the property to mitigate the potential loss of privacy. The revised Landscape Plan conceptually show where the evergreen hedges would be planted. However, the applicant notes that some residents may not want hedges planted in front of their yards or balconies. Therefore, the final layout and plant locations will be determined at time of construction. See condition of approval #2. Project Summary: The applicant is proposing a new, three-story, seven-unit residential condominium building with enclosed at-grade parking garages at 21 Park Road, zoned BMU. Multifamily residential uses, with an average maximum unit size of 1,250 SF, are permitted in the BMU District (1,239 SF average unit size proposed). The project site currently contains a single family dwelling and a large detached garage. These would be demolished to build the proposed seven-unit residential condominium building. The existing buildings were not identified on the Draft Inventory of Historic Resources of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The site is bordered by a three-story multifamily building to the north, a one-story office building to the south, two-story office buildings across Park Road to the east, and three-story multifamily buildings across El Camino Real to the west. It is a “through lot” with frontages on both Park Road and El Camino Real. For the proposed project, the Park Road frontage is considered the front of the lot. The subject property is zoned BMU and has a General Plan land use designation of Medium-High Density residential with 21-50 dwelling units per acre, which allows up to 10 units. The application is for seven units which is a density of 35 dwelling units per acre. The proposed building would contain seven residential units in two floors above enclosed at-grade parking garages for each unit. Each of the units will contain an entry, living and dining areas, kitchen, two bedrooms, bathrooms and a space for a washer/dryer. The average unit size proposed is 1,239 SF (1,250 SF average maximum unit size permitted). Bicycle racks are provided in each of the garages. A trash enclosure is provided towards the rear of the lot. The following applications are required for the proposed project:  Design Review for the proposed construction of a new three-story, seven-unit residential condominium building (C.S. 25.35.045 and 25.57.010, and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan);  Condominium Permit for construction of new seven-unit residential condominium building (C.S. 26.30.020); and  Tentative Condominium Map. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 3 Design Review: The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.3 (pages 5-17 through 5-21) provides design guidelines specifically for residential projects within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-27) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown, including residential and mixed use areas. The relevant pages of the plan have been included as an attachment for convenience of commissioners. Materials proposed for the exterior of the building include a combination of cement plaster, lap siding, fiber cement panels, metal panel awnings and wood guardrails at the balconies. Composite wood windows, painted wood entry doors, and metal sectional garage doors would be used throughout the building. The overall height of the building is proposed at 35'-0" above average top of curb level where 55’-0” is the maximum allowed (Conditional Use Permit required if building height exceeds 35’-0”). On sheet A3.0, two visual simulations are provided looking north and south along Park Road. Off-Street Parking: Required off-street parking is based on the number of bedrooms in each unit. For this project, Code Section 25.70.032 (b) requires that a total of 11 parking spaces be provided for the residents of the units (1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit). There is no guest parking required on-site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan. Each unit contains a private enclosed garage and is fitted with a car stacker to allow two vehicles to be parked in each garage, so that a total of 14 spaces are provided on-site. Access to the garages would be from Park Road. There would be no vehicle access from El Camino Real. As noted above, each garage will contain a car stacker. The car stacker system to be installed is a Klaus SingleVario 2061 (see attached specifications) and is able to accommodate passenger cars and medium size vans and SUVs. The Municipal Code does not include specifications for parking lift systems, so the City currently does not have a standard mechanism for review and approval. However, as a policy the Downtown Specific Plan encourages “creative approaches” to providing on-site parking including car stackers. The car stackers could be considered “creative approaches” to providing the required on-site parking, and therefore be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. To date, the City has approved several commercial and residential projects with parking lift systems. The code requires that the condominium development provide an area for deliveries. The code does not specify that it be a dedicated parking space, only that it be “an area for on-site deliveries.” The project proposes a loading/delivery space located adjacent to the trash enclosure area that could be used for short- term delivery or service vehicle parking. Common and Private Open Space: There is a total of 1,160 SF (165.7 SF/unit) of common open space proposed for the condominium project where 700 SF (100 SF/unit) is required. The common open space is provided at the rear of the lot (along El Camino Real). Of the required common open space, a minimum of 50% must be in soft landscaping (350 SF); 952 SF of the provided common open space is proposed to be landscaped and therefore is in compliance. There is 76 SF to 85 SF in private open space per unit (75 SF/unit is the minimum required) provided in balconies. Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet L1.1). The applicant is proposing 60% (300 SF) landscaping within the required front setback where 10% (50 SF) is the minimum required. The project meets all other zoning code and condominium permit requirements. Existing landscaping consists of hedges along the sides of the property and a large shrub at the front. The applicant is proposing to replace all of the existing landscaping with new landscaping, which includes four, 36- inch box threes, shrubs, and small decorative plants throughout the site. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 4 In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multifamily residential use is required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees for every 2000 SF of lot coverage. Based on the proposed project, a total of three landscape trees are required on site. The City Arborist has required that a 24-inch box landscape tree (London Plane) be added to the planter strip on Park Road. There will be a total of four, 36-inch box trees on site, as well as a street tree in the Park Road planter strip, for a total of four new trees. There are two existing 60-inch Eucalyptus trees within the El Camino Real right of way, adjacent to the property. Both trees would be retained. Affordable (Below-Market Rate) Units: The City’s previous Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has been replaced by a Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with State Law. The Density Bonus Ordinance is discretionary, and projects are not obligated to provide affordable units unless they seek to utilize development standard incentives offered by the ordinance. The applicant has not chosen to apply any of the development standard incentives offered by the Density Bonus Ordinance and therefore is not providing any affordable units as part of the project. 21 Park Road Lot Area: 8,800 SF Plans date stamped: April 30, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (Park Rd) (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): 10’-0” (all floors) 10'-0” Left Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): 5’-0" 6’-0" 7’-0" no minimum required Right Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): 14’-6” 7’-1” to wing wall/8’-4” to building 7’-1” to wing wall/8’-4” to building 5'-0" * 6'-0" * 7'-0" * Rear (El Camino) (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): 20’-0” 20’-0” 21’-0” 20’-0” 20'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 5,066 SF 57.1% 6,644 SF 75% Building Height: 35'-0” 55’-0" maximum/ CUP required to exceed 35’-0” * R-3 side setback standards (Section 25.28.075) shall apply to property line(s) with an existing residential use on the abutting property. In this case, the R-3 side setback standards apply along the right side property line since an existing multifamily residential use abuts this property line. In addition, the minimum side setback for condominium developments shall be five (5) feet (Code Section 25.28.075 (d)). In addition, the minimum side setback for a structure shall be increased by one foot for each story above the first story (Code Section 25.28.075 (e). Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 5 21 Park Road Lot Area: 8,800 SF Plans date stamped: April 30, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setback Landscaping: 60% 300 SF 10% 50 SF Private Open Space: 76 SF – 85 SF/unit 75 SF per unit Common Open Space: SF Landscaped: 1,160 SF 952 SF (100% of required) 700 SF 350 SF (50% of required) Off-Street Parking: 14 spaces for residents (provided in car stackers) Area for on-site deliveries near trash enclosure 100% covered 7, 2 bdrm units x 1.5 = 11 spaces Area for on-site deliveries required 80% must be covered Driveway Width: 12'-0” 12’-0" for less than 30 vehicles Staff Comments: None. Public Facilities Impact Fee: The purpose of public facilities impact fee is to provide funding for necessary maintenance and improvements created by development projects. Public facilities impact fees are based on the uses, the number of dwelling units, and the amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of the development project. New development that, through demolition or conversion, will eliminate existing development is entitled to a fee credit offset if the existing development is a lawful use under this title, including a nonconforming use. Based on a 7-unit residential condominium project and providing a credit for the existing single family dwelling (1 unit), the estimated Public Impact Fee for this development project is $29,597.00. The Public Impact Fees payment will be required at time of building permit issuance. One-half of the public facilities impact fees payment will be required prior to issuance of a building permit issuance; the second half of the payment will be required before the final framing inspection. General Plan/Specific Plan: The Burlingame General Plan designates this site for Medium-High Density residential (21-50 dwelling units per acre), which allows up to 10 units. In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (amended in 2011), which serves as an element of the General Plan. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the planning area for the Downtown Specific Plan, specifically in the Bayswater Mixed Use Area. The Plan describes the Bayswater Mixed Use Area as follows: The Bayswater Mixed Use area is centered on Bayswater Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Road. Development will be consistent with the existing neighborhood scale of small streets and varied commercial and residential buildings. Existing residential and commercial properties could be improved and expanded at a scale consistent with the adjacent residential areas. The area is meant to serve as a buffer between the downtown commercial district and the residential neighborhoods to the south and east across El Camino Real. For properties with El Camino Real frontage, new development is strongly encouraged to provide egress from side streets rather than El Camino Real, thereby reducing curb cuts and allowing existing trees to remain and new trees to be planted on El Camino Real. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 6 The Downtown Specific Plan includes various Goals and Policies to guide growth and development in Downtown Burlingame. The table below shows how the proposed project meets these Goals and Policies. GOAL/POLICY PROJECT PROPOSED Goal LU-3: Ensure sensitive transitions between the existing adjacent residential areas and the downtown area. Policy LU-3.1: In peripheral areas of the downtown planning area, identify neighborhood serving uses such as corner markets and provide for sufficient residential density to support those uses. The proposed three-story, seven-unit multifamily residential development provides a compatible and sensitive transition between existing two and three- story residential and commercial buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. The project site is located on the periphery of the downtown planning area and proposes a residential density of 35 units per acre which is consistent with the allowed Medium-High Density designation (21-50 dwelling units per acre). Policy LU-6.1: Allow housing in the Howard Avenue area as well as on the periphery. The proposed project includes a seven-unit multifamily residential development on the periphery of the downtown planning area. Goal P-1: Explore creative parking solutions. Policy P-1.3: Conceal parking areas through the use of attractively designed above- or below-ground parking structures. Car stackers are proposed in each of the enclosed garages, accommodating two vehicles instead of one. Ground level parking is concealed by designed the garages so that they are enclosed, are located behind the front wall of the building, and configured so that the doors face the side property line. Policy C-2.6: Consider the needs of pedestrian, bicycles, and people with disabilities. Bicycle racks are provided in each enclosed garage. Policy S-1.3: Streetscapes should reflect Burlingame’s destination as a “tree city.” Trees should be planted throughout the downtown as an integral part of the streetscape, and mature streets trees should be persevered whenever possible. One new 24-inch box size street tree will be planted in front of the site. Policy D-3.1: Ensure that new development is appropriate to Burlingame with respect to size and design. Building does not exceed the maximum allowed building height and is consistent in mass and bulk with existing buildings in the area; project is subject to design review. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 7 Environmental Review Status: The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects, which consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described below. (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.  The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Medium-High Density residential (21-50 dwelling units per acre), which allows up to 10 units, and is located within the Bayswater Mixed Use Area of the Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed project consists of a multifamily residential condominium with seven units, which is a density of 35 dwelling units per acre, and therefore consistent with the general plan designation. The project as designed is consistent with Goals LU-3 and P-1 which address sensitive transitions between existing residential areas and the downtown area and creative parking solutions. The proposed project is also consistent with Policies LU-3.1, LU-6.1, P-1.3, C-2.6, S-1.3, and D-3.1 which address residential density, allowing housing on the periphery of the downtown planning area, parking design, encouraging planting of trees, and ensuring that the massing of the building is appropriate. Furthermore, the proposed project complies with all applicable zoning regulations, including setbacks, building height, lot coverage, landscaping, off-street parking, and condominium development regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.  The proposed development is on a project site of 0.20 acres and is surrounded by urban uses, including a three-story multifamily building to the north, a one-story office building to the south, two-story office and commercial buildings across Park Road to the east, and three-story multifamily buildings across El Camino Real to the west. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.  The project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by commercial and residential development. The project site is completely developed and is currently occupied with a one-story building, a detached garage, and paved parking area. There are no large or significant trees, riparian habitat or other sensitive plant communities on the project site. There are no creeks or wetlands present on the project site. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.  A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan, which analyzed potential impacts of new infill development and included standard conditions of approval to mitigate potential environmental impacts from projects. The proposed project is located within the Downtown Specific Plan and conforms with development assumptions incorporated into the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan. With incorporation of these standard conditions of approval, the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 8 Traffic: Based on the ITE’s Trip Generation 9th Edition, daily trip generation rates of 9.52 trips/units for single family homes and 5.81 trips/unit for residential condominiums, the proposed project would result in 31 net new daily vehicle trips. The proposed project would generate approximately three AM peak hour trips and four PM peak hour trips. The Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires a traffic impact analysis when a project would result in 100 or more peak hour trips. Since the project would generate approximately three AM and four PM peak hour trips, a detailed traffic impact analysis to show conformity to the CMP is not required. The project would not result in a conflict with any other adopted plan, ordinance, or policy related to the effectiveness of the circulation system. Additionally, the traffic impacts from the full implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan, which includes the proposed development on the project site, were evaluated when the Downtown Plan was approved in 2010. The full build-out of the Downtown Specific Plan would add substantially to delays at three study area intersections located at California Drive/Lorton Avenue, El Camino Real/Peninsula Avenue/Park Road, and California Drive/Howard Avenue. As identified in the Downtown Specific Plan Initial Study, Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 would reduce the delays at these intersections to less-than-significant levels by year 2030. Since the proposed project is only contributing six net new units on the site and three AM peak hour trips and four PM peak hour trips, traffic impacts as a result of the project would be less than significant. Noise: The project site has been developed with structure for 102 years. Since the use of the site will continue to be residential, the proposed project will not significantly increase the existing ambient noise levels. The proposed project will be required to comply with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. Because the proposed project is a multifamily residential land use, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations will require a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare a design level acoustical study as a prerequisite to building permit issuance for any future multifamily residential development applications where noise levels could exceed 65 decibels. The study shall include post- construction monitoring to ensure that interior ambient noise levels for multifamily housing are at or below 45 dBA. Construction of the proposed condominium will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible vibration. Conditions of approval to be added will ensure that temporary construction noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. Air quality: The proposed application is for a seven-unit multifamily condominium project to replace the existing single family dwelling. While this project will accommodate more people than the previous use, the change in emissions generated by a change from a single family dwelling to seven residential dwelling units at this location over emissions from all development in Burlingame is insignificant. The site is within walking distance of countywide bus and rail services. The site is zoned for multifamily residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 9 Water quality: This project is a residential infill development project and it is not located adjacent to a waterway. Currently, the majority of the site is impervious, consisting of two separate structures and paving throughout the site. The proposed project will included new landscaping at the front and rear of the site and will match the existing area of landscaping being removed (approximately 1,550 SF). Development of the proposed project would require compliance with the City of Burlingame Municipal Code which requires that all storm drain systems shall be designed to remove stormwater from the area at a maximum rainfall intensity of 1 inch per hour and that lots shall be graded to provide stormwater removal at this rainfall rate. A grading permit would be required and runoff from the project site would be evaluated for its potential to cause erosion. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, will need to comply with the city’s stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. A condition of approval will be included which requires that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices during all phases of construction, including demolition. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.  The project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by commercial and residential development which is served by utility and public services. The existing one-story building will be replaced with a three-story building on the same lot and therefore can be adequately served by required utility and public services. Findings for Multiple-Family Residential Design Review: The criteria for design review in mixed use districts is detailed in Code Section 25.57.030 (g) and requires the proposed project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; and (2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and (4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and (6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 10 Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the proposed condominium building will be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood with the use of a variety of quality materials including cement plaster, lap siding, fiber cement panels, metal panel awnings, wood guardrails at the balconies, composite wood windows, painted wood entry doors, and metal sectional garage doors. The new three-story building respects the mass and scale of this portion of Park Road and El Camino Real which has a mix of three-story multifamily residential buildings and one and two-story office and commercial buildings with a variety of architectural styles. The building includes an articulated front façade that provides visual interest. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s six design review criteria. Criteria for Permitting a Residential Condominium: The following condominium standards shall apply to all land and structures proposed as a part of a condominium project and shall be evaluated and processed pursuant to the procedural requirements set forth for conditional use permits in Title 25 of this code. No condominium project or portion thereof shall be approved or conditionally approved in whole or in part unless the planning commission, or city council upon appeal or review, has reviewed the following on the basis of their effect on: (a) Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare; (b) The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources; and (c) Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations. Suggested Findings for Condominium Permit:  Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare in that the seven-unit residential condominium project is scaled to be compatible with existing multifamily buildings along Park Road and El Camino Real and features ample landscaping with usable common open space;  The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources in that the project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by commercial and residential development which is served by utility and public services; that the existing one-story building containing a single family residence will be replaced with a three-story building containing seven residential units on the same lot and therefore can be adequately served by required utility and public services since the proposed project is only contributing six net new units on the site; and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan, which analyzed potential impacts of new infill development and included standard conditions of approval to mitigate potential environmental impacts from projects, and with incorporation of these standard conditions of approval, the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and  Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations, in that the project provides six additional residential units (7 total) consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 11 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. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. Design Review and Condominium Permit. 2. Tentative Condominium Map (recommendation for approval by City Council). At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 30, 2018, sheets A0.0 through A5.2, L1.1, and Topographic and Boundary Survey; 2. that prior to the final inspection, the project sponsor shall provide and install evergreen hedges on the 33 Park Road property along the north property line between 21 and 33 Park Road; the final layout and plant locations shall be determined at time of construction and after consulting with each of the 33 Park Road residents that have balconies and/or patios adjacent to the north property line; the project sponsor shall provide to the Planning Division a revised Site Plan and Landscape Plan once the final planting locations have been determined; 3. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $14,798.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 4. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $14,798.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 5. that Klaus SingleVario 2061 parking lifts, or equivalent parking lifts, shall be installed in the garage of each residential unit, with the following conditions: a. the parking lifts shall be properly illuminated to provide safety for easy loading and unloading, while not causing excessive glare. b. signage shall be installed in each garage explaining the proper use of the lifts and emergency contact information for lift maintenance or problems. c. the final design of the parking lifts shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 6. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 7. that the applicant shall apply for a tentative and final condominium map with the Public Works, Engineering Division for processing in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act; 8. that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation for any work proposed in the state right-of-way; Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 12 9. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 73.25' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Park Road (38.25') for a maximum height of 35’-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage/first floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 40.25'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 52.50’; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 62.75’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 10. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 11. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 12. that the service/delivery vehicle area, located adjacent to the trash enclosure area, shall be identified on the site and designated on the final map and plans, the service/delivery vehicle area shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service/delivery vehicle area shall always be accessible for parking and not be used for resident storage; 13. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service/delivery vehicle area shall be reserved for service/delivery vehicles only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 14. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 15. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 16. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 17. that any security gate system across the driveway shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; 18. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 13 19. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 20. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 21. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 22. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 23. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 24. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 25. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 26. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 27. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 28. that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 29. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 30. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 31. that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to the street as determined by the Public Works Department; Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 14 32. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 33. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 34. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 35. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 36. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 37. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 38. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 39. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 40. 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; 41. 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; The following conditions of approval are from Downtown Specific Plan: 42. the project sponsor shall implement all appropriate control measures from the most currently adopted air quality plan at the time of project construction; 43. the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day or as necessary. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered or otherwise loaded consistent with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 15 d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 44. the project sponsor shall implement the following Greenhouse Gas reduction measures during construction activities: a. Alternative-Fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment shall make up at least 15 percent of the fleet. b. Use at least 10 percent local building materials. c. Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. 45. the project sponsor shall provide adequate secure bicycle parking in the plan area at a minimum ratio of 1 bicycle spot for every 20 vehicle spots; 46. the project sponsor shall incorporate residential energy efficiency measures such that energy efficiency is increased to 15% beyond 2008 title 24 standards for electricity and natural gas; 47. the project sponsor shall incorporate recycling measures and incentives such that a solid waste diversion rate of 75% is achieved upon occupation of each phase of plan development; 48. the project sponsor shall incorporate residential and commercial water efficiency measures such that water consumption is decreased by a minimum of 10 percent over current standard water demand factors; 49. that construction shall avoid the March 15 through August 31 avian nesting period to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 250 ft. of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 250 ft. of the nest, until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 16 50. that for projects within the Plan Area that require excavation, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (and Phase II sampling, where appropriate) would be required. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determines that remediation is required, the project sponsor would be required to implement all remediation and abatement work in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional W ater Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or other jurisdictional agency; 51. that the following practices shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: - Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; - Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and - Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. 52. the project sponsor shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to be implemented by construction contractors: The project sponsor shall require that loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; 53. that if the project increases sewer flows to the sanitary sewer system, the project sponsor shall coordinate with the City Engineer to determine if improvements to public sanitary sewer infrastructure are needed. If improvements are needed, the following shall apply:  that prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall develop a plan to facilitate sanitary sewer improvements. The plan shall include a schedule for implementing sanitary sewer upgrades that would occur within the development site and/or contribution of a fair share fee toward those improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The plan shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. 54. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the development plans shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal to determine if fire flow requirements would be met given the requirements of the proposed project, and the size of the existing water main(s). If the Fire Marshal determines improvements are needed for fire protection services, then the following shall apply:  that prior to issuance of a building permit the project sponsor shall be required to provide a plan to supply adequate water supply for fire suppression to the project site, consistent with the Fire Marshal’s requirements. The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementation of the plan including installation of new water mains, and/or Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 17 incorporation of fire water storage tanks and booster pumps into the building design, or other measures as determined by the Fire Marshal. 55. that if evidence of an archeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame shall be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The City of Burlingame shall consult with the archeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archeological Documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC; 56. that should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project construction site during any phase of construction, the project manager shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of Burlingame. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City; and 57. that if human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Brian Siu Yang, Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect GGH Investment LLC property owners Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 21 Park Road 18 Attachments: October 23, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated April 30, 2018 Email submitted by Kendra Calvert and Andy Helgesen, dated October 23, 2017 Email submitted by Jennifer Pfaff, dated October 25, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Materials Board Klaus SingleVario 2061 Specifications Downtown Specific Plan Applicable Design Guidelines Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 18, 2018 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 23, 2017 c.21 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review and Condominium Permit for a new 3-story, 7-unit residential condominium building (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke to a tenant who lives in the rear building. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Asked for staff to come up with a review system to be used when considering approval of parking lifts. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Toby Levy represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Asked how pedestrians would enter the property from Park Road? Will there be a gate on the driveway? (Levy: pedestrians will enter through an area flanked by comlumns. There will be no gate on the driveway.) >Is the area near the gas meters just a utility space? (Levy: yes.) >With respect to the common open space along El Camino Real; is there anything other than landscaping within this area? (Levy: is a contribution to the character of El Camino Real, but is not an area that would be attractive to residents. This is why private open space areas have been provided .) Would like to see something in the area that would encourage residents to use the area. (Levy: have considered options, including a wall along El Camino Real; can enclose it if the Commission wishes this to be done.) >Feels that the left side of the building could use some softening; was foliage considered in this area? (Levy: can considering installing vine pockets; need to maintain clearance for PG&E.) >There are a lot of very hard materials being used in the exterior finishing; was any thought given to including some softer materials? (Levy: some of the decks have wood used on the railings to soften the appearance; the renderings are not showing this correctly.) >Has there been any engagement with the homeowners to the right of the project site. (Levy: haven't approached the neighbors, but considered staff's comments from prior iterations. Meeker: noted that the residents that were previously concerned have viewed the plans at the counter and appear satisfied.) >Where is the delivery truck location? (Levy: showed the location.) Public Comments: Ilia Lubavich, 33 Park Road: fairly happy with the current design. Noted the presence of trees adjacent to the property at 33 Park that help with respect to privacy. What is the exact plan for landscaping in this area; is there a way to keep the trees? Looks like they will be removed. Potentially have an arborist visit Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 5/22/2018 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 33 Park to see what could be done to maintain privacy. Concerned that the Cobblestone -type driveway will generate more noise than regular driveway materials. Not sure how loud the vehicle stackers will be; wants more information on how this may affect the neighbors. Steve Kraus: this design is a huge improvement. Don't have many objections. Want the privacy concerns to be addressed. Have an arborist look at the situation to see what can be done to protect privacy. Questions of Applicant: >Doesn't notice many existing trees shown on the plans that are to be removed. (Levy: does appear that the trees referenced will be removed, but can look at this area to see what can be done to accommodate retention of the trees. May look at relocating the trash area so that the delivery area can be pulled back to preserve some of the trees. Keylon: noted that the 20-foot backup space for the driveways must be maintained; perhaps landscaping could be added on the adjacent property.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Huge improvement over prior iteration of the project. >The Hardie siding works in this instance since maintenance will be handled by the homeowners' association and is more appropriate for a multi-family building. >Likes the open space area along El Camino Real; ensure that the gardener for the project maintains this area. >Noted that the delivery services will more likely double park on Park Road for deliveries. >Understands the concern about the removal of the trees; encouraged the neighbors to look at screening options on their property. >Noted the six-foot tall metal mesh fence on the plans, clarified that it wil be a green screen. >Would like the design softened a bit more on the front, in particular, perhaps add more wood. >Likes the window design. >Reach out the neighbors to see if there is something to address their concerns about the trees. >This design is a vast improvement over the prior design; reduced in scale and size. Revisit the privacy concerns of the neighbors. Should move forward to action. >Likes the project. Should not enclose the green space on the El Camino Real side. >Phenominal change to the design. >Look at additional screening on the neighbors' side either on-site or on their property. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gum, Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto8 - Absent:Loftis1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 5/22/2018 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.3 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS Residential buildings in Downtown Burlingame offer higher density development than elsewhere in the City, providing a lifestyle for those who want to live within walking distance of the Downtown commercial areas and transit opportunities. New buildings will mediate this density with thoughtful design and details that create attractive, livable residential environments. Buildings should contribute to an appealing neighborhood character and should employ recognizable residential design details such as visible residential entries, porches, bay windows and roof overhangs, and balconies and small outdoor areas. Below are recommendations for the architectural treatment and organization of buildings and open space, and the suggested criteria for reviewing projects during the design review process. 5.3.1 ARCHITECTURAl DIVERSITy Residential projects should respect the diversity of building types and styles in the residential areas Downtown and seek to support it by applying the following principles: • Design buildings to maintain general compatibility with the neighborhood. • Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles. • Maintains the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used. • Create buildings with quality materials and thoughtful design to last into the future. 5.3.2 PEDESTRIAN USE AND CHARACTER 5.3.2.1 Entrances Primary pedestrian access to all ground-level uses should be from the sidewalk along the public street. Entries should be clearly defined features of front façades. Common entrances for multiple units are FIGURE 5-27: Buildings should contribute to an appealing neighborhood character and should employ recognizable residential design details such as visible residential entries, porches, bay windows and roof overhangs, and balconies and small outdoor areas. 35MAYFIELD PRECISE PLAN 4USFFU&MFWBUJPOB 'BDBEFTTIPVMEJODMVEFQPSDIFT QSPKFDUJOHFBWFTBOEPWFSIBOHT BOEPUIFSUSBEJUJPOBMBSDIJUFDUVSBMFMFNFOUTUIBUQSPWJEFSFTJEFOUJBMTDBMFBOEIFMQCSFBLVQCVJMEJOHNBTT#VJMEJOH&OUSBODFTTIPVMECFFBTZUPJEFOUJGZBOEEJTUJOHVJTIFEGSPNUIFSFTUPGUIFCVJMEJOHɨFZTIPVMECFQBSUPGBDMFBSFOUSZTFRVFODF FYUFOEJOHGSPNUIFQVCMJDTJEFXBMLUPUIFQSJWBUFGSPOUEPPS&OUSBODFTGSPNQBTFPTNBZCFBMMPXFEPOBMJNJUFECBTJTɨFGPMMPXJOHFOUSBODFFMFNFOUTBSFSFDPNNFOEFEB 4UPPQTBOEPS0QFO1PSDIFTTIPVME GBDFUIFTUSFFUBUSFHVMBSJOUFSWBMT XIJDIDPSSFTQPOEUPUIFWFSUJDBM NPEVMFTPGCVJMEJOHVOJUTɨFTUPPQT TIPVMECFXJEFFOPVHIGPSQFPQMFUP TJUPOBOEUPNBLFFOUSJFTJOWJUJOH 0QFOQPSDIFTTIPVMEIBWFBUUSBDUJWF CBMVTUSBEFSBJMJOHTBOEBSPPGUIBU DPNQMFNFOUTUIFQJUDIBOENBUFSJBMPG UIFNBJOSPPG C 4UBJSTTIPVMECFCPYFEBOEGSBNFE CZBUUSBDUJWFTUFQQFECVMLIFBET XBMMT  PSCBMVTUSBEFSBJMJOHT#VMMOPTFUSFBET BSFSFDPNNFOEFE0QFOPSinPBUJOHw FYUFSJPSTUBJSTTIPVMEOPUCFVTFE D -PX)FEHFT 'FODFTBOEPS&OUSZ (BUFTTIPVMECFVTFEUPEFmOFUIF FEHFCFUXFFOUIFQVCMJDTUSFFUBOE QSJWBUFQSPQFSUZ E 0SOBNFOUBM-JHIUJOHPGQPSDIFTBOE XBMLTUPIJHIMJHIUFOUSBODFTBOEBEE TFDVSJUZ F -BOETDBQF&MFNFOUTTVDIBTUSFMMJTFT  BSCPST BOETQFDJBMMBOETDBQFNBUFSJBMT Low Hedges, Fences and/or entr gates should be used to define the edge between public and private property. Facades should include prches, projecting eaves and overhangs, and other traditional architectural elements to provide a residential scale. FIGURE 5-28: Entries should be clearly defined features of front façades, and are encouraged to have appropriately-scaled, usable gathering spaces that invite informal social interaction with neighbors. 5.0 Design & Character 5- encouraged to have appropriately-scaled, usable gathering spaces at or adjacent to entrances that invite informal social interaction with neighbors. 5.3.2.2 Ground Level Treatment Residential development may have a finished floor elevation up to 5 feet above sidewalk level to provide more interior privacy for residents. Entry porches or stoops along the street are encouraged to bridge this change in elevation and connect these units to the sidewalk to minimize any physical separation from the street level. The street-level frontage should be visually interesting with frequent unit entrances and clear orientation to the street. 5.3.2.3 Site Access Curb cuts should be minimized to promote traffic and pedestrian safety and create cohesive landscaping and building façades. A maximum of two curb cuts should be provided for projects requiring 30 parking spaces or more; for projects with less than 30 spaces, only one curb cut should be provided. One-way driveways should have curb cuts with a fully depressed width no greater than 12 feet; two-way curb cuts should be no greater than 22 feet. On-site bicycle parking for residents is encouraged. 5.3.3 ARCHITECTURAl ComPATIBIlITy 5.3.3.1 Development Massing The residential areas within Downtown Burlingame have a range of building heights, and so particular attention must be paid to the massing of new buildings to ensure an appropriate transition with surrounding development. Massing and street façades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Burlingame neighborhoods. FIGURE 5-29: The street-level frontage should be visually interesting with frequent unit entrances and strong orientation to the street. FIGURE 5-30: Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest. Orient doorways and windows to create a strong relationship with the street. Clearly defined entries that are proportional to size of building and use. Stoops provide transition to street, gathering place, define private space. 5.0 Design & Character 5- Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest. 5.3.3.2 on-Site Structured Parking Given the density and premium land values Downtown, new projects will likely provide on-site parking in enclosed garage structures, underground, or in “semi-depressed” garages that are partially underground and partially above ground. Parking should not be allowed to dominate the character of the project. Where enclosed parking is at ground level, it should be fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible. If it is not possible to fully wrap the parking, it should be incorporated into the design of the facade. Semi-depressed parking (partly below ground and partly exposed above ground) should be screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, porches, or balcony overhangs. 5.3.3.3 Roof Treatment Interesting and varied roof forms are encouraged. Rooflines should emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies. Rooftop equipment shall be concealed from view and/or integrated within the architecture of the building. 5.3.4 ARCHITECTURAl DESIGN CoNSISTENCy 5.3.4.1 Facade Design Facades should include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass. All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. Facades should have a variation of both positive space (massing) and negative space (plazas, inset doorways and windows). FIGURE 5-31: Where enclosed parking is at ground level, it should be fronted or wrapped with uses that can be occupied such as lobbies and living space when possible. Palo Alto:PTOD Overlay Zone -California Avenue Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design d.L andscaping such as trees,shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorpo- rated into surface parking lots; e.Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance tra c calm- ing on the street . a.Parking is located behind buildings,below grade or,where those options are not feasible,screened by landscaping,low walls,etc.; b.Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible; c.Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops,balcony overhangs,and /or ar t ; 6. Parking DesignParkingneedsshall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to over whelm the character of theprojectordetractfromthepedestrianenvironment,such that : Landscaping should be incorporated into any surface parking lots. Parking should be wrapped by habitable uses when possible. Semi-depressed parking can be used to raise residential uses to provide privacy and op- por tunities for stoops and porches. Occupied space such as a lobby screens parking from sidewalk. Occupied space screens parking from sidewalk. FIGURE 5-32: Semi-depressed parking should be screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, porches, or balcony overhangs. Stoop Ventilation with decorative grillwork 5.0 Design & Character 5-0 Elements such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies should be visible to people on the street. Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate features such as corner entrances, bay windows, and corner roof features, but should avoid monumentally-scaled elements such as towers. 5.3.4.2 Windows Building walls should be accented by well-proportioned openings that provide relief, detail and variation on the façade. Windows should be inset generously from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. The use of high-quality window products that contribute to the richness, detail, and depth of the façade is encouraged. Windows with mullions should have individual window lights, rather than applied "snap-in" mullions that lack depth and are not integral to the window structure. Reflective glass is undesirable because of its tendency to create uncomfortable glare conditions and a visual barrier. Where residential uses are adjacent to each other, windows should be placed with regard to any open spaces or windows on neighboring buildings so as to protect the privacy of residents. 5.3.4.3 Materials Building materials should be richly detailed to provide visual interest. The use of materials that are reflected in the historic architecture present in the neighborhood is encouraged. Metal siding and large expanses of stucco or wood siding are also to be avoided. Roofing materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, tile accents, etc. should also offer color variation. Residential building materials should include quality details such as wrought iron, wood-framed windows, wood brackets and tile roofs. 5.3.5 SITE AMENITIES 5.3.5.1 Setbacks Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 specifies basic building standards such as setbacks and height. Building setbacks are intended to create FIGURE 5-34: Windows should be inset generously from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. FIGURE 5-33: Residential facades should include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass. 5.0 Design & Character 5- a transition between the hardscape, urban environment of the commercial areas and the suburban setting in the surrounding neighborhoods. Setbacks have multiple purposes, including providing sunlight, places for landscaping, and areas for activity and recreation. Building setbacks should be appropriately landscaped to provide screening and introduce trees and plantings in this area. Landscaped setback areas should be integrated with buildings by providing openings in the building walls that connect the perimeter landscaping with interior courtyards and landscape pathways. Landscaping should be planned in relation to surrounding vegetative types with special consideration being given to native species where possible. Pathways and courtyards should be made of pervious materials to allow groundwater absorption. 5.3.5.2 Open Space Private on-site open space within the Downtown area is not intended to provide recreational space or large landscaped areas, since this is a more urban environment. However, open space is an important element for residential buildings and should be used to effectively articulate building forms, promote access to light and fresh air, and maintain privacy for Downtown residents. In residential development, most open space should be used to provide attractive amenities for residents, including interior courtyards, outdoor seating options and perimeter landscaping. Balconies and rooftop terraces are encouraged. Where open space is situated over a structural slab, podium or rooftop it should have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters, medium-sized trees, and use of textured and/or colored paved surfaces. Planters may be designed to not only accommodate colorful ornamental landscaping, but could also accommodate garden plots for "urban agriculture." Trees should be selected from the City's tree list. FIGURE 5-35: Where open space is situated over a structural slab, podium or rooftop it should have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters, mature trees, and urban agriculture. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.4 ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL AREAS OF DOWNTOWN 5.4.1 LAND USE TRANSITIONS Where appropriate, when new projects are built adjacent to existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties. 5.4.1.1 Massing and Scale Transitions Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to lower can be done through different building sizes or massing treatments that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses. Massing and orientation of new buildings should respect the massing of neighboring structures by varying the massing within a project, stepping back upper stories, reducing mass by composition of solids and voids, and varying sizes of elements to transition to smaller scale buildings. 5.4.1.2 Privacy Privacy of neighboring structures should be maintained with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties, minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties, and limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting properties. 5.4.1.3 Boundaries Where appropriate, when different land uses or building scales are adjacent, boundaries should be established by providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation, rather than walls or fences. FIGURE 5-36: Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to lower can be done though building types or treatments that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses. Boundaries can be established by providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation, rather than walls or fences. Transition Area Medium Density Low Density High Density buffer / paseobuffer / mewsTransition Elements 2-Story 3-Story Low Density 1-2 Story street / mews4-Story FIGURE 5-37: Transitions can also be made by stepping massing down within a project, with lower building elements providing a buffer between taller elements and adjacent lower-density development. 5.0 Design & Character 5- FIGURE 5-39: Example of two different land use intensities joined with a common paseo pathway. FIGURE 5-38: Following a cooperative, rather than defensive design approach for the spaces between buildings results in a more coherent downtown feel, as opposed to a collection of unrelated projects. PL PL DEFENSIVE Fence separates projects COOPERATIVE Plaza/pathway visually unites buildings 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.4.2 SHADoW ImPACTS Every building invariably casts some shadows on adjoining parcels, public streets, and/or open spaces. However, as the design of a project is developed, consideration should be given to the potential shading impacts on surroundings. Site plans, massing, and building design should respond to potential shading issues, minimizing shading impacts where they would be undesirable, or conversely maximizing shading where it is desired. As part of the design review process, development in the Specific Plan Area that is proposed to be taller than existing surrounding structures should be evaluated for potential to create new shadows/ shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. At a minimum, shadow diagrams should be prepared for 9 AM, 12 noon, and 3 PM on March 21st, June 21st, September 21st, and December 21st (approximately corresponding to the solstices and equinoxes) to identify extreme conditions and trends. If warranted, diagrams could also be prepared for key dates or times of day — for example, whether a sidewalk or public space would be shaded at lunchtime during warmer months. FIGURE 5-40: Sample shadow analysis shows the range of shading conditions through the year. Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project 9 am 12 noon 3 pm March 21st March 21st March 21st Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project June 21st June 21st June 21st Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project September 21st September 21st September 21st Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project December 21st December 21st December 21st 5.0 Design & Character 5-5 5.4.3 SUSTAINABIlITy AND GREEN BUIlDING DESIGN Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into projects. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction and aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: • Resilient, durable, sustainable materials and finishes. • Flexibility over time, to allow for re-use and adaptation. • Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation. • Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects. • Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, and provide on-site bicycle parking. • Maximize on-site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement. • On flat roofs, utilize cool/white roofs to minimize heat gain. • Design lighting, plumbing, and equipment for efficient energy use. • Create healthy indoor environments. • Pursue adaptive re-use of an existing building or portion of a building as an alternative to demolition and rebuilding. • Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants as part of project open space, or providing garden plots to residents for urban agriculture. To reduce carbon footprint, new projects are encouraged to follow the standards and guidelines of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and pursue LEED certification if appropriate. FIGURE 5-41: Use of shading devices to control solar loads in summer and gain passive heat in winter. FIGURE 5-42: Minimize stormwater runoff to impermeable areas with landscaping, green roofs, and rain gardens when possible. Winter Sun Summer Sun South facing windows with shading devices to control overheating in Summer Direct sunlight through south facing windows would improve passive heating in Winter 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.4.4 lANDSCAPE TREES The City of Burlingame has a long history of proactive tree planting and proper tree care. From the late 1800’s when trees were planted along El Camino Real and Easton Drive to the current day, Burlingame has enjoyed the many benefits trees provide to an urban area. Burlingame's longtime commitment to trees is evidenced by recogni- tion as a "Tree City USA" for 30 consecutive years. This is the longest streak in the County, 5th longest in the State and one of the longest in the Country for receiving this award. In Downtown Burlingame, trees include street trees lining sidewalks and roadways (typically within the public right-of-way), as well as trees on private property in settings such as landscaped setback areas, court- yards, and roof gardens. Chapter 4: Streetscapes & Open Space) provides guidance for street trees within the public right-of-way. Landscape trees on private prop- erty have equal importance as part of the "urban forest," in contrib- uting environmental and aesthetic benefits to downtown. Trees are important for their beauty, shade and coolness, economic benefits, and role in reducing energy use, pollution, and noise. The City of Burlingame has an Urban Forest Management Plan that includes policies and management practices for both city and private trees. Maintaining existing trees is a priority, and large trees on private property are protected by City Ordinance. Any tree with a circumfer- ence of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above the ground is a "Protected Tree." A permit is required to remove or heavily prune a protected tree. Consistent with Burlingame's status as "Tree City USA," new projects are required to incorporate trees into landscape and private open space plans. Property owners should consult the Burlingame Urban Forest Management Plan for design considerations, planting techniques, and maintenance guidance. FIGURE 5-43: Consistent with Burlingame's status as "Tree City USA," new projects are required to incorporate trees into landscape and private open space plans. 5.0 Design & Character 5- FIGURE 5-44: Downtown’s late 19th and early 20th Century buildings contribute historic character and distinctiveness to this desirable pattern and mix of buildings. 5.4.5 PRESERVATIoN oF HISToRIC BUIlDINGS Downtown Burlingame is the symbolic and historic center of the City. The vision for Downtown is to preserve the mix of buildings, the pedestrian-scaled environment and the carefully designed public spaces that contribute to its special community character. Downtown’s flex- ible and timeless late 19th and early 20th Century buildings contribute historic character and distinctiveness to this desirable pattern and mix of buildings. New buildings should be sensitive to the historic scale and architecture of Downtown. Historic preservation and adaptive re-use is encouraged both to main- tain the unique ambience of Downtown Burlingame but also for eco- logical benefits. Preservation maximizes the use of existing materials and infrastructure, reduces waste, and preserves historic character. Historic buildings were often traditionally designed with many sustain- able features that responded to climate and site, and when effectively restored and reused, these features can bring about substantial energy savings. The guidelines in this chapter, together with the Commercial Design Guidebook for commercial and mixed use developments and the Inventory of Historic Resources are intended to ensure that both new development and improvements to existing properties are compatible with the historical character of Downtown and will be the basis of design review. Where a building is described in the Inventory of Historic Resources, the inventory should be consulted as part of the design review. Building characteristics described in the inventory should be a consideration in project design and review, together with other design considerations described in this chapter and in the Commercial Design Guidebook. 1 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW SEVEN-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 21 PARK ROAD (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 029-233-130) WHEREAS, on September 30, 2016 Levy Design Partners, on behalf of GGH Investment LLC filed an application with the City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning Division requesting approval of the following requests:  Design Review for construction of a new three-story, seven-unit condominium building (C.S. 25.35.045 and 25.57.010); and  Condominium Permit for construction of new seven-unit condominium building (C.S. 26.30.020). WHEREAS, on October 23, 2017 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing (design review study) to review a seven-unit residential condominium project. At that time direction was provided to the applicant for minor revisions to the project design and to consider adding vegetative screening along the north property line; and Following consideration of all information contained in the May 29, 2018 staff report to the Planning Commission regarding the project, all written correspondence, and all public comments received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission grants approval of the seven-unit multi-family residential condominium development based on the following findings regarding the project entitlements: Design Review Findings:  That the proposed condominium building will be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood with the use of a variety of quality materials including cement plaster, lap siding, fiber cement panels, metal panel awnings, wood guardrails at the balconies, composite wood windows, painted wood entry doors, and metal sectional garage doors. The new three-story building respects the mass and scale of this portion of Park Road and El Camino Real which has a mix of three-story multifamily residential buildings and one and two-story office and commercial buildings with a variety of architectural styles. The building includes an articulated front façade that provides visual interest. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s six design review criteria. Condominium Permit Findings:  Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare in that the seven-unit residential condominium project is scaled to be compatible with existing multifamily buildings along Park Road and El Camino Real and features ample landscaping with usable common open space;  The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources in that the project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by commercial and residential development which is served by utility and public 2 services; that the existing one-story building containing a single family residence will be replaced with a three-story building containing seven residential units on the same lot and therefore can be adequately served by required utility and public services since the proposed project is only contributing six net new units on the site; and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan, which analyzed potential impacts of new infill development and included standard conditions of approval to mitigate potential environmental impacts from projects, and with incorporation of these standard conditions of approval, the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and  Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations, in that the project provides six additional residential units (7 total) consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations. WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 29, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THIS PLANNING COMMISSION THAT: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study 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 project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects, is hereby approved. Section 1. Said Design Review and Condominium Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Condominium Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 29th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 21 Park Road Effective June 8, 2018 Page 1 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 30, 2018, sheets A0.0 through A5.2, L1.1, and Topographic and Boundary Survey; 2. that prior to the final inspection, the project sponsor shall provide and install evergreen hedges on the 33 Park Road property along the north property line between 21 and 33 Park Road; the final layout and plant locations shall be determined at time of construction and after consulting with each of the 33 Park Road residents that have balconies and/or patios adjacent to the north property line; the project sponsor shall provide to the Planning Division a revised Site Plan and Landscape Plan once the final planting locations have been determined; 3. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $14,798.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 4. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $14,798.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 5. that Klaus SingleVario 2061 parking lifts, or equivalent parking lifts, shall be installed in the garage of each residential unit, with the following conditions: a. the parking lifts shall be properly illuminated to provide safety for easy loading and unloading, while not causing excessive glare. b. signage shall be installed in each garage explaining the proper use of the lifts and emergency contact information for lift maintenance or problems. c. the final design of the parking lifts shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 6. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 7. that the applicant shall apply for a tentative and final condominium map with the Public Works, Engineering Division for processing in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act; 8. that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation for any work proposed in the state right-of-way; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 21 Park Road Effective June 8, 2018 Page 2 2 9. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 73.25' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Park Road (38.25') for a maximum height of 35’-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage/first floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 40.25'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 52.50’; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 62.75’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 10. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 11. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of- way shall be prohibited; 12. that the service/delivery vehicle area, located adjacent to the trash enclosure area, shall be identified on the site and designated on the final map and plans, the service/delivery vehicle area shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service/delivery vehicle area shall always be accessible for parking and not be used for resident storage; 13. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service/delivery vehicle area shall be reserved for service/delivery vehicles only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 14. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 15. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 16. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 17. that any security gate system across the driveway shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 21 Park Road Effective June 8, 2018 Page 3 3 18. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 19. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 20. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 21. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 22. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of- way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 23. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 24. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 25. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 26. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 21 Park Road Effective June 8, 2018 Page 4 4 27. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 28. that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 29. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 30. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 31. that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to the street as determined by the Public Works Department; 32. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 33. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 34. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 35. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 36. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 37. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 38. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 21 Park Road Effective June 8, 2018 Page 5 5 39. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 40. 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; 41. 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; The following conditions of approval are from Downtown Specific Plan: 42. the project sponsor shall implement all appropriate control measures from the most currently adopted air quality plan at the time of project construction; 43. the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day or as necessary. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered or otherwise loaded consistent with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 21 Park Road Effective June 8, 2018 Page 6 6 h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 44. the project sponsor shall implement the following Greenhouse Gas reduction measures during construction activities: a. Alternative-Fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment shall make up at least 15 percent of the fleet. b. Use at least 10 percent local building materials. c. Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. 45. the project sponsor shall provide adequate secure bicycle parking in the plan area at a minimum ratio of 1 bicycle spot for every 20 vehicle spots; 46. the project sponsor shall incorporate residential energy efficiency measures such that energy efficiency is increased to 15% beyond 2008 title 24 standards for electricity and natural gas; 47. the project sponsor shall incorporate recycling measures and incentives such that a solid waste diversion rate of 75% is achieved upon occupation of each phase of plan development; 48. the project sponsor shall incorporate residential and commercial water efficiency measures such that water consumption is decreased by a minimum of 10 percent over current standard water demand factors; 49. that construction shall avoid the March 15 through August 31 avian nesting period to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 250 ft. of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 250 ft. of the nest, until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; 50. that for projects within the Plan Area that require excavation, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (and Phase II sampling, where appropriate) would be required. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determines that remediation is required, the project sponsor would be required to implement all remediation and abatement work in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or other jurisdictional agency; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 21 Park Road Effective June 8, 2018 Page 7 7 51. that the following practices shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: - Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; - Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and - Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. 52. the project sponsor shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to be implemented by construction contractors: The project sponsor shall require that loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; 53. that if the project increases sewer flows to the sanitary sewer system, the project sponsor shall coordinate with the City Engineer to determine if improvements to public sanitary sewer infrastructure are needed. If improvements are needed, the following shall apply:  that prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall develop a plan to facilitate sanitary sewer improvements. The plan shall include a schedule for implementing sanitary sewer upgrades that would occur within the development site and/or contribution of a fair share fee toward those improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The plan shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. 54. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the development plans shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal to determine if fire flow requirements would be met given the requirements of the proposed project, and the size of the existing water main(s). If the Fire Marshal determines improvements are needed for fire protection services, then the following shall apply:  that prior to issuance of a building permit the project sponsor shall be required to provide a plan to supply adequate water supply for fire suppression to the project site, consistent with the Fire Marshal’s requirements. The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementation of the plan EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 21 Park Road Effective June 8, 2018 Page 8 8 including installation of new water mains, and/or incorporation of fire water storage tanks and booster pumps into the building design, or other measures as determined by the Fire Marshal. 55. that if evidence of an archeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame shall be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The City of Burlingame shall consult with the archeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archeological Documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC; 56. that should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project construction site during any phase of construction, the project manager shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of Burlingame. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City; and 57. that if human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 FDATESET ISSUENOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design Partners21 PARK ROADAPN: 029-223-130BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2016-03PLANNING SUBMISSION09-29-2016PLANNING RESPONSE02-10-2016PLANNING RESPONSE07-07-201704-30-2018TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDEXTERIORRENDERINGS CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 FDATE SET ISSUENOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design Partners21 PARK ROADAPN: 029-223-130BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2016-03PLANNING SUBMISSION09-29-2016PLANNING RESPONSE02-10-2016PLANNING RESPONSE07-07-201704-30-2018TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDEXTERIORELEVATIONS CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 FDATESET ISSUENOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design Partners21 PARK ROADAPN: 029-223-130BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2016-03PLANNING SUBMISSION09-29-2016PLANNING RESPONSE02-10-2016PLANNING RESPONSE07-07-201704-30-2018TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDBUILDINGSECTIONS CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 FDATE SET ISSUENOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design Partners21 PARK ROADAPN: 029-223-130BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2016-03PLANNING SUBMISSION09-29-2016PLANNING RESPONSE02-10-2016PLANNING RESPONSE07-07-201704-30-2018PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHTOBY LEVYAS NOTEDSITE PLAN:NEW VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALESITEZ:\_Projects\410_\290 - 21 Park Road\Dwg\410_290 CDS.dwg, C1-TOPO, 1/24/2014 3:23:37 PM CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 FDATESET ISSUENOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design Partners21 PARK ROADAPN: 029-223-130BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2016-03PLANNING SUBMISSION09-29-2016PLANNING RESPONSE02-10-2016PLANNING RESPONSE07-07-201704-30-2018PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHTOBY LEVYAS NOTEDSITE PLAN:EXISTING &DEMOLITION City of Burlingame Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Condominium Map for a Proposed Residential Condominium Address: 556 El Camino Real Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Request: Application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Tentative Condominium Map for a new five-story, 21-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking. Applicant: Roman Knop APN: 029-111-260 Property Owner: Roman Knop Lot Area: 15,107 SF Designer: Vadim Melik-Karamov General Plan: High Density Residential Zoning: R-3 Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (R-3 Base District) Adjacent Development: Multi-family and single-family dwellings Current Use: 14-unit residential apartment building Proposed Use: 21-unit residential condominium building. Allowable Use: Multiple-family, duplex, and single-family dwellings Project Summary: The applicant is proposing a new, five-story, 21-unit residential condominium building with below-grade parking at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3. The project site currently contains a 14-unit apartment building, which would be demolished to build the proposed 21-unit residential condominium building. The existing buildings were not identified on the Draft Inventory of Historic Resources of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The site is bordered by a three-story, 38-unit multifamily building to the north at 1545 Floribunda Avenue, three-story 12-unit and 32-unit multifamily buildings to the south at 550 and 530 El Camino Real, and a three-story 28-unit multifamily building to the to the rear at 1515 Floribunda Avenue. Across El Camino Real are single family homes within the Town of Hillsborough. The proposed building would contain 21 residential units in five floors and a below-grade parking garage. The garage would utilize an automated mechanical parking system. Units would range from 1 to 3 bedrooms, and from 630 to 1,955 square feet in size. The average unit size proposed is 1,244 SF (1,250 SF average maximum unit size permitted). Planning staff identified that the following applications will be required for this project:  Design Review for construction of a new five-story, 21-unit condominium building with below-grade parking (C.S. 25.28.045 and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan);  Conditional Use Permit for building height (55’-0” and five stories proposed where a Conditional Use Permit is required if the building exceeds 35’-0” in height and four stories; 55’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.28.060); and  Condominium Permit (Tentative Condominium Map) required for construction of new condominium building (C.S. 26.30.020). Project History: An application for a new 22-unit condominium at 556 El Camino Real was first submitted in 2012, and a substantially redesigned application with 25 units was submitted in 2013. On February 24, 2014 the Planning Commission held an environmental scoping meeting and design review study meeting and referred the application to a design review consultant (February 24, 2014 meeting minutes attached). Subsequent to the February 24, 2014 meeting the applicant retained a new designer to revise the project design. Jerry Winges was selected as the design review consultant, and met together with the applicant, designer and staff on several occasions to refine the project design. Item No. 8c Regular Action Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 2 Changes to the design from the previous submittal include:  Revised architectural treatment with a contemporary design approach  Reduction of units from 25 units to 21 units  Top-floor setbacks on all sides of the building  Circular front entry drive On January 25, 2016 the Planning Commission held an environmental scoping meeting and design review study meeting to review the revised plans. On March 11, 2016 revised plans were submitted with a redesigned garage layout to allow additional queuing space for vehicles entering the parking garage. These plans served as the basis for the subsequent environmental review. On July 24, 2017 the application and environmental review was reviewed by the Planning Commission as an Action Item (July 24, 2017 meeting minutes attached). The Planning Commission continued the item to allow modifications and further analysis of the underground garage, traffic circulation and queuing, and geotechnical matters. On January 19, 2018 revised plans were submitted with a redesigned garage layout that increases the distance of the underground garage from neighboring properties. A revised traffic queuing analysis and revised geotechnical report have been submitted reflecting the modified garage layout. The environmental review documents were subsequently updated to reflect the revisions, including the updated queuing analysis and geotechnical report. 556 El Camino Real Lot Area: 15,107 SF Plans date stamped: January 19, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (Basement): (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): (5th flr): 20'-0" 22'-0" (edge of trash lift) 23'-2" 23'-2" 23’-2” 33’-4” 20'-0" 21'-0" (block average) 21'-0" (block average) 21'-0" (block average) 21’-0” (block average) 21’-0” (block average) Right Side (Basement): (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): (5th flr): 11'-1" 11’-1” 10'-8" 10'-8" 10'-8" 16'-2" 0'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 10’-0” 11’-0” Left Side (Basement) (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): 11'-2" 11'-2" 10'-2" 10’-2" 10'-2" 0'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 10’-0” Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 3 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED (5th flr): 16'-0" 11’-0” Rear (Basement): (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): (5th flr): 15’-0" 18’-0” (corner of stair tower) 18’-0” (corner of stair tower) 18’-0” (corner of stair tower) 18’-0” (corner of stair tower) 18’-0” (corner of stair tower) 1 0’-0” 15'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 7030 SF 47% 7553.5 SF 50% Building Height: 55’-0” to highest point 2 35’-0” 55'-0" (with a CUP) Off-Street Parking: 35 spaces for residents provided with automated mechanical parking system 2 surface spaces for service vehicles and/or guests 35 total spaces 95% covered 4 1-BR x 1 = 4 spaces 7 2-BR units x 1.5 = 11 spaces 10 3-BR units x 2 = 20 spaces 1 service vehicle space required No guest parking required 36 total spaces 80% must be covered Front Setback Landscaping: 50% (1180 SF) 50% (1165.5 SF) Private Open Space: 75 SF – 843 SF/unit 75 SF per unit Common Open Space: SF Landscaped: 3068 SF 2001 SF (80% of required) 2500 SF 1250 SF (50% of required) ¹ Stair tower required to be adjusted on 5th Floor to meet rear setback requirements, subject to Alternate Means of Protection application to the Fire Division. 2 Conditional Use Permit requested for building height exceeding 35’-0” and four stories (55’-0” proposed where 35’-0” is the maximum allowed in the R-3 Zoning District). Revisions to the Proposed Project: The Planning Commission reviewed the application as an Action Item on July 24, 2017. Eleven members of the public commented on the item (meeting minutes attached). The commission continued the item to allow further analysis of technical matters. Following is a summary of commission direction for follow-up, and responses in the revised submittal: Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 4 1. More information from Caltrans to determine if the driveway and drainage can be allowed. Caltrans provided a comment letter on March 9, 2017 (attached). The letter did not address the driveway configuration, but requested analysis to address the potential left-turn conflicts from southbound El Camino Real traffic into the project and recommend mitigation where appropriate. An updated queuing analysis was subsequently conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, which determined that the project is expected to generate six inbound trips during the PM peak hour (from either northbound or southbound El Camino Real), with four of the trips being during the “peak 15-minute period” within the PM peak hour. The revised Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would not result in traffic hazards on El Camino Real, based on the findings of the queuing analysis. The March 9, 2017 Caltrans letter notes that an Encroachment Permit must be issued by Caltrans for any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the State right-of-way. Caltrans will not accept or review an application for an Encroachment Permit until the environmental document has been adopted by the municipality. 2. Assurance from the geotechnical engineer that the report is current and reflects the most recent modifications to the design. The geotechnical report has been revised to reflect the most recent modifications to the proposed project. The revised geotechnical report, dated April 7, 2018, is included as Revised Appendix D to the Initial Study. 3. Further consideration of the traffic flow, including ingress and egress from El Camino Real. An updated queuing analysis of the most recent revisions to the project was conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, dated February 13, 2018. The analysis is included as Revised Appendix E to the Initial Study. As stated above, the revised Initial Study, based on the queuing analysis, concluded that the proposed project would not result in traffic hazards on El Camino Real. The queuing analysis included additional recommendations. The following have been incorporated into the suggested Conditions of Approval: (a) The site driveway should include signage and/or striping to instruct inbound vehicles where to wait so as not to block vehicles exiting the transfer compartment. (b) Clear signage should be provided at the top of the ramp advising of the parking system’s vehicle size limits and whether visitors are permitted to park in the parking system. (c) The automated parking entrance should include some means to communicate with drivers the expected wait time and any malfunction of the parking system. Residents should be notified that parking and/or stopping is not permitted on El Camino Real. 4. Assurance that the basement wall will be able to be built, particularly whether there will be tie- backs. The project has been revised to increase the distance of the underground garage from adjacent property lines. Per the revised Initial Study, the proposed building would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the revised geotechnical report, which identifies the specific design features related to geologic and seismic conditions. The basement excavation would be shored using soldier piles and horizontal whalers that would be braced by cross lot bracing to avoid the need for tie-backs or underpinning of adjacent structures. Should the proposed project be approved, it would be subject to further review by the City’s structural engineer and by Public Works/Engineering staff during the building permit application process. Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 5 5. Assurance in the drainage of the garage. Section 4.17 of the revised Initial Study evaluates potential drainage impacts of the proposed project, including the underground garage. The conclusion is that given the limited increase in impervious surfaces on the site and use of bioretention areas, the project would not result in drainage impacts. Independent of the project, the Initial Study notes ongoing flooding within the Burlingame/Ralston Creek watershed as a result of undersized drainage facilities. The Initial Study indicates the City has proposed the improvements to remedy these drainage issues, and that the planned improvements have been funded and are currently in the design phase. 6. Solid balconies on the sides of the building. The plans have been revised to include solid balcony panels on the sides of the building. The design would incorporate a solid barrier comprised of obscure glass that would be intended to provide privacy between neighbors, be consistent with the overall building design, and allow daylight into the units. The front and rear of the building would retain the open rail design from the previous submittal. Design Review: The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.3 (pages 5-17 through 5-21) provides design guidelines specifically for residential areas within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-27) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown, including residential areas. Materials proposed for the exterior of the building include stucco, fiber cement lap siding, aluminum and glass railings, and aluminum windows. The overall height of the building is proposed at 51'-0" above average top of curb level to the fifth story roof level and 55’-0” to the top of the elevator tower. 35’-0” is the maximum building height under the base zoning and 55’-0” is the maximum height with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project would require a Conditional Use Permit for building height exceeding 35 feet. Conditional Use Permits are discretionary, subject to Planning Commission review and approval. In ord er to grant a Conditional Use Permit for building height the Planning Commission must make all of the following findings (Code Section 25.52.020): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. (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. Condominium Development Standards: Condominium projects are subject to development standards outlined in Code Section 26.30 Condominium Subdivisions. Compared to apartment multifamily projects, condominiums are subject to: Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 6  Increased side setbacks (5 feet minimum, 7 feet on lots over 61 feet wide, with an increase of 1 additional foot for each additional story);  Area for service vehicles to make deliveries;  Private open space of 75 square feet per unit; and  Common open space of 100 square feet per unit. Off-Street Parking: The code requires 35 parking spaces for the residents of the units (1 space for each 1- bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit, and 2 spaces for each 3-bedroom unit) and an area or space for on-site deliveries, for a total of 36 parking spaces. There is no guest parking required on-site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan. The below-grade garage is specified to include a total of 35 parking spaces, provided by way of an automated mechanical parking system accessed through a garage door on the front of the building. Two additional spaces are provided next to the driveway for deliveries and/or guests. The circular driveway would also provide space for short-term deliveries to pull off El Camino Real. Originally the applicant proposed to use a Parkmatic Multi-Parking system for the automated parking. Since then, the applicant has revised the application to specify a CityLift system. Like the Parkmatic system, the CityLift system has been designed to automatically move the vehicles by lift which then transfers it to a waiting cart on one of the multi- levels. The carts then travel horizontally and place the vehicle in its appropriate slot. It can move more than two vehicles at the same time for maximum efficiency. A technical sheet is attached, and the applicant has provided a link to a website demonstrating how the system operates (http://cityliftparking.com/solutions/tower-parking-lifts). The Municipal Code does not include specifications for automated parking systems, so the City currently does not have a standard mechanism for review and approval. However, as a policy the Downtown Specific Plan encourages “creative approaches” to providing on-site parking including parking lifts. Parking lifts have been approved in two residential projects in Downtown Burlingame (1225 Floribunda Avenue and 1433 Floribunda Avenue), and “puzzle” stackers have been approved in two office buildings (240 Lorton Avenue and 988 Howard Avenue). In March, a fully-mechanized system similar in concept to the proposed project was approved in an office building at 250 California Drive. The underground garage would extend approximately 30 feet below grade. The applicant has submitted an updated geotechnical investigation to identify general site characteristics. A condition of approval would require that final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works prior to receiving a building permit. Common and Private Open Space: There is a total of 3,068 SF (146 SF/unit) of common open space in the rear yard area proposed for the condominium project where 2,500 SF (100 SF/unit) is required. Of the required common open space, a minimum of 50% must be in soft landscaping. There is 75 SF to 843 SF in private open space per unit (75 SF/unit is the minimum required) provided in balconies and patios. Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet L-2). The applicant is proposing 50% (1,180 SF) landscaping in the front yard where 50% (1,165.5 SF) is the minimum required. Currently, there are six existing trees on the property ranging from 8- to 10-inches in diameter which would be removed. Additionally, an existing 13-inch diameter tree within the El Camino Real right-of-way is proposed to be removed to accommodate a driveway curb cut. None of the trees proposed meet the definition of a protected-size tree in the Burlingame Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance. Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 7 In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multifamily residential use is required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees for every 2,000 SF of lot coverage. Based on the proposed project (lot coverage 7,030 SF), a total of four landscape trees are required on site. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the on-site reforestation requirements. There will be a total of six new trees on site, including one Crepe-myrtle (Lagerstromia indica), two Forest pansies (Cercis Canadensis), and three Cherry plumbs (Prunus cerasifera). All will be required to be 24-inch box-size or larger. One Eucalyptus tree is proposed to be removed on El Camino Real, within the Caltrans right -of-way. The tree is part of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row, which is a State-owned historical resource listed on the National Register of Historic Places. One new Elm street tree (Ulmus accolade) will be required to be planted on El Camino Real as part of the project, which is in keeping with Caltrans current replacement program for trees along this corridor. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining a permit from Caltrans for removal and replacement of the tree. Inclusionary Zoning: At the time of application the project was subject to Inclusionary Zoning regulations which required that affordable units be included with any residential projects with four or more units. However in January 2015 the Inclusionary Ordinance was replaced with an optional Density Bonus Ordinance (Code Section 25.63). Under the Density Bonus Ordinance a project is not required to provide affordable units unless it is requesting certain development incentives or concessions outlined in the regulations. The proposed project is not requesting development incentives or concessions associated with the Density Bonus Ordinance, therefore is not obligated to provide affordable units. The request for a Conditional Use Permit for building height is a separate request, distinct from the incentives offered provided in the Density Bonus Ordinance. The request for a Conditional Use Permit is a discretionary permit subject to Planning Commission review and approval based on findings in Code Section 25.52.020). Conditional Use Permit Request for Height: The R-3 District regulations state that no building shall exceed a height of four stories or 55-feet. A conditional use permit is required for any building that exceeds thirty-five (35) feet in height or four stories. The proposed height, measured to the top of the parapet, will be 55’-0” (from average top of curb). In order to grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit the following findings must be made by the Planning Commission: (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Public Facilities Impact Fee: The purpose of public facilities impact fee is to provide funding for necessary maintenance and improvements created by development projects. Public facilities impact fees are based on the uses, the number of dwelling units, and the amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of the development project. New development that, through demolition or conversion, will eliminate existing development is entitled to a fee credit offset if the existing development is a lawful use under this title, including a nonconforming use. Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 8 Based on the proposed 21-unit multiple family residential development and providing a credit for the existing 14 units which will be replaced, the required public facilities impact fee for this development project is for a net increase of 7 units in the amount of $38,759 (see table below). One-half of the public facilities impact fees payment ($19,379.50) will be required prior to issuance of a building permit; and the second half of the payment will be required before the final framing inspection. Service Area Proposed Multifamily Project 21 New Units – 14 Existing Units = 7 Net New Units (fee calculated per dwelling unit) General Facilities & Equipment $1636 x 7 = $11,452 Libraries $1415 x 7 = $ 9,905 Police $259 x 7 = $ 1,813 Parks and Recreation $350 x 7 = $ 2,450 Streets and Traffic $1105 x 7 = $ 7,735 Fire $381 x 7 = $ 2,667 Storm Drainage $391 x 7 = $ 2737 Total $38,759 Mitigated Negative Declaration: Since the project includes construction of more than four units (21 units proposed), the project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission held environmental scoping sessions along with a design review study meeting for this project on February 24, 2014 and January 25, 2016. An Initial Study was prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was circulated for public review on February 3, 2017. The 30-day review period ended on March 6, 2017. On March 9, 2017, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) submitted a comment letter specifying additional analysis to be conducted for environmental review with regards to cultural resources. In particular, Caltrans requested that the Initial Study prepared for the environmental review include a discussion of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and which the project site is adjacent, as well as an updated Sacred Lands file search and Native American consultation. The Initial Study revised accordingly, with the revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2017. The Initial Study was revised a second time to reflect the modified garage layout, updated traffic queuing analysis and revised geotechnical report. The revised Initial Study, dated May 2018, is attached to this report. Based on the revised Initial Study, an MND has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission. As presented the MND identified issues that were "less than significant with mitigation incorporated” in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, and noise/vibration. Based upon the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project can be addressed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation (please refer to the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 597-P). The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion, based on the revised Initial Study, facts in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and Planning Commission observation and experience, are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental impact. The mitigation measures in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (see conditions in italics) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is also included as an attachment. Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 9 A summary of the mitigation measures is included in the table below. Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Factor Mitigation Measures Level of Environmental Impact Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ – 1.1: During any construction period which causes ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less than significant level. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ – 2.1: The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average 96 percent reduction in PM2.5 exhaust emissions. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:  All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. The use of equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would meet this requirement. Other measures may be the use of added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the City Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 10 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Factor Mitigation Measures Level of Environmental Impact and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant (<10.0 in one million increased cancer risk). Biology Mitigation Measure BIO – 1.1: In order to protect nesting birds on and adjacent to the project site the following measures will be implemented:  Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be completed prior to tree removal if removal or construction is proposed to commence during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) in order to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before construction begins. During this survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in and within 250 feet of the project boundary.  If an active nest is found in an area that would be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall designate an adequate buffer zone (~250 feet) to be established around the nest, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The buffer would ensure that nests shall not be disturbed until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts.  The applicant shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to the issuance of a grading permit or demolition permit. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Biology Mitigation Measure BIO – 2.1: In order to protect the retained trees on and/or adjacent to the site, the following measures should be implemented:  Tree protection zones shall be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for the protection zones shall be a six-foot tall metal chain link type supported by two-inch metal poles pounded into the ground by no less than two feet. The support poles shall be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. The location for the protection fencing shall be as close to the dripline as possible but still allow room for construction to safely continue. Signs shall be placed on fencing signifying “Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out”. No materials or equipment shall be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the drip line of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, shall be mulched with four to six inches of chipper chips.  Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason shall be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. Trenches shall be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time shall also be covered with layers of burlap or straw wattle and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect exposed roots below.  Normal irrigation shall be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 11 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Factor Mitigation Measures Level of Environmental Impact months. Some irrigation may be required during the winter months depending on the seasonal rainfall. During the summer months the trees on this site shall receive heavy flood type irrigation twice a month. During the fall and winter, once a month should suffice. Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL – 1.1: Unique Paleontological and/or Geologic Features and Reporting. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project site during any phase of construction, all ground disturbing activities within 25 feet shall cease and the Community Development Director notified immediately. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find and prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The identified mitigation measures shall be implemented. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. Upon completion of the paleontological assessment, a report shall be submitted to the City and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL – 1.2: Cultural Sensitivity Training. Prior to any ground- disturbing construction activity on the site, cultural resource sensitivity training for construction personnel on the project shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist. The training shall outline potential indicators of archaeological materials and artifacts to be aware of during grading and excavation activity on the site. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL – 1.3: Undiscovered Archaeological Resources. If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the Community Development Director shall be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The Community Development Director shall consult with the archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeological documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL – 1.4: Human Remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the Community Development Director and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 12 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Factor Mitigation Measures Level of Environmental Impact and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL – 1.5: Report of Archaeological Resources. If archaeological resources are identified, a final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Manager prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources found and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure GEO – 1.1: For development under the Downtown Specific Plan, projects with subgrade structures require that the project sponsor prepare a Geotechnical Study identifying the depth to the seasonal high water table at the project site. No permanent groundwater dewatering would be allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Instead, all residential uses must be elevated to above the seasonal high water table and all areas for non-residential uses shall be flood proofed and anchored, in accordance with floodplain development requirements, to the design depth as recommended by a geotechnical engineer. Final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works prior to receiving a building permit. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Noise and Vibration Mitigation Measure NV – 1.1: The Project applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor:  Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: - Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; - Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; - Minimize backing movements of equipment; Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 13 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Factor Mitigation Measures Level of Environmental Impact  Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible;  Impact equipment (e.g., jackhammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible;  Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; and  Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Community Development Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible.  The project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem.  The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, City Arborist and Stormwater Coordinator. Required Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Criteria for Permitting a Residential Condominium: The following condominium standards shall apply to all land and structures proposed as a part of a condominium project and shall be evaluated and processed pursuant to the procedural requirements set forth for conditional use permits in Title 25 of this code. No condominium project or portion thereof shall be approved or conditionally approved in whole or in part unless the Planning Commission, or City Council upon appeal or review, has reviewed the following on the basis of their effect on: (a) Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare; (b) The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources; and (c) Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations. Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 14 Findings for Multiple- Family Residential Design Review: The criteria for multiple family residential design review is detailed in Code Section 25.57.030(f) and requires the proposed project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations: (1) Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood; (2) Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles; (3) Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used; and (4) Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future. In addition, the Planning Commission should look at conformity with Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character); specifically Section 5.3 (pages 5-17 through 5-21) provides design guidelines for residential areas within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-27) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown, including residential areas. 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 conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution including the conditions representing mitigation for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (in italics below) and any conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners may add. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. (a) Mitigated Negative Declaration. (b) Design Review, Condominium Permit and Conditional Use Permit. (c) Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Merger. Please note that the conditions below include mitigation measures from the Mitigat ed Negative Declaration (shown in italics). If the Commission determines that these conditions do not adequately address any potential significant impacts on the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report would need to be prepared for this project. The mitigations will be placed on the building permit as well as recorded with the property and constitute the mitigation monitoring plan for this project. At the public hearing, the following mitigation measures and conditions should be considered: Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 15 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 19, 2018, sheets A-0.0 through A-4.2 and L-1; and Boundary and Topographic Survey dated May 15, 2013; 2. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 3. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $19,379.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 4. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $19,379.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 5. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required from the Parks Division for removal of an y tree on the property with a circumference of 48 inches or larger when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade; 6. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application; 7. that the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining from Caltrans a tree removal permit for the proposed removal of the Eucalyptus tree on El Camino Real that is within the Caltrans right-of-way, and that the replacement tree shall be an Elm street tree (Ulmus accolade) consistent with the Caltrans replacement program specifications for trees along this corridor; 8. that tree protection measures shall be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project as specified in the Tree Protection Plan in Kielty Arborists Services LLC tree report dated in the June 27, 2016; 9. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 156.00' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (100.91’) for a maximum height of 55’-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridg e shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage (basement) floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 75.5’; first (ground) floor finished floor shall be elevation 104.5’; top of fifth floor roof shall be elevation 152.00’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 10. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 11. that the conditions of the Building Division memos dated October 16, 2015 and July 17, 2015; the Parks Division memos dated November 7, 2016 and April 30, 2015; the Engineering Division memo dated May 8, 2015; the Fire Division memos dated December 16, 2015, November 3, 2015, and November 1, 2013; and the Stormwater Division memo dated April 19, 2015 shall be met; Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 16 12. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 13. that the ‘service vehicle stall’ shall be marked on the service parking space and designated on the final map and plans, this stall shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service vehicle stall shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 14. that the site driveway should include signage and/or striping to instruct inbound vehicles where to wait so as not to block vehicles exiting the transfer compartment; 15. that clear signage should be provided at the top of the driveway ramp advising of the applicable size parking system vehicle size limits and whether visitors are permitted to park in the parking system; 16. that the automated parking entrance shall include means to communicate with drivers the expected wait time, and any malfunction of the parking system; 17. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service vehicle stall shall be reserved for service vehicles or guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents, and that parking and/or stopping is not permitted on El Camino Real; 18. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the cl ose of escrow on the sale of each unit; 19. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 20. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 21. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 22. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 23. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 24. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 17 areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 25. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 26. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 27. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 28. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self -contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 29. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 30. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 31. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 32. that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 33. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 34. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 35. that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to the street as determined by the Public Works Department; 36. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 37. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 38. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 18 39. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 40. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; and 41. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 42. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 43. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 44. 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; 45. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study 46. During any construction period which causes ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less than significant level. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 19  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 47. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average 96 percent reduction in PM2.5 exhaust emissions. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:  All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. The use of equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or alternatively- fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would meet this requirement. Other measures may be the use of added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant (<10.0 in one million increased cancer risk). 48. In order to protect nesting birds on and adjacent to the project site the following measures will be implemented:  Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be completed prior to tree removal if removal or construction is proposed to commence during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) in order to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before construction begins. During this survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in and within 250 feet of the project boundary.  If an active nest is found in an area that would be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall designate an adequate buffer zone (~250 feet) to be established around the nest, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The buffer would ensure that nests shall not be disturbed until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts.  The applicant shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to the issuance of a grading permit or demolition permit. 49. In order to protect the retained trees on and/or adjacent to the site, the following measures should be implemented:  Tree protection zones shall be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for the protection zones shall be a six-foot tall metal chain link type supported by two-inch metal poles pounded into the ground by no less than two feet. The support poles shall be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. The location for the protection fencing shall be as close to the dripline as possible but still Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 20 allow room for construction to safely continue. Signs shall be placed on fencing signifying “Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out”. No materials or equipment shall be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the drip line of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, shall be mulched with four to six inches of chipper chips.  Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason shall be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. Trenches shall be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time shall also be covered with layers of burlap or straw wattle and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect exposed roots below.  Normal irrigation shall be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months. Some irrigation may be required during the winter months depending on the seasonal rainfall. During the summer months the trees on this site shall receive heavy flood type irrigation twice a month. During the fall and winter, once a month should suffice. Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption. 50. Unique Paleontological and/or Geologic Features and Reporting. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project site during any phase of construction, all ground disturbing activities within 25 feet shall cease and the Community Development Director notified immediately. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find and prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The identified mitigation measures shall be implemented. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. Upon completion of the paleontological assessment, a report shall be submitted to the City and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. 51. Cultural Sensitivity Training. Prior to any ground-disturbing construction activity on the site, cultural resource sensitivity training for construction personnel on the project shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist. The training shall outline potential indicators of archaeological materials and artifacts to be aware of during grading and excavation activity on the site. 52. Undiscovered Archaeological Resources. If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the Community Development Director shall be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The Community Development Director shall consult with the archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeological documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC. Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 21 53. Human Remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the Community Development Director and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. 54. Report of Archaeological Resources. If archaeological resources are identified, a final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Manager prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources found and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. 55. For development under the Downtown Specific Plan, projects with subgrade structures require that the project sponsor prepare a Geotechnical Study identifying the depth to the seasonal high water table at the project site. No permanent groundwater dewatering would be allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Instead, all residential uses must be elevated to above the seasonal high water table and all areas for non-residential uses shall be flood proofed and anchored, in accordance with floodplain development requirements, to the design depth as recommended by a geotechnical engineer. Final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works prior to receiving a building permit. 56. The Project applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor:  Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: - Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; - Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; - Minimize backing movements of equipment;  Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible;  Impact equipment (e.g., jackhammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible;  Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; and Proposed Residential Condominium 556 El Camino Real 22  Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Community Development Department so that noise- sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible.  The project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem.  The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager Attachments:  July 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes  Application to the Planning Commission  CityLift Technical Specifications Sheet  Staff Comments  California Department of Transportation correspondence letter, dated March 9, 2017  Responses to Comments from the California Department of Transportation, dated March 9, 2017  Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated May 2018  Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed)  Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 18, 2018  Aerial Photo Separate Attachment:  Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-597-P), dated May, 2018 PROJECT LOCATION 556 El Camino Real Item No. 8c Regular Action BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 24, 2017 e.556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five-story, 21-unit residential condominium with below -grade parking (VMK Design Group, designer; Roman Knop, property owner) (462 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 556 El Camino Real - Staff Report 556 El Camino Real - Attachments 556 El Camino Real Revised Initial Study updated 7-21-17 Appendix A Shade and Shadow Analysis Appendix B Construction Health Risk Assessment Appendix C Tree Survey Appendix D Geotechnical Investigation Appendix D Geotechnical Supplement Appendix E Traffic Queuing Analysis Appendix F-1 Archaeological Literature Search Appendix F-2 Historical Resources Compliance Report 556 El Camino Real - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 556 El Camino Real - Draft Resolutions 556 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report, with Will Burns and Tali Ashurov of David J. Powers and Associates in attendance for questions on the environmental review. Questions of Staff: >Is displacement of existing residents studied in the environmental review? (Burns: The review considers the numbers of residents displaced and whether that would require additional housing to need to be built elsewhere. In this instance more units will be provided than are currently on the site, so the project would not create an impact requiring additional units to need to be built elsewhere.) >Are rental rates or income considered in the displacement analysis? (Burns: The analysis does not take into account economic issues. It is limited to environmental issues.) >Is it within the purview of the Planning Commission to consider displacement of current residents in the approval or disapproval of a project? (Kane: It is within the purview of the Planning Commission to look at the overall compatibility of the project with the Council's stated goals, and its housing and land use policies. However the criteria of each section of the application needs to be applied, such as Design Review Criteria and environmental review criteria as stated, then apply those directly. While it is within the Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/31/2017 July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes general jurisdiction to consider, it is not one of the the criteria within the current ordinances. The issue of the economic differential is not in itself environmental. The criteria of the environmental analysis as it stands in the state currently looks at units and numbers of people in determining environmental significance.) >Were any shadow studies prepared for the existing conditions? There are some existing trees that could effect neighboring properties. (Burns: Some of the existing vegetation is reflected on the shadow study, but the analysis only looked at what impacts the project would have in the future.) Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jane Knop and Roman Knop represented the applicant, with Mike Brinck of Citylift and Vadim Melik-Karamov of VMK Design. Commission Questions/Comments: >If the units are being used for families, how would someone be able to unload a child and groceries out of the car? What timeframe is there? (Brinck: In this project there is a drop -off space upstairs on the surface for loading and unloading. Can also unload in the parking bay, since it's 25-feet and would be very similar to unloading in a normal striped parking space. If it's during a peak period may choose to use the loading space on the surface instead .)(Melik-Karamov: Can unload either on street level or below on garage level, which is 8 feet down. If unloading from the garage space, person would then access the corridor into the lobby where there is an elevator and staircase.) >How would electric cars be accommodated? (Brinck: Each platform is enabled to have a Level 2 charging station. The driver would hook up the charger, and when the vehicle and platform is moved into position the charger would be energized. It is a 4-hour charge, compared to a Level 1 charge which is 8 hours. It complies with Calgreen Title 24 which specifies Level 2 chargers.)(Melik-Karamov: Also a charger in the parking area.) >What is the standard for noise or vibration? Will neighboring condominiums or any of the residents experience noise or vibrations? (Brinck: It is a freestanding system, designed to meet California seismic standards. Not tied into the building or building columns, so there is virtually no vibration. It is subterranean, which mitigates the noise. If standing next to it, the noise level is about 70 dBA which is equivalent to someone talking. The motors are electric, and all of the components are 70 dBA or less.) >Are there fire sprinklers? (Brinck: Will follow local fire requirements. Typically one sprinkler per space.) >How does the bicycle parking work? (Melik-Karamov: Front of building, and in the basement.) >Has there been consideration of having space for a vegetable garden in the landscape plan? (Melik-Karamov: There is a lot of space, so it could be accommodated.) Would applicant be willing to build it? Would need planters and irrigation. (Melik-Karamov: Property owner would need to decide.) >How would someone get back to garage after unloading in front of the building? Would they need to go around the block to re-enter the parking queue? (Melik-Karamov: Yes.) >Are there any completed examples of the parking system in the Bay Area? (Brinck: Yes, in Oakland and San Francisco. Can host a tour if desired.) How long have they been active? (Brinck: The longest was installed 2 1/2 years ago in Oakland at Broadway and Grand. There has not been any mechanical or electrical issues.) >How are motorcycles or vespas accommodated? (Jane Knop: The system is not designed for motorcycles, but can allocate space in the basement.) >Is there a backup generator? (Brinck: Yes. It can be a very simple backup generator.) >Is the backup generator that's specified sufficient for this purpose? (Brinck: Yes.) >Is there a code mandate that there be a backup generator? Having access to the car would not be a life safety issue. (Brinck: From a developer's perspective it is desirable as a safeguard to be able to get cars out. However has built a number of projects where there is not a backup generator.) >Can it be required that the system be maintained? (Gardiner: There can be a condition requiring maintenance.)(Kane : Could be reflected in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are reviewed as part of the project approval. Also the marketability of the units would be significantly diminished if the sytem was not Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/31/2017 July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes working.)(Knop: Since this is a condominium building there would be CC&Rs as required by the Department of Real Estate.) >Water is a big issue on El Camino Real. There is an 18% slope ramp down to the garage. (Roman Knop: There will not be an increase in impervious area. There will be underground stormwater retention tanks to store water. It's a regular construction issue that will be dealt with during construction and after construction. The parking system is very simple compared to an elevator in a high-rise building.) >If the system fails, is there reimbursement for Uber or Lyft? (Brinck: It is part of the service program . It has never needed to be used but has been included as a reassurance. Also, has not seen an instance where the customer does not continue on with the extended maintenance.) >Geotech report is dated 2013, updated 2014, and still mentions only one full basement level. The garage depth is not consistent with plans - it shows a depth of about 20 feet but the plans show 30 feet. >Specifies that the retaining walls would be required to be backdrained. Not sure Caltrans would allow the water to be pumped up and discharged to the street. Needs to see documentation that Caltrans would allow water to be pumped to the street. (Jane Knop: Caltrans has said it will not review the application until there is an approval from the Planning Commission.) >Groundwater was tested in 2013, but that was a drought year. Concern with the backfilled retaining walls needing to be drained. (Roman Knop: The construction is designed for 100-year average rain.) Concern is with the ground water, not the rainwater. (Roman Knop: Garage would be designed like a swimming pool, with water staying on the outside and not coming in.) Geotechnical report should clarify - on page 10 it specifies that retaining walls should be fully back drained. >Concern with the hard right turn off El Camino Real into the driveway. Other driveways on El Camino Real come off at angles. (Melik-Karamov: It is a normal 90-degree turn to get into the property.) >Concern that there would not be as much stacking space for cars lining up for garage as shown, since people would maintain space between cars on the ramp. >Does not believe the 20- and 24-foot driveway widths will conform to Caltrans standards. Does not believe they would be allowed. The building next door has a 16- and a 14-foot driveway. (Jane Knop : Caltrans has reviewed the application and has had an opportunity to respond with comments.) Should see if a citation to the driveway width standards can be provided. >Page 4 of the environmental study suggests clear signage at the top of the ramp. >Envision Burlingame had considered a concept of reducing the lanes on El Camino Real to have one travel lane on each side and a center turn lane. Is that something that can be considered when reviewing projects? (Gardiner: The concept was considered early in the Envision Burlingame process but constraints has prevented it from being developed further. Caltrans requires maintaining four travel lanes on El Camino Real, so the assumption is that the current configuration will stay the same. The current configuration should be factored as projects are evaluated.) >How does right-turn in/right-turn out get enforced, and how to prevent left turns into the property from El Camino Real? (Roman Knop: Signage. Left turns are not allowed currently and are subject to fines .) (Gardiner: There are buildings on El Camino Real that designate where to enter and exit, and where entering is not permitted.)(Jane Knop: The building next door has the same configuration, except with a one-lane driveway. This project has a two -lane driveway. In theory people can make left turns into any building on El Camino Real, it is not unique to this property. It is subject to traffic enforcement, and residents typically respect these types of restrictions since it is in their best interests.) Public Comments: Peter Chartz - Lives across the street, and submitted a letter previously objecting to the density and height of the project. Those comments still apply. The project seems out of place design wise and height wise. Other buildings in area are soft, welcoming. This design looks like it belongs in Vancouver - it is loud and not soft. 530 El Camino Real and 550 El Camino Real are examples of buildings to scale. The parking and circulation will not work - need to make a hard right to enter the lower level parking area. The parking spaces for drop -off will be used for guests, and will not be available for deliveries so delivery vans will have to block El Camino. Would encourage more space outside in front for bicycles to encourage bike riding, not sure there is enough room in the basement for the residents. Motorcycles and scooters are an afterthought. Over the years El Camino Real has become windier and nosier, and suggests there Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/31/2017 July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes can be sound-mitigating building materials and landscaping to mitigate wind and sound. Tim Donnelly - There is a sister property a few doors up that is well maintained and looks lovely. How will the parking structure be maintained given the maintenance of the existing building? Manages the structure next door, understands that to receive a Conditional Use Permit there cannot be impacts to the neighbors . The neighboring building has invested in solar panels, but they will be worthless if the building next door is two stories taller. The pool area will be shadowed as well. There is a redwood tree on the property line but the garage will require digging deep and will kill the tree because it has wide, deep roots. The basement in the neighboring building goes down 5 feet and flooded several times this winter, and 25 feet is past the water table. If they need a sump pump it will be noisy; across the street is a building with a sump pump operating nearly 24 hours a day, and that garage only goes down one level. Doesn't like the displacement of tenants. Guests will have a hard time finding a place to park. Afaf Dudum - Came to first meeting, lives at 1515 Floribunda Avenue. Has understanding that there is a creek running under the buildings. This year and in past years when there has been severe rain the grages have flooded. Five stories doesn't fit in the area. Suggests coming and looking from back yard and see how the proposed building would obstruct the sun and overshadow the back yard. The noise and traffic and parking are difficult in the neighborhood currently, and people cannot come visit because they cannot find parking. Would like the commission to reconsider the building. Felix - Agrees with the sentiment about the massive building that would be built. Lives directly behind at 1515 Floribunda Avenue. The traffic on El Camino will be a problem; the right turn from Floribunda has already been eliminated because it is a huge traffic hazard. Introducing a large building with two cars per person will create a dangerous situation on El Camino. Would like a traffic study done before approving any plans. The shadow study shows that the direct sunlight will be obstructed by the five story building . The swimming pool will be rendered useless, and the first and second floors of the building will get no light all year. 3 PM is a time when people go out to the pool. John Weiner - Only six people showed up to the applicant's meeting because nobody heard about it . There was no reaching out from owner to neighboring buildings as far as could tell. In the photos of the buildings in the presentation none are as tall as this building. 1515 Floribunda has underground parking and has issues with water coming in through the walls. The underground water flow is really important . Should not design a 30-foot hole full of cars the same way as a swimming pool. Perforated pipe underground will not work - 1515 Floribunda has had issues with water flowing underground trying to redirect the water flow, but the pipes usually get clogged. Has redwood trees on the property and ended up killing some of the trees when trying to deal with underground water flow. If cars are lining up to park, what happens when someone needs to leave the building at the same time? It does not look like there is enough room for cars to pull to the side. Do they have to back out onto the street? Alina Cherny - Owners at 1515 Floribunda are concerned about the project. Feb 22nd collected 35 signatures opposing the project from the neighbors. Two issues: the project is out of scale with no respect for the adjacent neighbors. The height is out of proportion. The underground parking garage is a huge concern - it is 30 feet below grade and the water is a huge concern. Citypark has not constructed any underground parking garages in Calfornia; projects are in the works but nothing is constructed now. 240 Lorton is a commercial building, with different requirements for loading and unloading. Usually the garages have two turning wheels, one for incoming traffic and one for outbound, but this only has one. The underground water is a huge concern. The parking structure intersects the property line, close to swimming pool at 1515 Floribunda a few feet away. There is no setback on the garage and it drops down 30 feet, so the swimming pool will have seepage immediately. Questions the credibility of the design team, understanding is that the designer is not an architect so should not be referenced as an architect . Not sure if the civil engineer has sufficient credentials or liability insurance. Liability is a huge concern. Don Olechowski - Lives at 1515 Floribunda, unit is southwest back corner looking out onto this property . The existing property at 556 El Camino Real is decrepid but only two stories, below some trees and fairly Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/31/2017 July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes unobtrusive. Those living around the back will get the full visual impact of the building. There has been concern with pumping water onto El Camino, but what happens with coming onto 1515 Floribunda Avenue from a retaining wall or water runoff, or water that already exists on the property? With a huge foundation and underground parking the water will need to go somewhere else, possibly onto the adjacent property . Tesla cars take longer to charge and take more power than the four hours mentioned for a Level 2 charger, only works for smaller electric cars such as Fiat. Bobbi Benson - Has lived at 550 El Camino Real for 14 years. Tim is the new manager of the rental apartments on the north side of 556 El Camino Real, and 550 is on the south side. The driveway is nearest to the Floribunda intersection. It is too ambitious to fit in with the neighborhood, which is all three story buildings. It will impact traffic on El Camino, and traffic already stacks up at Floribunda. Visitors already have trouble finding parking within two blocks. If the project was scaled down to three stories with 14 units each unit could have two parking spaces on one grage level with spaces for vehicles in front. The underground garage is too close to south property line, and the vibration of that much digging that close could effect the structural integrity of the neighboring building with $1M condos. Can anyone guarantee it will not be injurious to the neighboring building? Can a city inspector come to 550 El Camino Real before and after construction? Automated system is estimated to take three minutes per car, and one engineer says there is room for four cars waiting on site to get in, while another says realistically there is only room for three cars and recommends posting a sign to prevent cars from wating on El Camino - not realistic . Requesting solid balcony walls on the south side of the project for greater privacy and tranquility for all; 1515 Floribunda and 550 El Camino both have solid balcony walls. Requests 4-foot high fence between properties be replaced with a 6-foot fence. Concerned with toxic dust, requests 550 El Camino be powerwashed after demolition before opening windows. The proposed project at this location near this busy intersection has too many unknowns. For or five stories is too big, too massive, with two stories of parking below. El Camino is a narrow artery and Floribunda is a busy intersection. 550 El Camino Real gets water damage, and is currently dealing with the seepage from 530 El Camino Real in the underground garage. The shadows will preclude the vegetable garden. Cynthia Cornell, Housing For All Burlingame - 2015-23 Housing Element has several implementation programs. Program H(A-4) is an 8-year objective to have no conversion of existing rental to condominiums, to maintain the existing zoning controls which prohibit conversion of residential rental projects with fewer than 21 units to condominiums. Would like to see the City respect the spirit of the program, not just the strict text. Program H (A-6) specifies to ensure the affordability of existing units, the 8-year objective is to utlize funds to assist 20 units to achieve long -term affordability. Program H (B-1) designates promoting equal housing opportunities for all Burlingame residents. 556 El Camino Real has been neglected by its owner for at least 10 years; the people who live in the building have put up with abandonment, neglect and uncertainty for a very long time. Owner first applied to demolish the building 5 years ago, and has since ignored the building and let it dilapidate further. Why would Burlingame reward a negligent and careless apartment owner by allowing displacement of renters and demolition of an apartment building to replace it with condominiums for its further enrichment? Violates the spirit of the Housing Element programs, and makes the City complicit and an accessory to displacing renters in Burlingame. 556 El Camino is an example of a building that could be renovated by a nonprofit housing developer, upgrading the living circumstances of the renters who live there and putting the breaks on displacement in the city. Cannot ignore the Housing Element to enrich property owners. Kristen Parks, Housing For All Burlingame - Lives in an apartment on El Camino Real. If this was a condo conversion, would be mandated to consider whether the proposal protects the interests of the tenants, whether the displacement would be detrimental, the role that the existing structure plays in the rental market, evaluation of the structure to determine whether it is serving low and moderate -income tenants or elderly or handicapped tenants, and whether tenants will have substantial difficulty in obtaining comparably-priced facilities. According to Code Section 26.32.100 if this was a condo conversion where the existing structure would remain and be converted to condos, consideration of displacement of the people would be mandated. However since this project would demolish the existing building, consideration of displacement of people is not mandated, but is not precluded. A Conditional Use Permit requires that Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/31/2017 July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the Planning Commission must find that the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience of the community. Unidentified Speaker - The proposal in January was similar to the current one. Hoped the building height would be reduced based on the input from all the neighbors at 1515 Floribunda Avenue. Does not see that the concerns are being considered. The proposal would overshadow the building and diminish the value of the property. Underground water and pumping to El Camino Real is a big concern. The geotechnical report is over 18 months old, needs to be revisited. The two -story garage and building would be very close, and would interfere with peaceful enjoyment. Hopes the building can be reduced so it fits in with the neighboring buildings. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Concern that the geotechnical report is out of date, which could have implications for the environmental review. The report cites some specific problems that have not yet been addressed, though they will be addressed by the Engineering Department >Has concerns with whether Caltrans will approve the egress and ingress, and the water issues with draining to the street. >The height might be a bit too tall given the scale of the surrounding buildings. Although it is on El Camino Real, the shadow study indicates it will have some impact on the surround buildings. >What process for further review would be required from Public Works if the project were approved, specifically regarding the basement? (Gardiner: Building permits would not be issued until all of these issues that are being discussed would be resolved. There would need to be an updated geotechnical report, and a structural engineer would review the structural plans for the building permit. In the comment sheets from the various departments they have listed out the issues that would need to be addressed prior to obtaining a building permit. The planning approval is one approval, and the building permit approval is another, and is very rigorous.) >The design has made tremendous progress since it was intially submitted. With regards to the building height Conditional Use Permit, while it is a 55-foot tall building with five stories, because of the stepping back it is going to appear more as a four -story building which would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. The neighborhood is mostly three and four stories, but within a block is an 8-story building . It would not be the tallest building in the neighborhood. >Not sure how to interpret the shadows, in terms of determining whether it would make the project not approvable. >The design is handsome and is compatible with the design guidelines. >Not sure how the circulation pattern works, and concerned given how close it is to a difficult intersection. >The parking itself looks like it will be OK, but not sure how the basement would be able to be built to the property line and go down 30 feet without crossing the property line; it needs more investigation. >When the building envelope is pushed as much as this, it loses the ability to do things like conveniently leave space for loading beside the basement. Having to park in front if needing extra time to unload and then circle the block again doesn't seem like a good program. >The parking system is innovative and improved over what was seen before. Doubts there will be four cars queuing; having lived in an 18-unit condominium, found it surprising how rarely neighbors would see each other leaving or arriving home. Thinks it will work here. >The scale presents itself as a four-story building with a penthouse. >The Downtown Specific Plan requires the Planning Commission to consider shade and shadows on public spaces and streets, and the analysis from the environmental consultant has determined there would not be a substantial impact relative to CEQA based on what the ordinances require. >In downtown there are transitional areas and spaces, with three -story buildings next to two -story buildings, and four -story buildings next to one- and two -story buildings. Some areas are in transition . When 550 El Camino Real was built as a three -story building, it cast shadows on 556 El Camino Real - it Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/31/2017 July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes is the nature of projects and the evolution of neighborhoods. >While the difference in height is two stories, there is also the difference between 14 units and 21 units. Threre is a need for more housing in Burlingame, and it needs to be well-crafted and well-designed. >Having the basement right to property line requires tie -backs and permissions from adjacent properties, and will not be very easy to obtain. There are ways to do this type of basement when there are two or three feet for shoring, and so the basement is built within the property lines. The Planning Commission does not have the purview to require the level of detail needed for the building permit, but still needs to be assured it will be able to be constructed. >While there is a need for more housing units, affordability is still a concern. The applicant should consider below-market units on a voluntary basis to address affordability concerns, as other applicants have done. >Does not have an issue with the architecture. It is nicely scaled, detailed, and finished. >Concerned about the turn from El Camino Real; it is a difficult turn. >Concern with loading and unloading, for example families with children and groceries. >Concern with the water table and drainage, but confident in the Public Works review with the building permit. >OK with the height. Presents itself as a four -story building. It is a nicely articulared and proportioned, well-crafted modern building. Considerably nicer than much of what is on El Camino Real. >Concern with the functional load that it places on the site. The functional requirements of the building are substantial, and it is a particularly difficult site. There seems to be a high risk for failure, and if one element does not fit just right the whole thing comes apart. Feels like it is "bursting at the seams," trying to be as big as it possibly can. >Not adequate recognition of the constraints of certain technical aspects of the project - concern they have not been throught through very carefully. Hard to support the project until there is a better sense that the technical issues have been reasonably addressed. >It is a nice design, and is comfortable that the City's Building and Engineering department would not allow this to be constructed if it was not going to work. >The environmental review indicates most categories have either less than significant or no impact with mitigation measures. This is the information that is used to make the decision, based on a lot of time and analysis put into the study. >Concern with the shadows, particularly impacting the pools on the neighboring properties since that will prevent them from enjoying a reasonable property right. >Supports the parking system as a good use of space. If the parking company has experience with these systems and believes it will work here, they should be given the opportunity. This seems to be the future for the city and the rest of the country. >While the design allows for a four-car queue, only 2.5 spaces are required per the traffic study. >The entering and exiting of the driveway is similar to every other apartment building on El Camino Real and has been working this way for a long time. >Solid balconies and a higher fence would be simple middle ground solutions. >The location justifies a taller building; other tall buildings have been approved in Downtown that are next to shorter buildings. Burlingame Towers is taller and is less than a block away. Should allow taller buildings if they are built within the rules. >For the project to be further evaluated, requests: -More information from Caltrans to determine if the driveway and drainage can be allowed; -Assurance from the geotechnical engineer that the report is still legitimate; -Further consideration of the traffic flow; -Ingress/egress from El Camino Real; -Assurance that the basement wall will be able to be built, particularly whether there will be tie -backs. They do not need to be shoring drawings, but there needs to be a sense that they have figured out how it will be built; -Assurance in the drainage of the garage; -Solid balconies - small concession to make. OK with open railings on the front, but not on side. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/31/2017 July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There appears to be consensus on the Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for height, and the Condominium permit. The concerns are with the technical matters described, which impact whether the environmental review can be approved. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Gum1 - Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/31/2017 TOWER SPECIFICATION SHEETFULLY-AUTOMATED © CityLift Parking | www.cityliftparking.com | 844.388.0424 TOWER The Tower is a fully automated car parking lift that is ideal for narrow spaces. Multiples of this parking system design can be built side-by-side for increased parking capacity. This fully-automated parking lift is made up of steel beams and columns doubling as the building structure. The exterior is fully customizable and over 15,000 spaces have been installed globally by CityLift’s manufacturing partner. This type of parking lift can be operated with or without a parking attendant depending on the project use/type. 120 SECONDSAVERAGE RETRIEVAL TIME UP TO 20 LEVELS2 - 20 LEVEL CONFIGURATIONS 15,000SPACES INSTALLED © CityLift Parking | www.cityliftparking.com | 844.388.0424 TOWER © CityLift Parking | www.cityliftparking.com | 844.388.0424 2 CARS PER LEVEL STANDARD MEASUREMENTS © CityLift Parking | www.cityliftparking.com | 844.388.0424 STANDARD MEASUREMENTS 4 CARS PER LEVEL MODEL A MODEL B © CityLift Parking | www.cityliftparking.com | 844.388.0424 STANDARD MEASUREMENTS 6 CARS PER LEVEL MODEL A MODEL B © CityLift Parking | www.cityliftparking.com | 844.388.0424 STANDARD MEASUREMENTS 8 CARS PER LEVEL © CityLift Parking | www.cityliftparking.com | 844.388.0424 TOWER © CityLift Parking | www.cityliftparking.com | 844.388.0424 Note: Standard load is 5,200 lbs per vehicle. Heavier loads available. Individual cars should be measured for size fit. Above is a sample list of 2016 model cars that can fit on the different platform sizes given a 6’ horizontal clear height. This list is not meant to be comprehensive or exahaustive. CAR FIT GUIDE Acura ILX BMW 3-Series Honda Civic Lexus IS Audi A6 BMW X5 Dodge Durango Jeep Grand Cherokee BMW 5-Series Chrysler 300 Honda CR-V Volvo XC60 Audi Q5 BMW X Honda Pilot Toyota Rav4 6’ - 11” 17’ - 4” PLATFORM SIZE © CityLift Parking | www.cityliftparking.com | 844.388.0424 1. Driver pulls into a bay and exits vehicle.2. Driver keep keys and receives a retrieval ticket or uses issued fob.3. Bay door closes after motion detector senses bay is empty of people, animals, etc.4. Platform is lifted and car is stored.5. Driver returns to retrieve vehicle and hands attendant their ticket or swipes issued fob.6. Car is retrieved and rotated to face outwards.7. Once car is in bay and the lift is no longer in motion, bay door opens.8. Driver enters vehicle and drives out. USER EXPERIENCE © CityLift Parking 2018 CITYLIFT PARKING2335 Broadway, Suite 100, Oakland, CA 94612contact@cityliftparking.com844.388.0424 www.cityliftparking.com Oakland | Los Angeles | Chicago | Miami | Boston Project Gomments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 eriuing Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 city Attorn"y (650) 558-7204 Revised Plans Submitted March 25,2015 Planning Staff Request for Environmental Review, Design Review, Condo Permit, Parking Variance, and Conditional Use Permit for height for a new 2S-unit condominium building at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN: 029-1'11-260 Please provide information for the auto car stacker. Please provide a site plan of the existing structures along with details of the lot. /f lnis project appears to be over 10,000sf. lf this is the case, the developer ( . / must construct permeant stormwater treatment measures on-site. No additional storm runoff will be allowed from post construction site. More . information can be found at: http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment (i., For the construction of the basement, please provide information on'- groundwater levels during wet and dry seasons. A geotech report to back up assumptions for design criteria for foundation and shoring structural calculations is required. Design of backup generator for the groundwater , r pumps is required. r5-.: Please provide a ramp profile. $VPlease provide a proposed landscape plan.(, Please show the street right of way and dimension the driveway approaches. 8. A sewer study will be required for this project. Date: 5/8/15Reviewed by: M. Quan Project Comments Date:April20,2012 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X euitding Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 city Rttorney (650) 558-7204 To: Planning Staff Subject: Staff Review: @ Plans submitted for any commercial project must be designed, welstamped, and signed by a licensed architect. 1997 Uniform Administrative Code 9302.2 and 302.3. On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code (where applicabte), 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889. Note: lf the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2016 then this project must comply with the 2016 California Building Codes. pecify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http:/Arvww.enerqv.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 4) Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. ln addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 5) Place the following information on the first page of the plans: "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. From: Request for Environmental Review, Design Review, Condo Permit, Parking Variance, and Conditional Use Permit for height for a new 25-unit condominium building at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN: 029-111-260 Sundays and Holidays: 't0:00 a.m. * 6:00 p.m. (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-Ci$ Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. 6) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 8) Provide a fully dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries, the location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on-site parking. 9) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, 'When additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 20't3 California Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020 Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division pior to the implementation of any work not specifically shown on the p/ans. Significant delays can occur if changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled and will not be performed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans. 10)Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 11)Provide a complete demolition plan that includes a leqend and indicates existing walls and features to remain, existing walls and features to be demolished, and new walls and features. NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit wilt not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of anv building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the project. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or performed. 12)When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 13)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 14)Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 15)Obtain a survey of the property lines. oms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. On the elevation drawinos specify the location and the net clear opening height and width of all required egress windows. 2013 California Residential Code (CRC) 9R310. 17)lndicate on the plans that, at the time of Building Permit application, plans and engineering will be submitted for shoring as required by 2013 CBC, Chapter 3'l regarding the protection of adjacent pioperty and as required by OSHA. On the plans, indicate that the following will be addressed: a. The walls of the proposed basement shall be properly shored, prior to construction activity. This excavation may need temporary shoring. A competent contractor shall be consulted for recommendations and design of shoring scheme for the excavation. The recommended design type of shoring shall be approved by the engineer of record or soils engineer prior to raage. b. AII appropriate guidelines ofOSHA shall be incorporated into the shoring design by the contractor. Where space permits, temporary construction slopes may be utitized in lieu of shoring. Maximum allowable vertical cut for the subject project will be five (5) feet. Beyond that horizontal benches of 5 feet wide will be required. Temporary shores shall not exceed I to I (horimntal to vertical). Il some areas due to high moisture content / water table, flatter slopes will be required which will be recommended by the soils engineer in the field. c. If shoring is required, specif, on the plans the licensed design professional that has sole responsibility to design and provide adequate shoring, bracing, formwork, erc. as required for the protection of life and property during construction of the building. d. Shoring and bracing shall remain in place until floors, roof, and wall sheathing have been entirely constructed. e. Shoring plans shall be wet-stamped and signed by the engineer-of-record and submitted to the city for review prior to construction. If applicable, include surcharge loads ftom adjacent structues that are within the zone of influence (45 degree wedge up the slope from the base ofthe retaining wall) and / or driveway surcharge loads. 18)lndicate on the plans that an OSHA permit will be obtained per CAL / OSHA req uirements. See the Cal / OSHA handbook at: http://www.ca- osha .co dfoubs/osha u uide.pdf 1541.1 . 19)lndicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. Construction afetv Orders Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 6 , Section 20)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your poect entails landings more than 30" in height. 21)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 2013 CBC s1009. 22 P rovide lighting at all exterior landings. n the first page ofthe plans state the Access Regulations that you are using to gain full access compliance. There are five access regulations that may apply to a multi-family residential project jn California: a. The Architectural Barriers Act of 1969 (ABA) b. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1 973c. The Fair Housing Act (FHA) d. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) e. The California Building Code (CBC), Chapters 1 1A and 1 18. NOTE: Specify which of the regulations, above, will be used on this project to - camply with all accessibility requirementsl (24lOn the first page of the plans clearly whether ANY public money, of any kind, will or will not be used lo construci this project. - -ltOTE: Specify if any public money will be used or if no public money will he used! (%).4n lhe first page of the plans clearly stale if an application for ANY tax credits have or will be submitted for tax rebates. NOTE: See the 2015 California Code of Regulations, Title lV, S10325 (07 (K). ln part: "All tax credit recipient projects shall adhere to the provisions of California Building Code 'l 1(B) regarding accessibility to privately owned housing made available for public use.' NOIE: Specify if any tax credib will be submitted! 26) On your plans provide a table that includes the following: a. Occupancy group for each area of the building b. Type of construction c. Allowable area d. Proposed area e. Allowable heightf. Proposed height g. Proposed fire separation distances h. Exterior wall and opening protection i. Allowable ii. Proposed , ./ , i. lndicate sprinklered or non-sprinklered( /tYAcknoweage that, when plans are submitted for building code plan check, they witl include a complete underground plumbing plan including complete details for the , location of all required grease traps and city-required backwater prevention devices. 4@Provide delails on the plans which show that the entire site complies with all accessibility - standards. NOTE: lf full accessible compliance cannot be achieved complete the attached Request for Unreasonable Hardship. 29)Specify on the plans the location of all required accessible signage. lnclude references to separate sheets on the plans which provide details and graphically -,-illustrates the accessible signage requirements. 4'3OlSpecify the accessible path oftravel from the public right of way, through the main/ -Entrance, to the area of alteration. Q.Djpecify an accessible path of travel from all required exits to the pubtic right of way. a 32) bpecify a level landing, slope, and cross slope on each side of the door at all required enlrances ano exfis. {g.Frovide complete dimensioned details for accessible bathrooms (SlPProvide details on the plans which show that the building elevator complies with all __ accessible standards. 2013 CBC 5118-407. @ On tne first page of the plans clearly state that all paths of travel and common use - spaces will be accessible and all living units will be adaptable. (!$,Provide details which show that the maneuvering clearances for the bathrooms in each- unit are accessible CBC 1127A2.2 #1. (The space under the lavatory can be used but the maneuvering clearance and are allowed to encroach into the knee and toe - clearances.) G.Q Specify whether CBC 1 134A.2 option #'l or option #2 will be used for the bathrooms. Gn Specify that there will be a clear maneuvering space adjacent to each tub that is at least 30" X 48" measured from the drain end of the tub. CBC '1134A.5 pl) Specify on the plans that all dwelling unit interior doors will comply with CBC 1 132A5.2." Note: Many doors within the unit appear to have only 12" of strike side clearance. (40)/Wherc elevators are provided in structures that are four or more stories in height at least - one elevator shall be provided for Fire Department emergency access. One elevator must accommodate a stretcher that is 24" x 84". See 20'13 CBC 53002.4 for elevator cab - dimensions (80" x 54") and other details. (TjSlne second exit appears to terminate at the rear of the property. Provide an exit plan which shows accessible path of travel from the exit to the public right of way per 2013 CBC 1007 .2. NOTE:The path of tnvel must be at ieast 48" in width. l2)Pilvale decks and exterior balconies must be accessible and therefore must be 60" insthe shortest dimension to allow for a person in a wheelchair to turn around and exit the deck or balcony in the fonvard direction. Revise the plans to show decks / balconies that are at least 60" in the shortest dimension. UFAS 54.34.2 and 54.2.3 NOTE: Some of the decks do not comply wilh this rcqirement. 43) Please Note: Architects are advised to specify construction dimensions for accessible features that are below the maximum and above the minimum dimension required as construction tolerances generally do not apply to accessible features. See the California _^ Access Compliance Manual - lnterpretive Regulation 1 1B-8. /44)f,tovide an exit plan showing the paths of travel :4Revise the plans to show that the egress from the basement area leads directly to the exit ofthe building or extends to the exterior ofthe building through an exit passageway. 2013 CBC S1022.1 46) Exterior exit balconies, stairways, and ramps shall be located at least ten (10) feet from adjacent lot lines and from other buildings on the same lol unless adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. 2013 CBC 51026.5. 47) The width of egress courts shall not be less than 44" 2013 CBC 51027.4.1 . 48) Where an egress courl is less than 10 feet in width, the egress court walls shall have not less than one-hour fire-resistance-rated conslruction for a distance of ten feet above the floor ofthe court. Openings within such walls shall be protecled by not less that % -hour fire rated protectives. 2013 CBC 51027.4.2 49) Specify the total number of parking spaces on site. 50)All NEW non-residential buildings must comply with the requirements of AB-2176 Sec. 42911 (c\ [2003 - 2004 Montanez] as fottows:a. Space for recycling must be a part of the project design in new buildings.b. A building permit will not be issued unless details are shown on the project plans incorporating adequate storage for collecting and loading recycled materials. 51) Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to issuing the building permit. NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1, 2, 3, 16, 23, 24,25,27,28, 30, 31, 32,33,34,35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40, 4'1,42,44, and 45, must be re-submitted before this project can move fonnard for Planning Commission action, The written response must include clear direction reqardinq wh uested i o n n e lans.e Reviewed Date: 10-16-2015 er€,Crmlrocaf BURLINGAME New residential buildinqs ntust be desi gned to include the Green Building mandatory meosures specified in this checklist. Tlzese Green Building mcndotory rneasures also opply to additians ar alterations af existin q residential bulldinas where the addition cr alterotion increases the buildings conditianed area, volume, or size. These requirements apply only ta the specific area of addition or olteratian. Building Permit Number: Site Address: ln the column labeled "Plan Reference" specify where each Meosure con be tound on the plans. Green Building Measure Plan Reference srTE DEVELOpMENT (2013 CGC $4.105) A plan has been developed,and will be implemented, to manage storm water drainage during construction. CGC 54.106.2 & 84.106.3 (2013 CGC 04.2 and the 2013 California Buildin Energy Effi ciency Standards ENERGY EFFICIENCY 2013 Energy Code performance compliance documentation must be provided in 8-L/7" X 11" format and must be replicated on the plans Wallswith2X6andlar r framing require R-19 insulation 5150.0 (c) 2 Hot water insulation 5150.0 (i) 2 A iiIln Lighting - new mandatory re ements for indoor rooms. 5150.0 (k)utr Du ct lnsu lation R-6) required E1s0.0 (m) 1 Duct leakage testing - 6% with air handler and 4% without air handler $150.0 (m) 11 Return duct designfan power, airflow testin and grill sizing requirements S150.0 (m)13 Water heating - 120 volt receptacle < 3 ft., Cat lll or lV vent, and gas supply Iin e capacity of at least 200,000 Btu I hour 9150.0 (n New third-HERS verification for ventilation and indoor air ual 51s0.0a o New mandato U-factor (0.58) for fenestration and s kylights 5150.0 () Refrigerant charge verification for ducted package units, mini-splits, and other units S1s0.1 (c) 7 Rad iant barrier now re ired in Climate Zone 3 5150.1 (c) 2U Reduce U-factor (0.32) and SHGC (0.25 for high performance windows 5150.1 3Ac 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUITDING CODE RESIDENTIAT CHECKTIST Luminaire efficiency levels 2013 California Energy Code Table 150.0 B Green Building Measure Plan Reference WATER EFFTCTENCY AND CONSERVATTON (2013 CGC 54.3) Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) will comply with the following: 1. The effective flush volume of all water closets will not exceed 1.28 gal / flush. 2013 CGC 54.303.1.1 2. The effective flush volume of urinals will notexceed0.5gal / flush. 20L3 CGC 54.303.1.2 The fittings for faucets and showerheads will have all required standards listed on the plans; 1.5 GPM for faucets and 2.0 GPM for showers. 2013 CGC 54.303.1.3 and 2013 CGC 54.303.1.4 An automatic irrigation system controller for landscaping will be provided by the builder and installed at the time of final inspection. 2013 CGC S4.304.1 ENHANCED DURABILITY AND REDUCED MAINTENANCE (2013 CGC 94.405) Annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits or other openings in sole/bottom plates at exterior walls will be rodent- proofed by closing such openings with cement mortar, concrete masonry, or similar method acceptable to the enforcing agency. 2013 CGC 54.406.1 coNSTRUCTtON WASTE REDUCTTON, DISPOSAT- AND RECYCUNG (2013 CGC 54.408) A minimum of 60%ofthe non-hazardous construction and demolition waste generated at the site will be diverted to an offsite recycle, diversion, or salvage facility per City of Burlingame Ordinance # 1704 and 2013 CGC 54.408 BUILDING MATNTENANCE AND OpERATTON (2013 CGC 54.410) An operation and maintenance manual will be provided to the building occupant or owner. 2013 cGc s4.410.1 FTREPLACES (2013 CGc $4.s031 Any gas fireplaces will be direct-vent, sealed-combustible type. 2013 CGC 54.503.1 Any wood stove or pellet stove will comply with US EPA Phase ll emission limits. 2013 CGC 54.503.1 POTLUTANT CONTROT (CGC 54.s(}4) At the time of rough installation, during storage on the construction site, and until final startup of the heating, cooling a nd ventilating equipment, a ll d uct and other related air d istribution components openings willbe covered with tape, plastic, sheet metals, or other methods acceptable to the enforcing agency to reduce the amount of water, dust, or debris that may enter the system. 2013 CGC 54.504.1 Adhesives, sealants, and caulks used on the project shallfollow local and regional air pollution or air quality management district standards. 20]:}CGC 54.5O4.2.L Paints and coatlngs will comply with VOC limits per CGC 5 4.504.2.2 Aerosol paints and coatings will meet the Product-weighted MIR limits for ROC and other requirements. 20IlCGC 54.504.2.3 Documentation provided verifies compliance with VOC finish materials.2013 CGC 54.504.2.4 Carpet system installed in the building interior will meet the testinB and product requirements found in the 2013 california creen Building Code. 2013 CGC 54.504.3 Where resilient flooring is installed, at least 80% of the floor area receiving resilient flooring will comply with the California Green Bui lding Code requirements.2013 CGC $4.504.4 Hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fibe rboa rd composite wood products used on the interior and exterior of the building will comply with the low formaldehyde emission standards. 2013 CGC 54.504.5 2 Green Building Measure Plan Reference TNTERTOR MOTSTURE CONTROT (2013 CGC 04.s0sl A capillary break will be installed if a slab on grade foundation system is used. The use of a 4" thick base ol%" or larger clean aBgregate under a 6 mil vapor retarder with.ioint lapped not less than 6" will be provided unless an engineered design has been submitted and approved by the Building Division.2013 CGC 54.505.2 and California Residential Code (CRC) 5R506.2.3 Building materials with visible signs of water damage will not be installed. Wall and floor framing will not be enclosed when the framing members exceed 19% moisture content. Moisture content will be verified prior to finish material being applied. 2013 CGC 54.505.3 INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND EXHAUST (2013 CGC 54.505} Exhaust fans that are ENERGY STAR-compliant, ducted and that terminate outside the building will be provided in every bathroom. 2013 CGC 54,506.1 Unless functioning as a component of a whole-house ventilation system, fans must be controlled by a humidistat. 2013 CGC 54.506.1 ENVTRONMENTAT COMFORT (CGC 54.507) The heating and air-conditioning system will be sized, designed and have their equipment selected using the following methods: 1. Heat Loss/Heat Gain values in accordance with ANSUACCA 2 ManualJ-20M or equal; 2. Ouct systems are sized according to ANSI/ACCA 1, Manual D-2009 or equivalent; 3. Select heating and cooling equipment in accordance with ANSI/ACCA 3, Manual S-2O04 or equivalent. 2013 CGC 54.507 INSTALLER SPECTAT TNSpECTOR QUAL|FtCAT|ON (2013 CGC 5702 ) HVAC system installers will be trained and certified in theproper installation ofHVAC systems and equipment by a reco ized train ing,/ce rtificatio n rogram. 2013 CGC $702.1 vERTFTcAION (2013 CGC 5703 ) Upon request, verification of compliance with this code may include construction documents, plans, specifications, builder or insta ller ce rtificatio n, inspection re ports, o r other methods accepta ble to the Euilding Division that will show su bsta ntial co nforma nce with the 2013 Code requirements. 2013 CGC 5703.1 Responsible Designerr's Declaration Statement Contracto/s Declaration Statement I hereby certify that this project has been designed to meet the requirements of the 2013 Green Building Code. I hereby certify, as the builder or installer, under permit listed herein, that this project will be constructed to meet the requirements of the 2013 Green Buildin g Code Name Address: city/state/Zip Code City/State/zip code Signature:Signature: Date: 3 Name: Address: Date: Project Comments Date Revised Plans Submitted May 22,2013 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-72s0 X erihing Division (650) 558-7260 0 pa*s Division (650) 5s8-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-s727 0 city nttorn"y (650) 558-7204 To: From:Planning Staff Subject:Request for Environmental Review, Design Review, Condo Permit, Parking Variance and Conditional Use Permit for height for a new 25- unit condo building at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN: 029- 111-260 Staff Review: N/A Plans submitted for any commercial project must be designed, wefstamped, and signed by a licensed architect. 1997 Uniform Administrative Code $302.2 and s302.3. On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2013 California Building Code,2013 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance'1889. Note: lf the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2013 then this project must comply with the 2013 California Building Codes. Specifo on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to hftp:/Awww.enerqv.ca.qov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 4) Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. ln addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. Place the following information on the first page of the plans: "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m, Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. @ U 0 a o Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (See City of Burlingame Municipal Gode, Section 13.04.100 for details.) Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays belween 8:0O a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. Provide fully dimensioned plans. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries, the location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on-site parking. 1 0)Provide building elevations. '1 1)Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division pior to the implementation of any wo* not specifically shown on the plans. Significant delays can occur if changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by City departments or the Planning Commission. lnspections cannot be scheduled and will not be performed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans. 12)Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Gertificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Gertificate of Occupancy -,-., has been issued. /(flProvide a complete demolition plan that includes a leqend and indicates existing walls and features to remain, existing walls and features to be demolished, and new walls and features. NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition permit will not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of gay building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the proiect. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or performed. 14)When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition rmitwill not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. how the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 1 17)Obtain a survey of the property lines or door that complies with the egress requirements. Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. on the elevation drawinqs specity the tocation and the net clear opening height and width of ail required egress windows. 20,13 California Residential Code (CRC) gR3tO. lndicate on the plans that, at the time of Building permit application, plans and engineering will be submifted for shoring as required by 2013 CBC, Chapter 31 regarding the protection of adjacent property and as required by OSHA. bn the plans, indicate that the following will be addressed: a. Th.e walll of the proposed basement shall be properly shored, prior to construction activity. This excavation may need temporary shoring. A competed contractor shall be consulted for recommendations and desigr of shoring scheme for the excavation. 'fhe recommeaded design type of shoring shall be approved by the engineer of record or soils engineer prior to usage. b. All appropriate guidelines of ostlA shar be incorporated into the shoring design by the contractor. where space permits, temporary construction slopes may be- utitiiea m lieu of shoring. Maximum allowabre vertical cut for ttre subject project will be five (5) feet. Beyond tlrat horizontal benches of5 feet w.ide will be required. Temporary shoies sball not exceed 1 to I (horizontal to vertical). In some areas due to high moisture content / water table, flatter slopes will be required which will be recommelnded by the soils engineer in the field. c. rf shoring.is required, specifr on the plans the licensed design professional that has sole responsibility to design and provide adequate stroring, bracing, formworlq etc. as required for the protection of life and property during constmction oithe building. d. Shoring and bracing shall remain in prace rmtil floors, roof, and wall sheathirg have been entirely constructed. ooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window e. Shoring plans shall be n'et -stamped and signed by the engineer-of-record and submitted to the city for rcvrew pnor to construction. lf applicable, include surcharge loads from adjacent struchres that are $,ithin the zone of influence (45 degree rvedge upn theslope ,20,f lndicate onV excavation Aom the base ofthe retaining wall) and / or drivervay surcharge loads the plans that an OSH A permit will be obtai ned for the shoring* at the in the basement per CAL / OSHA require ments. See the Cal / OSHAhandbookat: hfto ha.co foubs/osh a userour de.pdf pter4, Subchapter4, Article 6, Section 1541.1. ding Permit, if required, will be obtained from the ction lndicate on th Department o ers : Cha e plans that a Gra f Public Works. 2?)Provide guardrails at alt tandings.. NorE: All landings more than 30', in height atany point are considered in calculating the aflowable lot coverage. consufine Planning Department for detairs if your project entairs landings ilore tnan iii; inheight. 23)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more rise rs. 2013 CBC s1009 24)flrovide lighting at all exterior landings. @roud," a title block on the prans tha--t incrudes the name of the owner(s) and thename, address, and phone number of the project designer. f26)bn the first page of the plans state the Access Regulations that you are using to - gain full access compliance. There are five access regulations that may apply to a multi-family residential project in California: a. The Architectural Baniers Act of 1969 (ABA) b. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 c. The Fair Housing Act (FHA) d. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 2\ e. The California Building Code (CBC), Chapters 11Aand 118. {/On tne first page of the plans clearly whether ANY public money, of any kind, will 1 or will not be used to construct this project. i28)On the first page of the plans clearly state if an application for ANY tax creditsv have orwill be submitted for tax rebates. NOTE: See the 2015 California Code of a Regulations, Title lV, $10325 (f)7 (K). ln part: "All tax credit recipient projects shall adhere to the provisions of California Building Code 1 1(B) regarding accessibility to privately owned housing made available for public use." )On your plans provide a table that includes the following: a. Occupancy group for each area of the building b. Type of construction c. Allowable area d. Proposed area e. Allowable heightf. Proposed height g. Proposed fire separation distances h. Exterior wall and opening protection i. Allowable ii. Proposedi. lndicate sprinklered or non-sprinklered 130,/Acknowledge that, when plans are submitted for building code plan check, they - will include a complete underground plumbing plan including complete details for athe location of all city-required backwater prevention devices. Provide details on the plans which show that the entire site complies with all accessibility standards. Specifically show compliance with 2013 CBC $ 1104A ^.and 1102A.3. l3Qbpecify on the plans the location of all required accessible signage. lnclude - references to separate sheets on the plans which provide details and graphically 1 illustrates the accessible signage requirements. 73fl Specrfy an accessible path of travel from all required exits to the public right of "1 way. /3y')Specify a level landing, slope, and cross slope on each side of the door at alt -/.-\ required entrances and exits. u]5$provide complete dimensioned details for accessible bathrooms €$)Specify a minimum 48" wide walkway with a 6" x 6" concrete curb or a 42" high .quardrail where the walkway is adlacent to the drive aisle i3Tprovide details on the plans which show that the building elevator complies with\.--lall accessible standards. 2013 CBC S118-407. On the first page of the plans clearly state that all paths of travel and common use spaces will be accessible. Provide details which show that the maneuvering clearances for the bathrooms in each unit are accessible CBC 1127I2.2 #1. (The space underthe lavatory can be used but the maneuvering clearance and are allowed to encroach intoihe knee and toe clearances.) Provide details which show that the water closet in each unit complies with c8C1134A.7 #1; Specify whether CBC 1134A.2 option #1 or option #2 will be used for the bathrooms. 0 a 0 a a a Specify that there at least 30" X 48" will be a clear man euvering spa drain end ofmeasured from the ce adjacent to each tub that is thetub. CBC'1 1344,5 S pecify that the front approach for the kitchen sink located at the base of a U_ shaped kitchen will provide a approach that is at least 30,,wide and is centered on the sink. Note: the sinks in Units 12,23, 33,43, and 53 will not accommodate the 30" wide front approach required for feet and knee clearance as it is located in a corner. pecify that the mail boxes i n the lobby will meet maneuvering clearance and reach range requirements Revise the plans to show that the accessible path from the automated parking SYS tem d rop-off point to the bottom landing of the accessible ram p does not cross the drive aisle. 2010 CBC s1'1094.7 #3 evise the plans to show a Code co mpliant accessible ramp at the front entry. Notes: Landing at the main entry d oor must be 60" perpendicular to the door; lntermediate landing not shown on the plans; the bottom of the "U" must be at SOggify on the plans that all dwelling unit interior doors wiil comply with CBC 1'132A5.2. Note: Many doors within the unit appear to have only i2', of strike side clearance. Provide a narrative which describes how the automated parking system will comply with accessible Code requirements. , lleast 48" in depth; (gWnere elevators a at least one elevat 153002.4 for elevator cab dimensio 150/The second exit appears to termin- plan which shows accessible path 6per 2013 CBC 1007.2. $fRevise the plans to show that the -'yhe public right of way is at least 4 B2/Privale decks and exterior balconiv 60" in the shortest dimension to al etc. re provided in structures that are four or more stories in he rg ht or shall be provided for Fire Department eme rgency access. One el evator must accommodate a stretcher that is 24" x94". See 2013 CBC ns (80' x 54") and other details. ate at the rear of the property. Provide an exit of travel from the exit to the public right of way accessible path from the rear of the buildin gto 8" in clearwidth.2013 CBC S 11134.1.1 es must be accessible and therefore must be low for a person in a wheelchair to turn around and exit the deck or balcony in th e fonrrard direction. Revise the plans to show decks i balconies th and $4.2.3. at are at least 60" in the shortest dimension. UFAS 54.34.2 53)Please Note: Architects are advised to speciry construction dimensions for accessible features that are below the maximum and above the minimum dimension required as construction tolerances generally do not apply to accessible features. See the Califomia Acce'ss Compliance Manual - )nterpretive Regulation 1 1 B-8.(59 evise the plans to show the 60" requi - side and 48" required maneuvering cle red maneuvering clearance on the pull aran@ on the push side perpendicular to t he main entry door per 2013 CBC 51 1 8.404.2.4.1. 6 3. lqace for recycling must be a part of the project design in new buildings.b. A building permit wirr not be issued unress detairs arelhown on the pr6ject plans incorporating adequate storage for collecting and loading recycled materials. 60)Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to issuing the building permit NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items I ,2,3,5,6,8,9, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19,20,21 ,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, 32, 33, 34,35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,42,43,44,45,46, 47 , 48,49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59 must be re-submifted before this project can movefonrard for Planning Commissio n action^The written response must include lear di on plans. Reviewed by: the ted i 65 -72701 on be fou nth Date: 7-17-2015 Joe number of parking spaces on site. NEW non-residential buildings Sec.42911 (c) 12003 - 2004 Montanez] as follows: 2013 CATIFORNIA GREEN BUITDING CODE RESIDENTIAT CHECKLIST New residential buildinas must be desig*ed to include the Green Building mandatary fftettsures specified in this checklist. These Green Building fiandatary messures alsa apply to odditions ar alterations af existina residentitbuildinqs where the addition ar alteratian incresses the buildings conditioned a{ea, volu$e, or size. These requirements apply only to the specific area of oddition or alteratian. Building Permit Number: Site Address: ln the column labeled "Plan Reference" specily where eoch Meosure con be found on the plons. Green Building Measure Plan Reference srTE DEVELOPMENT (2013 CGC 54.106) A plan has been developed,and will be implemented, to manage storm waterdrainage during construction. CGC 54.106.2 & $4.106.3 2013 Energy Code performance compliance documentation must be provided in 8-llz" x 11" format and must be replicated on the plans. Walls with 2 X 6 and largerframing require R-19 insulatlon 5150.0 (c) 2 Hot water pipin8 insulation 6150.0 0) 2 A ii Lighting - new mandatory re uirements for indoor rooms. 5150.0 (k) Duct insulation (R-5) required 5150.0 (m) 1 Duct leakage testing - 5% with air handler and 4% without air handler 5150.0 (m) 11 Return duct designfan power, airflow testing, and grill sizing requirements 5150.0(m)13 Water heating - 120 volt receptacle < 3 ft., Cat lll or lV vent, and gas supply line capacity of at least 200,000 Btu / hour 5150.0 (n) New third-party HERS verification for ventilation and indoor air quality 9150.0 (o) New mandatory U-factor (0.58) for fenestration and skylights 9150.0 (q) Luminaire effit iency levels 2013 California Energy Code Table 150.0 B Refrigerant charge verification for ducted package units, mini-splits, and other units 51s0.1 (c) 7 Radiant barrier now required in Climate Zone 3 5150.1(c) 2 Reduce U-factor (0.32) and SHGC (0,25) fo1!r!gh performance windows 9150.1 (c) 3 A I : :ENERGY EFFICIENOf (2013 CGC 94.2 and the 2013 California Building Energy Efficiency Standardsl Green Building Measure Plan Reference WATER EFFTCIENCY AND CONSERVATTON (2013 CGC 04.3) Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) will comply with the following: 1. The effective flush volume of all water closets will not exceed 1.28 gal / flush. 2013 CGC 54.303.1.1 2. The effective flush volume of urinals will not exceed 0.5 gal /flush.2013 CGC 54.303.1.2 The fittings for fuucets and showerheads will have all required standards listed on the plans; 1.5 GPM for faucets and 2.0 GPM for showers. 2013 CGC 54.303.1 .3 and 2013 CGC 54.303.1.4 An automatic irri8ation rystem controller for landscaping will be provided by the builder and installed at the time of final in spection. 2013 CGC 54.304.1 ENHANCED DURABITITY AND REDUCED MAINTENANCE (2013 ccc 44.406) Annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits or other openings in sole/bottom plates at exterior walls will be rodent-proofed by closing such openings with cement mortar, concrete masonry or similar method acceptable to the enforcing agen cy. 20r:i CGC 94.406.1 coNsTRUCrtoN wAsTE REDUCnON, D|SPOSAL AND RECYCL|NG (2013 CGC 94.408 A minimum of 60% ofthe non-hazardous construction and demolition waste generated atthe site will be diverted to an offsite recycle, diversion, or salvage facility per City of Burlingame Ordinance f 1704 and 2013 CGC 54.408 B U I L D I N G MAI N T EN A N CE AN D o P E RATI o N 2 013 cGc 54 ,4L 0 ) An operation and maintenance manual will be provided to the building occupant or owner.2013 ccc 54.410.1 FIREPLACES 2013 CGC $4.s031 Any gas fireplaces will be direct-ven! sealed-combustible type. 2013 CGC 94.503.1 Any wood stove or pellet stove will comply with US EPA Phase ll emission limits 2013 CGC $4.503.1 P OLTUTANT CONTROL CG c .s04l At the time of rough installation, during storage on the construction site, and until final startup of the heatin& cooling and ventilating equipment, allduct and other retated air distribution components openings will be covered with tape, plastic, sheet metals, or other methods acceptable to the enforcing agency to reduce the amount of water, dust, or debris that may enter the stem. 2013 CGC 54.504.1 Adhesives, sealants, and caulks used on the project shallfollow local and regional air pollution or air quality man ement district standards. 2013CGC 54.504.2.1 Paints and coatings will comply with VOC limits per CGC 5 4.SO4.Z.z Aerosol paints and coatings will meetthe Product-weighted MIR limits for ROC and other requirements. 2ol3 ccc 54.504.2.3 Documentation provided verifies compliance with VOC finish materials.2Ol3 CGC 54.Scp.2.4 Carpet system installed in the building interior will meet the testing and product req uirements found in the 2013 California Green Buildi Code.2013 CGC S4.504.3 Where resilient flooring is installed, at least 80% of the floor area receiving resilient flooring will comply with the California Green Buildi Code requirements. 2013 CGC 54.504.4 Hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard composite wood products used on the interior and exterior of the building will comply with the low formaldehyde emission standards. 2013 CGC 54.504.5 l I I I Project Comments To: From: Subject: Staff Review: November 1,2016 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 SuitOlng Division (650) 558-7260 X Prrk" Division (650) 558-7ss4 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) s42-3727 0 city Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Application for Condominium permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five-story, 21-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking at 5S6 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN: 029-11i-260 ,J lern ct,rJ ,11 lttt*?Ftq /'tz- ,2^ t'/ br*" ut*..,-a.d f/a4u/? fir- ('alQ*,r- .a44ct- na-cl /,yr +/rte- 4u/+- {- d^I @)4 44/d<rr1'/,* *zz k/zz( /k w f /a,/*- 4frrl / *u io -tt--z.,,t*d Reviewed by:fAe oate: 1rf7/14, Date: Proiect Comments Date To: From: 0 Engineering Division (6so) 5*72s) 0 Building Division (650) 5*7260 X Parks Division {650) W7334 0 Fire Division (650) 5*7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 cityAttomey (650) 5*72U Revised Plans Submitted March 25, 2015 Requmt for Environrnental Review, Design Review, Condo Permit, Parking Variance, ard Gonditional Use Permit for height for a nevv 25+rnil condominium building at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R€, APN: llilStll-260 1. Landscape plan rcquired. 3. No potected size tree rruy be removed r rithout permit from Parks Division Reviewed byr: BD Date: 4/30/15 Planning Staff Subject: Staff Review: 2. 1 lardscape tree rcquired fur e\rery 2000 sq fi of lot coverage as per Urban Rebrestation Ordinance Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: Aprit 20,2012 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-72s0 0 guiHing Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 \, -..r\ Frre Drvrsron (6s0) s5&7640 0 Stormwater Division (650) s42-3727 0 city Attorn.y (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Environmental Review, Design Review, Condo Permit, Parking Variance, and Conditional Use Permit for height for a new 2S-unit condominium building at 555 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN: 029-111-260 Fire apparatus access road requirements are not met in this plan submittal, the furthest point of the rear portion of the building still exceeds '150' from a fire apparatus access road. One option in lieu of this requirement, if the owner chooses, is to submit an Alternate Means of Protection application to the Fire Department explaining how the fire apparatus access road requirement will be mitigated. One alternative is to extend the two stairwells as stair enclosures/penthouses to the roof and add standpipe hose outlets at each stairwell roof opening. ln order to consider this alternative for aooroval. the Alternate Means of Protection application must be submitted, with associated application review costs paid at the time of submittal. Reviewed by: Christine Reed CP* A-Date:12-16-15 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: October 30,2015 (650) 558-72s0 0 Buitding Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7s34 X Fire Division (650) 55&7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 city Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Environmental Review, Design Review, Condo Permit, Parking Variance, and Conditional Use Permit for height for a new 25-unit condominium building at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN:029-111-260 6 7 The building shall be equipped with an approved NFPA 13 sprinkler system. Sprinkler drawings shall be submitted and approved by t he Central County Fire Department prior to installation-2. The fire sprinkler system shall be electronically monitored by an approved central receiving station.3. The applicant shall ensure proper drainage in accordance with the City of Burlingame Engineering Standards is available for the fire sprinkler main drain and inspector test on the building plumbing drawings. These items may drain directly to landscape or in the sewer with an air gap. 4. The fire protection underground water line shall be submitted and approved through the Burlingame Building Department prior to approval of aboveground fire sprinkler permit. 5. ln speaking with the water department, the existing water line was installed in 1914 and has poor water pressure and delivery. lt is recommended that the designer consult a fire protection engineer prior to proceeding to investigate the need and installation of a fire pump. Current water pressures most definitely will not be adequate supply 100PSl at standpipe outlets to the roof or provide enough pressure support a fire sprinkler system. The furthest point of the building from fire department access exceeds more than 150 feet in distance. Provide a fire apparatus access roa d within 150' of the furthest point of the building. Access road shall be at least 20' wide and 13'6" high clear. CFC 503. Provide all-weather surface pedestrian walkway on south side of building for emergency use. itf olto 0 Engineering Division 556 El Camino Real Planning Revier.r Comments 1U3115 Pg. 2 B. The building shall be equipped with an approved Class I NFPA 14 Standpipe system. The standpipe system shall be submitted and approved by the central county Fire Department prior to installation. The system shall be approved, installed and operable prior to construction of the foutth story of the structure. 9. A manual and automatic fire alarm system shall be installed throughout the building. Vehicle storage area shall have at least one exit or access to one exit. CBC t021.2. *-aeA- rrlzlo 11. Vehicle automatic rack storage shall have a manually activated emergency shutdown switch for use by emergenry personnel. Location and identiflcation of switch to be approved bythe Fire Department. CFC3209.4 ',L2) Elevator car shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance stretcher of 24" x 84". @ Elevator machine room(s) shall be constructed with the minimum fire rating as ih6 elevator hoistway, including all openings. Fire sprinkler coverage shall not be provided in room. Do not install elevator shunt trip. Burlingame Municipal Code 77.04.100. Project Comments Revised Plans Submitted March 25,2015 0 Engineering Division 0 Buitding Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 XFire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 city Rttorney (650) 558-7204 From:Planning Staff Subject:Request for Environmental Review, Design Review, Condo Permit, Parking Variance, and Conditional Use Permit for height for a new 25-unit condominium building at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN: 029-111-260 Staff Review: All comments from November 1,2013 still apply as re-submitted set received March 25,2015. Date: 7 z\.tr Date: To: (650) 558-7230 Reviewed by, ZrTV%- Project Comments Date lo: From Sublect: Staff Review: 0 Engineering Division {654) 558-7230 0 Building Division {654) 55*7260 0 Parks Dirision @54) 55&7334 Revised Plans Submitbd October 30, 2013 Planning Stafi Request for Environmental Review, Design Review, Condo Permit, Parking Variance, and Conditional Use Permit for height for a new 25+nit condominium building at 556 El Gamino Real, zoned R-3, APN: 029-1{1-260 1. The buildirE shall be equipped with ah approved NFPA 13 Sprinkler System throughout. Sprinkler drawings shall be subrnitted and approved by the Central County Fire Department p or to installation. The system shall be electronically monitored by an sppoved central receMng station. 2. The applicant 6hall ensure prcper drainage in accordance with the City o{ Burlingame Engineering Standards is available for the fire sprinkler main drain and inspeclor lest on the building plumbing drawings. 3. The buildlng shall be equipped with an approved Class I NFPA 14 Standpipe System. The standpipe system 6hall be submited and approved by the Central County Fire Department prior to insiallation. The system shall be installed and operablE prior to construction of the four story of lhe structurc, 4. The fire protection underground shall be submitted and approved by the Burlingame Building Department prior to irEtallation. 5. The fire sprinkler sysbm and lirE standpipe system will not be approvcd by the C€nfal County Fire D€partment until the firc protection underground has bean submitted and approved by the Bu ingame Building Departnent,6. ln speaking with the water departnont th€ existing nater line was installed in 1914 and has poor water pressurc and delivery. lt is recommended that the designer consult a fire proteclion engineer prior to proceeding to investigate the need and installation of a fire pump, CurIent water pressures mcst definitely will not be adequate supply 'i00PSI at standpipe outlets to the roof or provide enough prassur? to support a firc spdnkler slEtem. 7, A fre alarm system shall be installed throughout the building complying with the Fire Code. 8. The further point of ihe buiiding trom fire ciepartrnert access exceeds more than 1SO iset in distance. Se€ S9O2, UFC Daiet I fr+>-/3 I I I L ElFire Dirieion t650) 55E-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 city Auomey (a5q 55il.72w i I I I I : I ! Reviewed ot, **F Sd;/ Project Comments To: From: Subject: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 auiUing Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 city Rttorney (650) 558-7204 Revised Plans Submifted March 25,20'15 Planning Staff Request for Environmental Review, Design Review, Condo Permit, Parking Variance, and Conditional Use Permit for height for a new 25-uniicondominium building at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3' APN:029-111-260 Project proponent previously submitted a complFled stormwater checklist and ,"rifi"d ifr" upplidbility of i.3 requirements (s). Proponent submitted and proposed several site design measures to comply with the c.3 requirements. Previous . . stormwater comments remain in effect and shall be addressed during the building permit issuance process. No additional comments. Please contact Kiley Kinnon, NPDES Stormwater coordinator, for assistance at (650) 342-3727. Reviewed by: f fd oat, 6y/9/6 Date: Staff Review: DE,PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMTJNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660. MS-l0D OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5528 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 7II www.dot.ca.gov March 9,2017 scH # 20t702201s GTS # 04-SM-2017-00079 sM- 82 - 13.759 Mr. Kevin Gardiner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 556 El Camino Real Project- Mitigated Negative Declaration Thank you for including the Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the 556 El Camino Real Project. In tandem with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), the Caltrans mission signals a modemization of our approach to evaluate and mitigate impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN). Caltrans' Sffategic Management Plan 201 5-2020 aims to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by tripling bicycle and doubling both pedestrian and transit travel by 2020. While the City did not provide the project application for this project, since applications are the only form ofearly notification for MNDs, they are particularly beneficial in helping us identify critical project issues early in the CEQA process. This saves time and effort for both the applicant and agencies during project review. Our comments are based on the February 2017 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Project Und*standing The applicant proposes to demolish an existing l4-unit apartment complex and associated improvements to construct a five-story, 2l-unit condominium building. The multi-family residential building would include a below-grade parking garage for 35 vehicles, two parking spaces above ground for delivery/guest vehicles, lobby, and five stories of condominium units above the parkin g garage. The project proposes approximately ten three-bedroom units; eight two-bedroom units; and three one-bedroom units for a total of2l condominium units. The proposed units range in size from 630 to 1,955 square feet. ffiECilf YrD ''Proride a safe. sustainable, integruted and efrcient tansporlation srstem to enhance Caryotnta's econoq' ard liwbiln)^ Senous Drought. tulAR - I 20li CITY OF BUHLINGAME CDD-PIANNING DIV Dear Mr. Gardiner: Mr. Gardiner, City of Burlingame March 9, 2017 Page 2 The overall proposed height is 55 feet to the top ofthe roof. The proposed project would be set back approximately 27 feet from the westem property line on State Route (sR) 82 (El camino Real). The proposed building would also be set back approximately l0 feet from the adjacent residential property lines to the north and south and approximately 21 feet from the eastern property line. Building Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps, stairs, and patios will extend into the proposed setbacks. The project site will be accessed via two driveways on SR g2. Lead Agency As the Lead Agency, the city of Burlingame is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fuily discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. This includes uny r"qui.ed improvements to the STN or reductions in VMT. Any required improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Building Permit. We strongly recommend the City of Burlingame pursui early coordination with caltrans to address any potential site access issuJs. Time and monev can be saved ifthis coordination occurs prior to submittal ofan Encroachment permit applicaiion. see the end ofthis letter for more information on the Encroachment permit process. Traffic Operations Please analyze and address the potential left-tum conflicts from southbound SR g2 traffic onto the project site, and recommend mitigation where appropriate. If there is no reasonable mitigation at this time, the project sponsor shall provide fair share fees for future traffic mitigation in the project vicinity. Vehicle Trip Reduction fym. laltransl smart Mobirity 2010: A Cau to Actionfor the New Decade, the project site isidentified as Place Type 2: ctose-in Compact communities (corridors; where locationefficiency factors, such as community design, are moderate and regional accessibility is strong. The Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG) has identifiedthe project location as'a---'planned-Priority Development Area, which emphasizes mixed-use and iransit and pedestrian connectivity. Given the project's place type in a designated pDA and the intensification ofuse, it should includea robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce autotrips, VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Such measures will be criticalln order to facilitate efficient transportation access to and from the site and reduce transportation impacts associatedwith the project. The measures listed below will promote smart moLitity and reduce regionalVMT- o Subsidize transit passes on an ongoing basis for BART connecting transit service, such as SamTrans' EI Camino Real (ECR) Service and Bus Route 397; Pto|ide a yrle, sustoinable. integrated ard ejlictent nansponqtion $ste,r' to enhance Coltfomia $ eohon_r,dnd tirabiti^. Mr. Gardiner, City of Burlingame March 9, 2017 Page 3 e Lower parking ratios; o Project design to encourage walking, bicycling and convenient transit access;o Designated bicycle parking; r Parking cash out/parking pricing; o Charging stations and designated parking spaces for electric vehiclesr Participation/Formation in/of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) in padnership with other developments in the area; and. Agetressive trip reduction targets with Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement. For additional rDM options, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration's Integrating Demand Management into the Tronsportation Planning process: A Desk Reference (cliapter a;. The reference is available online at: http://www.ops.Ihwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/ftrwahop 12035.pdf. Cuhural Resources Section 4.4 cultural Resources (pages 40-44) ofthe Initial Study does not mention the Howard- Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row, which is listed on the National Register of Historic places and is a State-owned historical resource within the project area. The ciry;f Burlingame must include a discussion ofthe tree row, which should present an analysis ofihe prolect'i potential to impact the tree row as a whole, such as_changes to the setting oithe tree ro*, u. *"il as impacts to anyofthe individual trees, such as the removal ofone non-historic contributor to the tree row. A^s a Caltrans encroachment permit is required, in compliance with public Resource code (pRC) 5024' the city of Burlingame will need to conduct cultural resource technical studies to specifically address the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row and the removal ofone tree that is a non-historic contributor. These studies must be prepared in accordance with the caltrans- :HP9 P.\c 5024 Mou (http://www.dot.c a.govrser/ior2/5024mou_l5.pdf) and the caltrans Standard Environmental Reference.(sER) chapter 2 (http://www.dot. ci.gov/ser/vorl/vo12.htm). All cultural resource technical studies for workwithin caltrans righrof-riay @ow) musi iereviewed and approved by the cartrans District 4 office of Cultuiat n"sou.ce stuoi"s loCnsy. Section 4.5.2.1 Native American Resources cites that Native American consultation as not been conducted as no tribes have requested notice under Assembly Bill (AB) 52. However, pursuant to caltrans' responsibilities per pRC 5024, we require that the city of Burlingrr" .onir.iNative American consultation by requesting a Sacred Lands file siarch from Ihe NativeAmerican Heritage commission (N|,HC) and reaching out to the list of contacts provided by theNAHC as tribes. groups, and individuals who are interested in the project areu uri -uy t uuJknowledge ofrribal cultural Resources, Traditional culturar propi*ies, or othe. sacred sites. An encroachment permit will not be issued until caltrans is fully satisfied that the City ofBurlingame is in compliance with cEeA and pRC 5024. we highry recommend earl| Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated aid efrcient tansportation $ sten to uhance Calilomia s econont a lirabitih. Tran sportati o n M o n agement Plan where vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic may be impacted during the construction of the proposed project requiring traffic restrictions and detours, a caltrans-approved rransportation Management Plan (TMP) is required. Pedestrian and bicycle access through the construction zone must be maintained at all times and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. See caltrans' Temporary Pedestridn Focilities Handbook for maintaining pedestrian access and meeting ADA requirements during construction at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/safety/Temporary_pedestrian_Facilities_Handbook.pdf See also caltrans' Traffic operations policy Directive l1-01 "Accommodating Bicyclists in Temporary Traffi c Control Zones" at: w,\f,$r'.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/policy/l l -0 i.pdf. All curb ramps and pedestrian facilities located within the limits ofthe project are required to be brought up to current ADA standards as part of this project. The TMp muit also comply with the requirements of conesponding jurisdictions. For further TMp assistance, please contaci the caltrans District 4 office of rraffic Management operations at (5l o) 2s6-457g. Further traffic management information is available at the following website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trafmgmt/tmp_lcs/index.htm. Mr. Gardiner, City of Burlingame March 9, 201 7 Page 4 coordination before the submittal ofan encroachment permit application, and we are available for a meeting to further discuss Caltrans' requirements. Encroachmenl Permit David Salladay, District Office Chief Office of Permits, MS 5E Califomia Department of Transportation, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA94623-0660 See the following website for more information: Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the state Row requires an Encroachment Permit that is issued by Caltrans. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment p"rriit proc"rr. To apply, a completed Encroachment Permit application, the adopted environmental d-ocument, .nd hri rslsets of plans clearly indicating state Row must be submitted to the address below. Traffic- related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit process. Ptot,ide a sale, sustainable. integloted and efrcient tronsFarto,ion syste,l to enhu.e Caltlonia s econorr\.@td li|abilin, . Mr. Gardiner, City of Burlingame March9,2017 Page 5 http ://www.dot. ca. gov/traffi cops/ep/index.html Thank you again for iacluding Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jamette Ramirez at 510-286-5535 or jannette,ramirez@dot. ca. gov. Sincerely, PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovemmental Review State Clearingbouse D '' Ptolide a safe, tustainable, integt ated and ficient tmasportation slstem to enhance Califomia's econon! and livabilit\," c: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE 556 EL CAMINO REAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY A. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DATED MARCH 9, 2017 COMMENT A – 1: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the 556 El Camino Real Project. In tandem with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), the Caltrans mission signals a modernization of our approach to evaluate and mitigate impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN). Caltrans’ Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020 aims to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by tripling bicycle and doubling both pedestrian and transit travel by 2020. While the City did not provide the project application for this project, since applications are the only form of early notification for MNDs, they are particularly beneficial in helping us identify critical project issues early in the CEQA process. This saves time and effort for both the applicant and agencies during project review. Our comments are based on the February 2017 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Project Understanding The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 14-unit apartment complex and associated improvements to construct a five-story, 21-unit condominium building. The multi-family residential building would include a below-grade parking garage for 35 vehicles, two parking spaces above ground for delivery/guest vehicles, lobby, and five stories of condominium units above the parking garage. The project proposes approximately ten three-bedroom units; eight two-bedroom units; and three one-bedroom units for a total of 21 condominium units. The proposed units range in size from 630 to 1,955 square feet. The overall proposed height is 55 feet to the top of the roof. The proposed project would be set back approximately 27 feet from the western property line on State Route (SR) 82 (El Camino Real). The proposed building would also be set back approximately 10 feet from the adjacent residential property lines to the north and south and approximately 21 feet from the eastern property line. Building Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps, stairs, and patios will extend into the proposed setbacks. The project site will be accessed via two driveways on SR 82. Lead Agency As the Lead Agency, the City of Burlingame is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. This includes any required improvements to the STN or reductions in VMT. Any required improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Building Permit. We strongly recommend the City of Burlingame pursue early coordination with Caltrans to address any potential site access issues. Time and money can be saved if this coordinatio n occurs prior to submittal of an Encroachment Permit application. See the end of this letter for more information on the Encroachment Permit process. RESPONSE A – 1: The applicant has submitted an application to Caltrans for an Encroachment Permit for the proposed replacement of existing driveways on El Camino Real (SR 82) to accommodate the project. No improvements to the State Transportation Network are proposed or required for the project. COMMENT A – 2: Traffic Operations Please analyze and address the potential left-turn conflicts from southbound SR 82 traffic onto the project site, and recommend mitigation where appropriate. If there is no reasonable mitigation at this time, the project sponsor shall provide fair share fees for future traffic mitigation in the project vicinity. RESPONSE A – 2: Based on a traffic queuing analysis completed to analyze the project design for potential queues extending on to SR 82, the proposed development would result in seven total inbound trips during the PM peak hour when residents are assumed to be returning home. The project would increase development on the site by seven units and, therefore, would result in up to three additional vehicles making left-turns into the site during the PM peak hour. The slight increase of three additional vehicles making left-turns into the project site would not have a significant effect on traffic operations on SR 82. COMMENT A – 3: Vehicle Trip Reduction From Caltrans’ Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade, the project site is identified as Place Type 2: Close-in Compact Communities (Corridors) where location efficiency factors, such as community design, are moderate and regional accessibility is strong. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has identified the project location as a planned Priority Development Area, which emphasizes mixed-use and transit and pedestrian connectivity. Given the project’s place type in a designated PDA and the intensification of use, it should include a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce auto trips, VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Such measures will be critical in order to facilitate efficient transportation access to and from the site and reduce transportation impacts associated with the project. The measures listed below will promote smart mobility and reduce regional VMT.  Subsidize transit passes on an ongoing basis for BART connecting transit service, such as SamTrans’ El Camino Real (ECR) Service and Bus Route 397;  Lower parking ratios;  Project design to encourage walking, bicycling and convenient transit access;  Designated bicycle parking;  Parking cash out/parking pricing;  Charging stations and designated parking spaces for electric vehicles  Participation/Formation in/of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) in partnership with other developments in the area; and  Aggressive trip reduction targets with Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement. For additional TDM options, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (Chapter 8). The reference is available online at: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf. RESPONSE A – 3: The project is located within the Downtown Specific Plan area which provides reduced parking ratios that the project is consistent with. The project site is also located less than three-quarters of a mile from the Burlingame Caltrain Station which is easily accessible from the site along pedestrian-friendly streets with crosswalks at major intersections. Bike parking would also be provided in the basement garage of the building. The project, therefore, incorporates applicable TDM measures based on its size and type. COMMENT A – 4: Cultural Resources Section 4.4 Cultural Resources (pages 40-44) of the Initial Study does not mention the Howard- Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a State-owned historical resource within the project area. The City of Burlingame must include a discussion of the tree row, which should present an analysis of th e project’s potential to impact the tree row as a whole, such as changes to the setting of the tree row, as well as impacts to any of the individual trees, such as the removal of one non-historic contributor to the tree row. As a Caltrans encroachment permit is required, in compl iance with Public Resource Code (PRC) 5024, the City of Burlingame will need to conduct cultural resource technical studies to specifically address the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row and the removal of one tree that is a non-historic contributor. These studies must be prepared in accordance with the Caltrans-SHPO PRC 5024 MOU (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/5024mou_15.pdf) and the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Chapter 2 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/vol2.htm). All cultural resource technical studies for work within Caltrans right-of-way (ROW) must be reviewed and approved by the Caltrans District 4 Office of Cultural Resource Studies (OCRS). Section 4.5.2.1 Native American Resources cites that Native American consultation as not been conducted as no tribes have requested notice under Assembly Bill (AB) 52. However, pursuant to Caltrans’ responsibilities per PRC 5024, we require that the City of Burlingame conduct Native American consultation by requesting a Sacred Lands file search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and reaching out to the list of contacts provided by the NAHC as tribes, groups, and individuals who are interested in the project area and may have knowledge of Tribal Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Properties, or other sacred sites. An encroachment permit will not be issued until Caltrans is fully satisfied that the City of Burlingame is in compliance with CEQA and PRC 5024. We highly recommend early coordination before the submittal of an encroachment permit application, and we are available for a meeting to further discuss Caltrans’ requirements. RESPONSE A – 4: A Historical Resources Compliance Report (HRCR) and Archaeological Literature Search and Native American Consultation were completed for the Final Revised Initial Study that has been provided for your review. The Final Revised Initial Study discusses the historic Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows and describes why the project’s effects on this historic resource will be less than significant. Holman Associates, on behalf of the City of Burlingame, conducted Native American consultation by requesting a Sacred Lands file search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and reaching out to the list of contacts provided by the NAHC as tribes, groups, and individuals who are interested in the project area and may have knowledge of Tribal Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Properties, or other sacred sites. No Tribal Cultural Resources were identified on the project site; however, cultural resource sensitivity training by a qualified archaeologist for construction crews on the project site was added to the mitigation measures for the project, as suggested by a tribal contact consulted for the project. The HRCR and accompanying Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Action Plan were completed for the project to ensure and document that no impacts to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows would result from the project. COMMENT A – 5: Transportation Management Plan Where vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic may be impacted during the construction of the proposed project requiring traffic restrictions and detours, a Caltrans-approved Transportation Management Plan (TMP) is required. Pedestrian and bicycle access through the construction zone must be maintained at all times and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. See Caltrans’ Temporary Pedestrian Facilities Handbook for maintaining pedestrian access and meeting ADA requirements during construction at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/safety/Temporary_Pedestrian_Facilities_Handbook.pdf See also Caltrans’ Traffic Operations Policy Directive 11-01 “Accommodating Bicyclists in Temporary Traffic Control Zones” at: www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/policy/11 -01.pdf. All curb ramps and pedestrian facilities located within the limits of the project are required to be brought up to current ADA standards as part of this project. The TMP must also comply with the requirements of corresponding jurisdictions. For further TMP assistance, please contact the Caltrans District 4 Office of Traffic Management Operations at (510) 286-4579. Further traffic management information is available at the following website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trafmgmt/tmp_lcs/index.htm. RESPONSE A – 5: The proposed project would reconstruct sidewalks along the project frontage to comply with ADA standards. As noted above, Caltrans would require a Transportation Management Plan for work along the project frontage on El Camino Real. The TMP would be prepared as part of the encroachment permit process, described below, to address temporary construction work on the project frontage. No significant environmental impacts would result from temporary construction work on the El Camino Real frontage. COMMENT A – 6: Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an Encroachment Permit that is issued by Caltrans. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit process. To apply, a completed Encroachment Permit application, the adopted environmental document, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to the address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit process. David Salladay, District Office Chief Office of Permits, MS 5E California Department of Transportation, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 See the following website for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/ep/index.html RESPONSE A – 6: The proposed project has submitted an encroachment permit application to Caltrans. No permanent traffic improvements to the State Transportation Network are required or proposed by the project. Any temporary traffic control measures required during project construction would be outlined in the Transportation Management Plan. Revised Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project May 2018 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Air Quality Impact AQ-1: The project would generate dust during construction activities that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. MM AQ-1.1: During any construction period which causes ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less than significant level. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. The applicant and contractors shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation measures during all phases of construction. All measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans and shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of permits. Director of Community Development 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Impact AQ-2: The project would use equipment that generates toxic exhaust emissions. MM AQ-2.1: The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average 96 percent reduction in PM2.5 exhaust emissions. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following: All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. The use of equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would meet this requirement. Other measures may be the use of added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant (<10.0 in one million increased cancer risk). The project applicant and contractors shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation measures during all phases of construction. All measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans and shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of demolition and grading permits. Director of Community Development Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: The project may disturb nesting birds on and adjacent to the site during construction. MM BIO-1.1: In order to protect nesting birds on and adjacent to the project site the following measures will be implemented: The project applicant and contractors shall be responsible for implementing the All measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and Director of Community Development 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation  Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be completed prior to tree removal if removal or construction is proposed to commence during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) in order to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before construction begins. During this survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in and within 250 feet of the project boundary.  If an active nest is found in an area that would be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall designate an adequate buffer zone (~250 feet) to be established around the nest, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The buffer would ensure that nests shall not be disturbed until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts.  The applicant shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to the issuance of a grading permit or demolition permit. mitigation measures prior to project construction. project plans and shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of demolition and grading permits. 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Impact BIO-2: The project may impact protected trees on and/or adjacent to the site.  Tree protection zones shall be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for the protection zones shall be a six-foot tall metal chain link type supported by two-inch metal poles pounded into the ground by no less than two feet. The support poles shall be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. The location for the protection fencing shall be as close to the dripline as possible but still allow room for construction to safely continue. Signs shall be placed on fencing signifying “Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out”. No materials or equipment shall be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the drip line of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, shall be mulched with four to six inches of chipper chips.  Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason shall be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. Trenches shall be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time shall also be covered with The project applicant and contractors shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation measures during all phases of construction. All measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans and shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of permits. Director of Community Development 6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation layers of burlap or straw wattle and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect exposed roots below.  Normal irrigation shall be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months. Some irrigation may be required during the winter months depending on the seasonal rainfall. During the summer months the trees on this site shall receive heavy flood type irrigation twice a month. During the fall and winter, once a month should suffice. Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources, unique paleontological resources/sites, unique geologic features, or MM CUL-1.1: Unique Paleontological and/or Geologic Features and Reporting. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project site during any phase of construction, all ground disturbing activities within 25 feet shall cease and the City Planning Manager notified immediately. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find and prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The identified mitigation measures shall be implemented. Work may proceed on other The project applicant and contractors shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation measures during all phases of construction. All measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans and shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of Director of Community Development 7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation human remains, if present on-site. parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. Upon completion of the paleontological assessment, a report shall be submitted to the City and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. MM CUL-1.2: Cultural Sensitivity Training. Prior to any ground-disturbing construction activity on the site, cultural resource sensitivity training for construction personnel on the project shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist. The training shall outline potential indicators of archaeological materials and artifacts to be aware of during grading and excavation activity on the site. MM CUL-1.3: Undiscovered Archaeological Resources. If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the Community tree removal and grading permits. 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Development Director shall be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The Community Development Director shall consult with the archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeological documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC. MM CUL-1.4: Human Remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the Community Development Director and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall 9 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground- disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. MM CUL-1.5: Report of Archaeological Resources. If archaeological resources are identified, a final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Manager prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources found and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. 10 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation MM CUL – 1.6: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Action Plan. The project shall implement measures contained in the final SOIS and ESA Action Plan as required by Caltrans through the encroachment permit process. The proposed measures shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Identify the environmentally sensitive area and/or tree protection zone for tree CT 195 and CT 196 on the work plan for review and approval by Caltrans District 4 Professionally Qualified Staff (PQS). o Project Landscape Architect/ Arborist shall identify appropriate location for planting of a new contributing elm tree to replace CT 197, subject to consultation with Caltrans PQS. o Any subsequent changes to the project shall be reviewed by the Project Landscape Architect/ Arborist for consistency with the SOIS and ESA Action Plan and provided to other responsible parties (Caltrans PQS and Community Development Director). o Project Landscape Architect/Arborist shall inform Caltrans PQS and the Community Development Director upon completion of the project per the SOIS and ESA Action Plan. 11 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation o Project Landscape Architect/Arborist shall document planting of the new elm and provide to Caltrans PQS and the Community Development Director. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1: The project may be subject to high groundwater levels over the life of the proposed structure. MM GEO-1.1: For development under the Downtown Specific Plan, projects with subgrade structures require that the project sponsor prepare a Geotechnical Study identifying the depth to the seasonal high water table at the project site. No permanent groundwater dewatering would be allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Instead, all residential uses must be elevated to above the seasonal high water table and all areas for non-residential uses shall be flood-proofed and anchored, in accordance with floodplain development requirements, to the design depth as recommended by geotechnical engineer. Final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works prior to receiving a building permit. The project applicant and contractors shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation measures during all phases of construction. Final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works prior to receiving a building permit. Department of Public Works 12 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Hydrology Potential Groundwater Impact Refer to MM GEO-1.1 Same as above Same as above Same as above Noise Impact NV-1: The project would construct a multi-story residential building adjacent to noise sensitive, residential uses which could result in temporary disturbances during construction. MM NV-1.1: The project applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor:  Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: o Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; o Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; o Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; o Minimize backing movements of equipment;  Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible;  Impact equipment (e.g., jackhammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or The project applicant and contractors shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation measures during all phases of construction. All measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans and shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of permits. Director of Community Development 13 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible;  Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; and  Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Community Development Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible.  The project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem.  The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule 14 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Source: 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Revised Initial Study. June 2017. RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 21-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 556 EL CAMINO REAL WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration ND- 597-P, is hereby approved. Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 29th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: Secretary RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 21-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 556 EL CAMINO REAL, ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN THE R-3 ZONE RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, an application has been made for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Tentative Condominium Map for construction of a new 21-unit condominium at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, Roman Knop, 261 17th Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94121 property owner, APN: 029-111-260; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 29, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THIS PLANNING COMMISSION THAT: Section 1. Said Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Tentative Condominium Map are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 29th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 556 El Camino Real Effective June 8, 2018 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 19, 2018, sheets A-0.0 through A-4.2 and L-1; and Boundary and Topographic Survey dated May 15, 2013; 2. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 3. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $19,379.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 4. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $19,379.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 5. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required from the Parks Division for removal of any tree on the property with a circumference of 48 inches or larger when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade; 6. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application; 7. that the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining from Caltrans a tree removal permit for the proposed removal of the Eucalyptus tree on El Camino Real that is within the Caltrans right-of- way, and that the replacement tree shall be an Elm street tree (Ulmus accolade) consistent with the Caltrans replacement program specifications for trees along this corridor; 8. that tree protection measures shall be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project as specified in the Tree Protection Plan in Kielty Arborists Services LLC tree report dated in the June 27, 2016; 9. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 156.00' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (100.91’) for a maximum height of 55’-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage (basement) floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 75.5’; first (ground) floor finished floor shall be elevation 104.5’; top of fifth floor roof shall be elevation 152.00’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 10. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 11. that the conditions of the Building Division memos dated October 16, 2015 and July 17, 2015; the Parks Division memos dated November 7, 2016 and April 30, 2015; the Engineering Division EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 556 El Camino Real Effective June 8, 2018 memo dated May 8, 2015; the Fire Division memos dated December 16, 2015, November 3, 2015, and November 1, 2013; and the Stormwater Division memo dated April 19, 2015 shall be met; 12. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 13. that the ‘service vehicle stall’ shall be marked on the service parking space and designated on the final map and plans, this stall shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service vehicle stall shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 14. that the site driveway should include signage and/or striping to instruct inbound vehicles where to wait so as not to block vehicles exiting the transfer compartment; 15. that clear signage should be provided at the top of the driveway ramp advising of the applicable size parking system vehicle size limits and whether visitors are permitted to park in the parking system; 16. that the automated parking entrance shall include means to communicate with drivers the expected wait time, and any malfunction of the parking system; 17. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service vehicle stall shall be reserved for service vehicles or guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents, and that parking and/or stopping is not permitted on El Camino Real; 18. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 19. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 20. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 21. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 22. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 23. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 556 El Camino Real Effective June 8, 2018 system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 24. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 25. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 26. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right -of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 27. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 28. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 29. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 30. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 31. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 32. that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 33. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 34. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 35. that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 556 El Camino Real Effective June 8, 2018 to be collected and pumped to the street as determined by the Public Works Department; 36. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 37. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 38. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 39. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 40. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; and 41. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 42. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 43. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 44. 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; 45. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study 46. During any construction period which causes ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less than significant level. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 556 El Camino Real Effective June 8, 2018  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 47. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average 96 percent reduction in PM2.5 exhaust emissions. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:  All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. The use of equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would meet this requirement. Other measures may be the use of added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant (<10.0 in one million increased cancer risk). 48. In order to protect nesting birds on and adjacent to the project site the following measures will be implemented:  Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be completed prior to tree removal if removal or construction is proposed to commence during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) in order to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before construction begins. During this survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in and within 250 feet of the project boundary. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 556 El Camino Real Effective June 8, 2018  If an active nest is found in an area that would be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall designate an adequate buffer zone (~250 feet) to be established around the nest, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The buffer would ensure that nests shall not be disturbed until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts.  The applicant shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to the issuance of a grading permit or demolition permit. 49. In order to protect the retained trees on and/or adjacent to the site, the following measures should be implemented:  Tree protection zones shall be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for the protection zones shall be a six-foot tall metal chain link type supported by two-inch metal poles pounded into the ground by no less than two feet. The support poles shall be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. The location for the protection fencing shall be as close to the dripline as possible but still allow room for construction to safely continue. Signs shall be placed on fencing signifying “Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out”. No materials or equipment shall be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the drip line of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, shall be mulched with four to six inches of chipper chips.  Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason shall be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. Trenches shall be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time shall also be covered with layers of burlap or straw wattle and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect exposed roots below.  Normal irrigation shall be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months. Some irrigation may be required during the winter months depending on the seasonal rainfall. During the summer months the trees on this site shall receive heavy flood type irrigation twice a month. During the fall and winter, once a month should suffice. Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption. 50. Unique Paleontological and/or Geologic Features and Reporting. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project site during any phase of construction, all ground disturbing activities within 25 feet shall cease and the Community Development Director notified immediately. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find and prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The identified EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 556 El Camino Real Effective June 8, 2018 mitigation measures shall be implemented. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. Upon completion of the paleontological assessment, a report shall be submitted to the City and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. 51. Cultural Sensitivity Training. Prior to any ground-disturbing construction activity on the site, cultural resource sensitivity training for construction personnel on the project shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist. The training shall outline potential indicators of archaeological materials and artifacts to be aware of during grading and excavation activity on the site. 52. Undiscovered Archaeological Resources. If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the Community Development Director shall be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The Community Development Director shall consult with the archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than- significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeological documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC. 53. Human Remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the Community Development Director and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingam e, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. 54. Report of Archaeological Resources. If archaeological resources are identified, a final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Manager prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources found and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Condominium Map 556 El Camino Real Effective June 8, 2018 55. For development under the Downtown Specific Plan, projects with subgrade structures require that the project sponsor prepare a Geotechnical Study identifying the depth to the seasonal high water table at the project site. No permanent groundwater dewatering would be allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Instead, all residential uses must be elevated to above the seasonal high water table and all areas for non-residential uses shall be floodproofed and anchored, in accordance with floodplain development requirements, to the design depth as recommended by a geotechnical engineer. Final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works prior to receiving a building permit. 56. The Project applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor:  Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: - Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; - Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; - Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; - Minimize backing movements of equipment;  Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible;  Impact equipment (e.g., jackhammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible;  Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; and  Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Community Development Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible.  The project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem.  The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. 556 El Camino Real February June 2017 May 2018 2 Revised Initial Study 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project Prepared by: In Consultation with: nd 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project i 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations……………………………………………………...………………………………………iii Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1 Section 2.0 Project Information ....................................................................................................... 32 Section 3.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 87 Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Impact Discussion ..................................................... 1514 4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 1716 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ................................................................................ 2422 4.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 2624 4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 3533 4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 4240 4.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 5145 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 5549 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 6054 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 6660 4.10 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 7367 4.11 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 7670 4.12 Noise and Vibration .......................................................................................................... 7771 4.13 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 8377 4.14 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 8579 4.15 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 8983 4.16 Transportation/Traffic....................................................................................................... 9185 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 9589 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................. 10195 Section 5.0 References ............................................................................................................... 10599 Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ............................................................................... 107101 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project ii 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figures Figure 2.2-1 Regional Map ............................................................................................................ 54 Figure 2.2-2 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................. 65 Figure 2.2-3 Aerial Map ................................................................................................................ 76 Figure 3.1-1 Proposed Site Plan (REVISED) .............................................................................. 109 Figure 3.1-2 Proposed Garage Level (REVISED) ..................................................................... 1110 Figure 3.1-3 Proposed Building Cross Section (REVISED) ..................................................... 1211 Figure 3.1-4 Proposed Third Floor Plan .................................................................................... 1312 Figure 3.1-5 El Camino Real Elevation (REVISED) ................................................................ 1413 Figure 4.5-1 Tree Location Map (REVISED) ............................................................................... 45 Tables Table 4.3-1 Thresholds of Significance Used in Air Quality Analyses ................................... 2826 Table 4.3-2 Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors and GHG Screening Level Size ............... 3028 Table 4.3-3 Construction Source Health Risks......................................................................... 3230 Table 4.9-1 Pervious and Impervious Surfaces On-Site ........................................................... 7165 Table 4.18-1 Cumulative Construction Source Health Risks ................................................... 10296 Photos Photos 1&2 ....................................................................................................................................... 1817 Photos 3&4 ....................................................................................................................................... 1918 Appendices Appendix A Shade and Shadow Analysis Appendix B Construction Health Risk Assessment Appendix C Tree Survey Appendix D Geotechnical Investigation (REVISED) Appendix E Traffic Queuing Analyses (REVISED) Appendix F Cultural Resources Reports 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project iii 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CRHR California Register of Historical Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG Greenhouse Gases IS Initial Study MND Mitigated Negative Declaration NOD Notice of Determination NRHP National Register of Historic Places RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminants USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 1 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study (IS) of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City of Burlingame. The purpose of this Initial Study is to provide objective information regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project to the decision makers who will be reviewing and considering the project. This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project. The City of Burlingame is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Initial Study to address the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project. All documents referenced in this Initial Study are available for public review in the Community Development Department at City of Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, during normal business hours. 1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD The City of Burlingame published an Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning offor a 30- day public review and comment period from February 3, 2017 to March 6, 2017. During this period, the Initial Study will was be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Initial Study during the 30-day public review period should bewere sent submitted to the City of Burlingame.: Of the four comment letters submitted during the review period, only one letter from Caltrans required inclusion of additional information in the Initial Study regarding historic resources. The other comment letters will be addressed in the staff report for the project. Subsequent to the review period, the City received an additional comment letter identifying a potential historic resource in the Town of Hillsborough located across El Camino Real from the project site. Kevin Gardiner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 kgardiner@burlingame.org 1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT Following the conclusion of the public review period, Tthe City of Burlingame will consider the adoption of the 2nd rRevised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project at a regularly scheduled meeting. The City of Burlingame shall consider the 2nd rRevised Initial Study/MND together with any the comments received during the public review process. The additional information provided during and following the public review period regarding historic resources is discussed in detail in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources and Appendix F of this revised Initial Study. Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with project approval actions. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 2 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION If the project is approved, the City of Burlingame will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)). 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 3 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 PROJECT TITLE 556 El Camino Real Condominium Development Project 2.2 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 2.3 PROJECT APPLICANT Property Owner and Applicant: Roman Knop Burlingame Investment LP 1856 Pacific Avenue, #9 San Francisco, CA 94109 2.4 PROJECT LOCATION The 0.35-acre project site consists of one parcel (APN 029-111-260), located at 556 El Camino Real in Burlingame. Off-site improvements would also be made to the site frontage along El Camino Real within Caltrans right-of-way (State Route 82). Regional and vicinity maps of the site are shown on Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2, and an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding area is shown on Figure 2.2-3. Much of Burlingame including the project site and surrounding streets is oriented on an axis offset from “true” North. For clarity, this EIR will reference El Camino Real as having a north-south orientation. El Camino Real is therefore considered to be situated along the western boundary of the site, Floribunda Avenue is considered to be located north of the site, and Bellevue Avenue is considered to be located south of the site. 2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER APN 029-111-260 2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT General Plan: The General Plan designates the property as High Density Residential which allows over 50 dwelling units per acre. The site is within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 4 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Zoning District: The subject property is located in the R-3 zoning district, which allows attached multi-family residential uses. 2.7 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS The project would require the following approvals from the City of Burlingame: • Environmental Review • Conditional Use Permit for building height • Design Review • Condominium Permit • Tree Removal Permit • Grading Permit • Building Permit • Encroachment Permit (Caltrans) In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has permit authority for the issuance of permits for installation and operation of the emergency generator. REGIONAL MAPFIGURE 2.2-1592Daly CitySouth San FranciscoSan MateoFoster CityBelmontHalf Moon BayMenlo ParkAthertonEast Palo AltoSan LeandroBurlingameMillbrae82118228028068023858084849292101101101San Francisco BayPacific OceanDaly CitySouth San FranciscoSan MateoFoster CityBelmontHalf Moon BayMenlo ParkAthertonEast Palo AltoSan LeandroMillbraeBurlingameSan Francisco BayPacific OceanMonterey BaySan JoséFremontOaklandSan FranciscoSanta CruzMountain ViewMorgan HillSan JoséFremontOaklandSan FranciscoSanta CruzMountain ViewBurlingameBurlingameMorgan HillProject SiteProject SiteProject Site VICINITY MAPFIGURE 2.2-26 Willow RoadBrookvale RoadSharon A ve n u eFloribunda AvenuePepper AvenueCountry Club DriveWalnut AvenueNewhall RoadAlmer RoadChapin AvenueBellevue AvenueAnsel RoadOak Grove AvenuePalm DriveCrossway RoadF arringdon LaneAcacia DriveP alom a A venueFairfield RoadEdgehill DriveSanchez AvenueForest View AvenueManor DriveW indsor DriveFairway CircleFloribunda AvenueDouglas AvenueBellevue AvenueDonnelly AvenuePrimrose RoadBurlingame AvenueRalston AvenueHoward AvenueCalifornia DriveEl Camino RealEl Camino RealCalTrain / UPRRWillow RoadBrookvale RoadSharon A ve n u eFloribunda AvenuePepper AvenueCountry Club DriveWalnut AvenueNewhall RoadChapin AvenueBellevue AvenueAnsel RoadOak Grove AvenuePalm DriveCrossway RoadFarringdon LaneAcacia DrivePaloma Avenue Fairfield RoadEdgehill DriveSanchez AvenueForest View AvenueManor DriveWindsor DriveFairway CircleDouglas AvenueBellevue AvenueDonnelly AvenuePrimrose RoadBurlingame AvenueRalston AvenueHoward AvenueCarolan AvenueCalifornia DriveEl Camino RealEl Camino RealCalTrain / UPRRAlmer RoadFloribunda AvenueCaCaCaCaProject Site0 100 400 600 800 FeetCarCar AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.2-3 7El Camino RealEl Camino RealFloribunda AveFloribunda AveResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialResidentialProject BoundaryAerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Aug. 9, 2016.Photo Date: Apr. 20160 25 100 200 Feet 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 8 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1.1 Proposed Development The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 14-unit apartment complex and associated improvements to construct a five-story, 21-unit condominium building (refer to Figure 3.1-1). The multi-family residential building would include a below-grade parking garage, lobby, and five stories of condominium units above the parking garage (refer to Figure 3.1-2 and 3.1-3). The project proposes approximately 10, three-bedroom units; eight, two-bedroom units; and three, one-bedroom unit for a total of 21 condominium units. The proposed units range in size from 630 to 1,955 square feet (s.f.) (refer to Figure 3.1-4). 3.1.2 Building Heights and Setbacks The overall proposed height is 55 feet to the top of the roof (refer to Figure 3.1-5). The proposed project would be set back approximately 27 feet from the western property line on El Camino Real. The proposed building would also be set back approximately 10 feet from the adjacent residential property lines to the north and south and approximately 21 feet from the eastern property line. Building ADA ramps, stairs, and patios will extend into the proposed setbacks. 3.1.3 Site Access and Parking The primary pedestrian access to the building would be provided from the lobby on El Camino Real. Vehicular access to the site would be provided from El Camino Real. The project proposes a subgrade parking garage that would use a CityLift Tower automated parking system.1 There will be 35 parking spaces provided in the below-grade garage that will be accessed through a garage door on the front of the building, as well as two spaces above ground for delivery/guest vehicles. One of the spaces at grade would include an electric vehicle charging station. The proposed design would allow queueing for four three vehicles on the site at the garage entrance. The parking system would automatically move each vehicle by lift and then transfer it to a waiting cart on one of the multi-levels. The cart then travels horizontally and places the vehicle in its appropriate slot. The average parking and retrieval time for vehicles entering/exiting the parking structure is approximately 120 90 seconds (2.01.5 minutes). The project will provide two short-term bicycle parking spaces for visitors that will be located in the front of the building. Additional bicycle storage will be provided for residents in the basement garage. 3.1.4 Common Open Space and Landscaping The project proposes approximately 3,086 s.f. of common open space in the rear yard along the eastern side of the building. Private balconies would be provided for each unit that range in size 1 The original application specified a Parkmatic Multi-Parking system. The CityLift Tower and Parkmatic Multi- Parking systems have similar functional characteristics. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 9 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 from 74 to 843 s.f. Landscaping would be planted along all residential property lines. Walls surrounding the common open spaces on the site would be up to six (6) feet in height on the property line. An approximately eight-foot tall gated access would be provided on the north side of the building to provide access to the common open space areas of the site. The project proposes the removal of one, approximately 16 inches in diameter, non-historic and non- contributing eucalyptus street tree (designated CT 197 2) on the southern project frontage along El Camino Real to accommodate the relocated entrance driveway.3 A replacement elm street tree would be planted in the park strip along El Camino Real south of the new entrance driveway to provide a Caltrans-approved replacement planting within the historic tree row with similar spacing to the current condition (refer to Figure 34.5-1-6). An existing, approximately four inches in diameter, contributing 4 elm street tree (designated CT 196) to the historic Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows in the center of the current park strip would be retained by the project. Additional landscaping is proposed within the park strip located around the existing elm and north of the realigned exit driveway on El Camino Real which would consist of low growing perennials and groundcovers. A crape myrtle tree, shrubs, low-growing perennials, and grasses are proposed on the southern end of the project site between the proposed building and sidewalk. 3.1.5 Grading and Excavation The total depth of the multi-level parking garage would be approximately 28 30 feet below ground level. The project would require 7,741 cubic yards of soil export. The basement excavation would be shored using soldier piles and horizontal whalers that would be braced by cross lot bracing to avoid the need for tie-backs or underpinning of adjacent structures. The project would require approximately 22 months to complete including three months for demolition and grading and 19 months for construction of the building. 3.1.6 Emergency Diesel Generator The project includes an emergency diesel generator in the garage level at the northwest corner of the building, adjacent to the trash room. The generator room would be sound insulated and the generator would only be used on an emergency basis and for testing as required by law. 2 In 2008, Caltrans conducted a comprehensive GPS study of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows from Rosedale Avenue/Ray Drive to Peninsula Avenue, plotting the location of each tree, its type, circumference at breast height, total height, maturity, and whether it contributed to the resource. 3 The Howard-Ralston Tree Rows are on the National Register of Historic Places and consist of elm and eucalyptus trees planted along both sides of El Camino Real (State Route 82) in the late 1800s (refer to Section 4.5 Cultural Resources). 4 Each tree within the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows has been catalogued as historic, contributing to the historic district, or non-contributing to the historic district. PROPOSED SITE PLAN(REVISED) FIGURE 3.1-1 10 Source: VMK Design Group, 2018. PROPOSED GARAGEFIGURE 3.1-211 (REVISED)Source: VMK Design Group, 2018. PROPOSED BUILDING CROSS SECTIONFIGURE 3.1-312 (REVISED)Source: VMK Design Group, 2018.156’4’9’-6”9’-6”9’-6”55’9’-6”9’-6”10’-8”152’10’27’14’-6”6’-10”9’-10”8’-8”12’-6”3’-0”48’-8”10’26’-0”28’-9”30’-0”1’-9”30’-0”30’-0”8’-4”10’-7”6’-8”2’-4” PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR PLANFIGURE 3.1-413 Source: VMK Design Group, 9/1/15. EL CAMINO REAL ELEVATIONFIGURE 3.1-514 (REVISED)Source: VMK Design Group, 2018.156’152’104.5’102.28’100.91’4’8’9’-6”9’-6”9’-6”9’-6”9’-6”55’3.59’3’-1” 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 15 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACT DISCUSSION This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in their respective subsections: 4.1 Aesthetics 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources 4.3 Air Quality 4.4 Biological Resources 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.6 Geology and Soils 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.10 Land Use and Planning 4.11 Mineral Resources 4.12 Noise and Vibration 4.13 Population and Housing 4.14 Public Services 4.15 Recreation 4.16 Transportation/Traffic 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections: • Environmental Checklist – The environmental checklist, as recommended by CEQA, identifies environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right-hand column of the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources are identified at the end of this section. • Impact Discussion – This subsection discusses the project’s impact as it relates to the environmental checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section15370). Each impact is numbered using an alphanumeric system that identifies the environmental issue. For example, Impact HAZ-1 denotes the first potentially significant impact discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section. Mitigation measures are also numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For example, MM BIO-2.3 refers to the third mitigation measure for the second impact in the Biology section. Important Note to the Reader The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion [California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478)] confirmed that CEQA, with several specific exceptions, is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project. Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA in the following sections focuses on impacts of the project on the environment, including whether a project may exacerbate existing environmental hazards. The City of Burlingame currently has policies that address existing conditions (e.g., air quality, noise, and hazards) affecting a proposed project, which are also addressed in this section. This is consistent with one of the primary objectives of CEQA and this document, which is to provide objective 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 16 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 information to decision-makers and the public regarding a project as a whole. The CEQA Guidelines and the courts are clear that a CEQA document (e.g., EIR or Initial Study) can include information of interest even if such information is not an “environmental impact” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, where applicable, in addition to describing the impacts of the project on the environment, this chapter will discuss Planning Considerations that relate to policies pertaining to existing conditions. Such examples include, but are not limited to, locating a project near sources of air emissions that can pose a health risk, in a floodplain, in a geologic hazard zone, in a high noise environment, or on/adjacent to sites involving hazardous substances. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 17 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1,5 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,6 4.1.2 Existing Setting The project site is generally rectangular in shape and located in an urban, developed area. The project site is currently developed with a multi-family residential building that was constructed circa 1954 (refer to Photo 1). The project site is bounded by El Camino Real to the west, three-story multi-family residential buildings to the north and east, and a three-story multi-family residential building to the south (refer to Photos 2, 3, and 4).5 Given the generally flat topography of the project area, the project site is primarily visible from El Camino Real. There are 11 trees located on the site adjacent to the existing building frontage and along the western boundary. The project site is not located along a state scenic highway or a rural scenic corridor. The project site is located along El Camino Real (State Route 82), which is a San Mateo County Scenic Roadway. Surrounding Land Uses The project site is surrounded by development. The multi-story condominium building located south of the site consists of a three-story contemporary building constructed in the late 1990’s with a below-grade parking garage. The three-story apartment building north of the project site on the corner of El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue was constructed in the early 1960’s and is comprised of wood and stucco. 5 Much of Burlingame including the project site and surrounding streets is oriented on an axis offset from "true" North. For clarity, this EIR will reference El Camino Real as having a north-south orientation. PHOTOS 1 AND 2 18 PHOTO 1: View of the project site looking northeast from El Camino Real. PHOTO 2: View of the project site and adjacent condominium complex looking east from El Camino Real. PHOTOS 3 AND 4 19 PHOTO 3: View of the project frontage adjacent to El Camino Real. PHOTO 4: View of El Camino Real from the project site looking southwest. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 20 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations City of Burlingame Municipal Code Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 regulates the usage and placement of exterior lighting (including security lighting). In accordance with Municipal Code Section 18.16.030, exterior lighting on all residential and commercial properties shall be designed and located so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge, or wall. City of Burlingame General Plan The Scenic Roads and Highways Element of the City’s General Plan contains policies and actions to avoid or mitigate aesthetic and visual impacts resulting from development within the City. The proposed project would be subject to conformance with applicable General Plan policies, including those listed below. Policies Description Policy SR(A) To retain a system of arterials and local roads that are beautiful and useful to local residents. Action SR(2) El Camino Real, state highway Route 82, is a scenic highway where views from the road are contained. The Burlingame portion of this historic road is lined with huge elm and eucalyptus trees that form a tunnel of foliage. These heritage trees give Burlingame a distinctive image. The segments of El Camino Real where abutting property is zoned first commercial are defined as scenic connectors. Commercial buildings and signs along El Camino Real should receive design review and satisfy all municipal codes. Trim abutting properties along the road provide a scenic character and add to the Burlingame image. Action SR(3) Except where traffic hazards might be created, median strips, traffic islands, and excess highway rights-of-way should be landscaped. Policy SR(B) Harmonize roads and highways with adjacent land use and roadside development. Action SR(4) The County of San Mateo proposes the loop via Skyline Boulevard, Canyon Road, Easton Drive, El Camino Real and Crystal Springs Road back to Skyline Boulevard be designated a County Scenic Roadway and part of the proposed Scenic Road System. Policy SR(C) Enhance the traveler’s view from the road. Action SR(7) Utility lines should be undergrounded wherever possible; and sensitively sited where placement must be aboveground. Action SR(8) Plant materials should be used to screen or hide objectionable views. 4.1.3 Impacts Evaluation a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Views of the San Francisco Bay and other scenic resources are not present from the project site. The project is located within a developed urban area and there are no scenic vistas that would be impacted by redevelopment of the site with a 21-unit multi-family residential building. (No Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 21 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The project site has been developed since 1954 and no scenic resources, such as rock outcroppings or historic buildings (refer to Section 4.5 Cultural Resources), are present on the project site. There are 11 trees on-site, including two protected street trees (refer to Section 4.4 Biological Resources). Trees located on El Camino Real, a State highway, are owned and maintained by the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project site is not located along a state scenic highway or a rural scenic corridor. The proposed project is located along El Camino Real, which is designated by the Burlingame General Plan and the County of San Mateo as a County Scenic Roadway. However, the State of California does not recognize El Camino Real as a Scenic Highway. The City’s General Plan includes policies and actions related to the designation of El Camino Real as a Scenic Roadway. The project would adhere to the General Plan by planting landscaping on the project site and along the project frontage to enhance views of the site from El Camino Real. The project proposes to remove one non-historic, non-contributing eucalyptus street tree (CT 197) along the project El Camino Real frontage and replace it with an elm street tree consistent with the requirements of Caltrans for the historic Howard- Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows.6 A contributing elm (CT 196) would be preserved with the project and impacts to a historic eucalyptus (CT 195) north of the project site would also be avoided through implementation of tree protection zones during construction of the project (refer to Sections 4.4.3 and 4.5.3). Views of the project site are available to motorists and pedestrians approaching the site from the north or south along El Camino Real. There are no scenic resources on the site that would be affected by the project. The proposed building maintains the pattern of multi- family residential development along this stretch of El Camino Real including the practice of placing parking underground or behind buildings so as not to be primarily visible from the street. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to a County designated scenic roadway. (Less Than Significant Impact) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The project site is developed with an existing two-story multi-family residential building and landscaping. The proposed project is located in a residential area with primarily multi-family uses on the east side of El Camino Real and trees and heavy vegetation shielding single- family residential uses located on the west side that are not visible from the roadway. The project is located adjacent to three-story multi-family residential buildings and associated driveways. Given the range of uses, styles, and intensities of development in the project area, the proposed five-story, residential development would not significantly degrade the existing visual character of the site or project area, and is in keeping with the scale of new 6 Caltrans is requiring replacement of the tree in order to fulfill the State’s responsibilities under Public Resources Code 5024. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 22 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 development envisioned as part of the Downtown Specific Plan. (Less Than Significant Impact) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Light and Glare The proposed project would have outdoor security night lighting on the site along walkways and roadways. Consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.16.030), project lighting would be designed and located so that light emitted from on-site lighting is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge, or wall. The outside lighting would generally increase light levels in the area given the new building is three stories taller than current apartment on site, but would not cause significant glare or spillover into adjacent properties. Furthermore, the project would be constructed with materials such as wood and stucco which are generally non-reflective materials and, therefore, would not create a new source of glare in the project area. Shadows Burlingame has not established a community standard for shadow impacts, and most jurisdictions do not have criteria for significance. The Downtown Specific Plan provides guidance for assessing potential shadow impacts for projects in Downtown Burlingame, specifying that as part of the design review process, development in the Specific Plan Area that is proposed to be taller than existing surrounding structures (such as the proposed project) should be evaluated for potential to create new shadows/shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. The plan suggests at a minimum shadow diagrams should be prepared for 9:00 a.m., 12 noon, and 3:00 p.m. on March 21st, June 21st, September 21st, and December 21st (approximately corresponding to the solstices and equinoxes) to identify extreme conditions and trends. This approach provides an analysis of each season as well as the longest and shortest days of the year, covering the full spectrum of possible shade and shadow effects. Shadow impacts for 9:00 a.m., 12 noon, and 3:00 p.m. on March 21st, June 21st, September 21st, and December 21st for the proposed project as modeled from the dimensions are attached in Appendix A of this Initial Study. Based on the Downtown Specific Plan criteria, the proposed five-story building would not create significant new shadows/shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. There are no public or quasi-public open spaces directly adjacent to the site, and the adjacent pedestrian route (El Camino Real sidewalk) would only experience shading for some of the morning hours in summer. Floribunda Avenue to the north of the property would experience shading during the morning hours in winter. The overall shading resulting from the proposed project is comparable to surrounding buildings. Thus, the project would not be considered to have significant shadow impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 23 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.1.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse visual or aesthetic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 24 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 4.2.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1,8 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1,7 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))? 4 d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1,2 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? 1,2 4.2.2 Existing Setting The project site has been developed with a multi-family residential structure since 1954. The project site is not designated as farmland or forest land. According to the San Mateo County Important Farmland 2014 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, meaning that the land contains a building density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel or is used for industrial or commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, or other utilities. 7 4.2.3 Impacts Evaluation a, b) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 7 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2014 Map. 2016. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 25 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on agricultural resources or operations. (No Impact) c, d) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site has been in residential use since at least 1954. The project site and surrounding area is not used or zoned for timberland or forest land. The project would not impact timberland or forest land. (No Impact) 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? According to the San Mateo County Important Farmland 2014 map, the project site and surrounding area is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. The development of the project site would not result in conversion of any forest or farmlands. (No Impact) 4.2.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact to agricultural or forestry resources in the area. (No Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 26 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.3 AIR QUALITY This discussion is based in part on a construction health risk assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin included as Appendix B of this Initial Study. 4.3.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 9,10,11 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 10,11 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? 10,11 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 10,11 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 4.3.2 Existing Setting Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the amount of a pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for what are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants,” because they set the criteria for attainment of good air quality. Criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM). Climate and Topography The project site is located in San Mateo County, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The project area’s proximity to both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay has a moderating influence on its climate. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 27 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Regional and Local Criteria Pollutants Major criteria pollutants, listed in “criteria” documents by the USEPA and CARB include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulate matter. These pollutants can have health effects such as respiratory impairment and heart/lung disease symptoms. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the state and federal level. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air pollutant. Areas with air quality that exceed adopted air quality standards are designated as “nonattainment” areas for the relevant air pollutants. Nonattainment areas are sometimes further classified by degree (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme for ozone, and moderate and serious for carbon monoxide and PM10) or status (“nonattainment-transitional”). Areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as “attainment” areas for the relevant air pollutants. “Unclassified” areas are those with insufficient air quality monitoring data to support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, but are generally presumed to comply with the ambient air quality standard. State Implementation Plans must be prepared by states for areas designated as federal ambient air quality standard. The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under both the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment for respirable particulates or particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (PM10) under the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal act. High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide (i.e. cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children. BAAQMD Guidelines The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality standards are set by the federal government (the 1970 Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments) and the state (California Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments). Regional air quality management districts such as BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans specifying how state standards would be met. The BAAQMD’s most recently adopted Clean Air Plan is the 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP). The 2010 CAP provides an updated comprehensive plan to improve the Bay Area’s air quality and protect public health, taking into account future growth projections to 2035. The BAAQMD has published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects. The thresholds of significance for construction- and operation-related pollutant emissions are shown in Table 4.3-1. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 28 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Table 4.3-1 Thresholds of Significance Used in Air Quality Analyses Pollutant Construction Operation-Related Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year) ROG, NOx 54 54 10 PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15 PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10 Fugitive Dust (PM10/PM2.5) Best Management Practices None None Risk and Hazards for New Sources and Receptors (Project) Same as Operational Threshold • Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in one million • Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (chronic or acute) • Ambient PM2.5 increase: > 0.3 µg/m3 [Zone of influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor] Risk and Hazards for New Sources and Receptors (Cumulative) Same as Operational Threshold • Increased cancer risk of >100 in one million • Increased non-cancer risk of > 10.0 Hazard Index (chronic or acute) • Ambient PM2.5 increase: > 0.8 µg/m3 [Zone of influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor] Sources: BAAQMD Thresholds Options and Justification Report (2009) and BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated May 2011). Local Community Risks/Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter Besides criteria air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred to as Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in relatively low concentrations in ambient air. Exposure to low concentrations over long periods, however, can result in adverse chronic health effects. Diesel exhaust is a predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) is a complex mixture of substances that includes elements such as carbon and metals; compounds such as nitrates, organics, and sulfates; and complex mixtures such as diesel exhaust and wood smoke. Long-term and short-term exposure to PM2.5 can cause a wide range of health effects. Common stationary sources of TACs and PM2.5 include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, diesel backup generators, and motor vehicles. The other, more significant, common source is motor vehicles on roadways and freeways. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 29 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Sensitive Receptors There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family dwellings that border the site on three sides and the single-family residences located across El Camino Real. In addition, the McKinley Elementary School is 700 feet to the north. Construction TAC and PM2.5 Health Risks Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. These exhaust air pollutant emissions would not be considered to contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. Construction exhaust emissions may still pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. 4.3.3 Impacts Evaluation a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The proposed project will not conflict with the latest Clean Air planning efforts since; (1) the project’s operational emissions would be well below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for air pollutants as discussed below in Section 4.3.3(b) and development of the project site would be considered urban infill. (Less Than Significant Impact) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? The 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain a screening table that lists the minimum unit count for condominium projects, below which the project would not result in the generation of operational or construction criteria air pollutants, or greenhouse gas emissions, that exceed the threshold of significance. The project proposes 21 dwelling units on the project site and, as summarized in Table 4.3-2 below, the screening threshold for operational criteria pollutants is 451 units; for operational greenhouse gas emissions is 78 units; and for construction criteria pollutants is 240 units. The proposed residential development would not exceed the screening level for operational and construction criteria pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, the project would not result in significant air quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 30 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Table 4.3-2 Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors and GHG Screening Level Size Land Use Type Operational Criteria Pollutant Screening Size Operational GHG Screening Size Construction Criteria Pollutant Screening Size Condominiums 451 units 78 units 240 units Below screening threshold? Yes Yes Yes c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? Non‐attainment pollutants of concern for the San Francisco Bay Air Basin are ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. As discussed in impact (b) above, the project’s operational and construction emissions would be less than significant since the project falls under the BAAQMD’s screening thresholds. In addition, construction on the site will be required to implement BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices for dust control in accordance with the City’s General Plan policies, as discussed in impact (d) below. (Less Than Significant Impact) d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Construction Dust Emissions Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere. Construction activities would increase dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind. Nearby land uses, particularly sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site, could be affected by dust generated during construction activities. Impact AQ – 1: The project would generate dust during construction activities that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measure: The project shall implement the following mitigation measure to ensure project impacts from construction are reduced to a less than significant level: MM AQ – 1.1: During any construction period which causes ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 31 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less than significant level. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Construction TAC and PM2.5 Health Risks Construction activity is anticipated to include demolition, grading and site preparation, trenching, building construction, and paving. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was completed (see Appendix B) that evaluated potential health effects of sensitive receptors at nearby residences from construction emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) and PM2.5. Construction period emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2013.2.2 (CalEEMod). Increased cancer risks were calculated using the maximum modeled concentrations for 2017 and BAAQMD recommended risk assessment methods for infant exposure (3rd trimester through two years of age) and for an adult exposure. The cancer risk calculations were based 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 32 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 on applying the BAAQMD recommended age sensitivity factors to the TAC concentrations, as described above (see discussion regarding Health Impact Evaluation Methodology). Age- sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer causing TACs. Infant, child, and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all residences through the entire construction period. The maximum community risk impacts associated with project construction are shown in Table 4.3-3. Results of the assessment for project construction indicate the maximum incremental residential child cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) receptor, located just east of the construction site at the second floor level of a multi-family residential building approximately 90 feet from El Camino Real, would be 222.3 in one million and the residential adult incremental cancer risk would be 3.8 in one million. The maximum- modeled annual PM2.5 concentration, which is based on combined exhaust and fugitive dust emissions, was 1.12 µg/m3. The maximum modeled annual residential DPM concentration (i.e., from construction exhaust) was 0.967 μg/m3, which is lower than the reference exposure level, which is the concentration at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure period. The maximum computed HI based on this DPM concentration is 0.19 which is lower than the BAAQMD significance criterion of a hazard index greater than 1.0. Table 4.3-3 Construction Source Health Risks Source Cancer Risk (per million) PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Acute and Chronic Hazard (HI) Proposed Project Construction Unmitigated Infant = 222.3 Adult = 3.8 1.12 0.19 BAAQMD Thresholds Single Source >10 0.3 <0.01 Significant? Yes Yes No Mitigated Project Construction 5.6 0.05 <0.01 Significant? No No No Bold signifies a significant impact. Impact AQ – 2: The project would use construction equipment that generates toxic exhaust emissions. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measure: The project shall implement the following mitigation measure to ensure project impacts from construction TACs are reduced to a less than significant level: MM AQ – 2.1: The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet- wide average 96 percent reduction in PM2.5 exhaust emissions. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following: 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 33 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 • All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. The use of equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non- diesel) would meet this requirement. Other measures may be the use of added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant (<10.0 in one million increased cancer risk). The project will be required to implement the measures listed above as conditions of approval. These measures will be placed on project plan documents prior to issuance of any building permits for the project. The proposed project, therefore, would not result in a significant air quality impact due to construction TAC emissions. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Measures Incorporated) Operational TAC Sources El Camino Real The project site is located adjacent to El Camino Real (State Route 82), a source of TACs from vehicular and truck emissions. BAAQMD created a screening tool for highways to identify the potential health risks for projects within 1,000 feet of major highways. The closest sensitive receptors on the project site would be setback 42 feet from El Camino Real which would result in an increased cancer risk of 9.64 cases per million.8 The project would be subject to PM2.5 concentrations of 0.14 µg/m3 and a hazard index of less than 0.03. The health risks from TACs on the project site are all below BAAQMD thresholds. Emergency Diesel Generator A back-up emergency diesel generator is proposed on site. The generator would be located in the basement garage and operated during emergencies and for regular testing to ensure adequate operation. The generator would be subject to permitting by the BAAQMD which would ensure it would not be result in TAC emissions that exceed an increased cancer risk of 10 in one million, PM2.5 of 0.3 µg/m3 or a chronic or acute hazard index of 1.0 for project residents as well as surrounding residences. 8 The closest sensitive receptor on the project site to El Camino Real would be approximately 42 feet from the roadway. The MEI receptor for the construction TAC analysis was determined to be located 90 feet from El Camino Real. Refer to Appendix B. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 34 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Implementation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people near the site. No new stationary odor sources are anticipated as part of the project and there are no odor sources in the vicinity of the site that would emit substantial odors with the potential to impact future guests of the proposed residential structure. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.4 Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ- 2.1, would result in less than significant air quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Measures Incorporated) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 35 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This discussion is based in part on an Arborist Report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, LLC in June 2016. A copy of this report is included as Appendix C in this Initial Study. 4.4.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? 1,2 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 CDFW or USFWS? 1,2,12 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1,2,12 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1,2,12 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? 2 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 36 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.4.2 Existing Setting The project site is located in an urban neighborhood and is developed with a multi-family residential structure, pavement, and landscaping. Habitats in developed, urban areas are extremely low in species diversity. Common species that occur in urban environments include rock pigeons, mourning doves, house sparrows, finches, and European starlings. Raptors and other avian species could forage in the project area or nest in surrounding landscaping. There are no sensitive habitats or wetlands on or adjacent to the project site. Due to the lack of sensitive habitats, human disturbance, and the developed nature of the project site, special-status plant and animal species are not expected to occur. The primary biological resources on-site are landscape trees. A tree survey (Appendix C) was completed for the project site in June 2016 by Kielty Arborist Services, LLC. Eleven trees (including the street trees regulated by Caltrans) were identified on the project site, representing seven non-native species. Twelve trees, representing five species, were identified on neighboring properties and are all protected under the City of Burlingame’s Tree Ordinance. The existing on-site trees are primarily scattered throughout the perimeter of the parcel. Of the 11 identified project site trees, only two are protected under the City of Burlingame’s Tree Ordinance. Most of the trees on-site trees have been poorly located with little room for growth, topped, and/or poorly maintained. Refer to Appendix C for a tree location map and additional details including tree circumference and health. Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act protect listed wildlife species from harm or “take,” which can include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury to a listed wildlife species. The long-term purpose of these laws are to ultimately restore their numbers to where they are no longer threatened or endangered. Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) is part of a coordinated effort between the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia to help protect migratory birds in this part of the world. It prohibits killing, taking, selling, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. State Fish and Game Code Birds of prey, such as owls and hawks, are protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5 (1992), which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 37 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. City of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 of the City’s Municipal Code, Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection, establishes conditions and regulations for the removal and replacement of existing trees and the installation of new trees in new construction and development. A “protected tree” is defined as (1) any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more (or diameter of 15 inches or more) when measured at 54 inches above natural grade; (2) a tree or stand of trees so designated by the City Council based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) a stand of trees in which the Parks and Recreation Director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival [Municipal Code, Chapter 11.06, Section 11.06.020(f)]. A permit is required for the removal (and heavy pruning) of a protected tree. The permit process involves a formal inspection by the City Arborist to determine the tree’s health, structure, and impacts to neighboring properties, as well as replacement requirements (Municipal Code, Chapter 11.06, Section 11.06.090). Permits for removal of protected trees shall include replanting conditions with the following guidelines: • Replacement trees shall be three 15-gallon, one 24-inch box, or one 36-inch box size landscape tree(s) for each tree removed. • Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the Director and shall be based on the species, location, and value of the tree(s) removed. • If replacement trees cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be made to the City. The payment shall then be deposited in the tree planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree planting. The replacement of a tree can be waived by the Parks and Recreation Department Director if a sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet all other requirements of the Code. 4.4.3 Impacts Evaluation 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 CDFW or USFWS? The project site is located in an urban area surrounded by development. The project site is developed with a building, pavement, and landscaping. No sensitive habitats or habitats suitable for special-status plants or wildlife species occur within or adjacent to the project site. The project would not directly result in impacts to special-status species. The mature trees on and adjacent to the project site could provide nesting habitat for birds, including migratory birds and raptors. Nesting birds are among the species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 2800. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 38 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Construction of the project during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a taking by the CDFW. Any loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment would constitute an impact. Construction activities such as tree removal and site grading that disturb a nesting bird or raptor on-site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone would also constitute an impact. Impact BIO – 1: The project may disturb nesting birds on and adjacent to the site during construction. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: The project will be required to implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to raptors and migratory birds to a less than significant level: MM BIO – 1.1: In order to protect nesting birds on and adjacent to the project site the following measures will be implemented: • Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be completed prior to tree removal if removal or construction is proposed to commence during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) in order to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before construction begins. During this survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in and within 250 feet of the project boundary. • If an active nest is found in an area that would be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall designate an adequate buffer zone (~250 feet) to be established around the nest, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The buffer would ensure that nests shall not be disturbed until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. • The applicant shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to the issuance of a grading permit or demolition permit. With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on raptors and migratory birds. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Measures Incorporated) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 39 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 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 CDFW or USFWS? The project site is developed with urban uses and does not contain any riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. (No Impact) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The project site is completely developed and devoid of wetlands, marshes, or vernal pools. The project would not impact any federally protected wetlands under the Clean Water Act. (No Impact) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The project site is located in a developed urban area and does not support any watercourse, river, or provide substantial habitat that facilitates the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, other than birds which are discussed in Section 4.4.3(a) above. The project site is fully developed and contains limited potential to serve as a migratory corridor for wildlife. (No Impact) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? On-Site Trees Construction of the proposed project would require the removal of nine trees on-site, none of which are protected trees. An additional street tree, a non-historic eucalyptus tree, along El Camino Real would be removed for reconstruction of the driveway entrance, requiring a permit from Caltrans, and the project would provide a replacement elm street tree consistent with the historic Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. As discussed in Section 4.4.2.1, removal of a protected tree (with a valid permit) shall be replaced by three 15-gallon size trees or one 24-inch box size tree or one 36-inch box size tree for each protected tree removed; replacement of a removed protected tree may also be waived by the Director if a sufficient number of trees exist on the property to meet all other requirements of the Code. As part of the project, and in accordance with the City of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 11.06.090 and the Urban Forest Management Plan, eight new trees would be planted on-site. The project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Code and Urban Forest Management Plan by obtaining the necessary tree permit(s) and adhering to the tree plantings/replacements requirements. Therefore, removal of the protected trees would not result in a significant impact. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 40 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Off-Site Trees The tree survey for the project (refer to Appendix C) also included trees on adjacent properties that may be affected by project construction. Twelve off-site trees have canopies extending onto the project site that may require pruning to provide construction clearance. The project shall implement the mitigation measures identified in the tree survey and presented below to protect off-site trees during project construction. Impact BIO – 2: The project may impact protected trees on and/or adjacent to the site. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measure: The project shall implement the following mitigation measure to ensure project impacts to protected trees on and adjacent to the site are reduced to a less than significant level: MM BIO – 2.1: In order to protect the retained trees on and/or adjacent to the site, the following measures should be implemented: • Tree protection zones shall be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for the protection zones shall be a six-foot tall metal chain link type supported by two-inch metal poles pounded into the ground by no less than two feet. The support poles shall be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. The location for the protection fencing shall be as close to the dripline as possible but still allow room for construction to safely continue. Signs shall be placed on fencing signifying “Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out”. No materials or equipment shall be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the drip line of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, shall be mulched with four to six inches of chipper chips. • Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason shall be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. Trenches shall be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time shall also be covered with layers of burlap or straw wattle and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect exposed roots below. • Normal irrigation shall be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months. Some irrigation may be required during the winter months depending on the seasonal rainfall. During the summer months the trees on this site shall receive heavy flood type irrigation twice a month. During the fall 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 41 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 and winter, once a month should suffice. Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption.9 With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts to trees would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) 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? The project site is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conversation Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP. (No Impact) 4.4.4 Conclusion The project, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures MM BIO – 1.1 and MM BIO – 2.1, would have a less than significant impact on biological resources. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) 9 Kielty Arborist, LLC. Arborist Report 556 El Camino Real. June 27, 2016. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 42 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following discussion is based, in part, on an Archaeological Literature Search prepared by Holman & Associates in June 2017 and a Historical Resources Compliance Report prepared by Ward Hill, Architectural Historian in June 2017. Copies of these reports are included as Appendix F in this Initial Study. 4.5.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? 2,3,13,20 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5? 2,3,13,19 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? 2,3 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2,3,19 e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1,19 1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or 1,19 2. 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 this criteria, the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe shall be considered. 1,19 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 43 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.5.2 Existing Setting Historic Buildings The building on-site was constructed circa 1954. While over 50 years in age, the existing multi- family residential structure does not appear to have exemplary characteristics in design or association with any patterns of development or significant events contributing to the history of the City that would be eligible for the California or National Registers. The Downtown Specific Plan included an Inventory of Historic Resources (completed by Carey & Co., 2008) that identified which properties appear to be eligible as historic resources, based on State and federal criteria. Based on archival research to assess historic significance and site reconnaissance to evaluate potential historic structure, 23 structures within the Plan Area were determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).10 In addition, Carey & Co. found 51 structures in the Plan Area that, although not California or National Register- eligible, still convey certain aspects of Burlingame’s history and architectural heritage. The project site is not included as a potential historic resource in this inventory, and is not considered an historic resource under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(c). There are no documented historic buildings adjacent to or in the vicinity of the site that could be indirectly affected by development of the project site. El Camino Real is a California Historic Landmark (No. 784) that acknowledges the approximate, modernized location of this portion of the Spanish travel route linking the missions from San Diego to San Francisco. A National Register-eligible property located at 1615 Floribunda Avenue in Hillsborough is located approximately 80 feet from the project site on the west side of El Camino Real. Historic Landscapes The project is adjacent to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2012, which consists of elms and eucalyptus trees planted along both sides of El Camino Real (State Route 82) beginning in the 1870s. The trees were originally planted to beautify and protect from wind the portion of the El Camino Real leading to the estates of several San Francisco Peninsula property owners, the most prominent of whom were landowner George H. Howard and capitalist William C. Ralston. The tree planting, undertaken between 1873 and 1876, was comprised primarily of English elms, interspersed with eucalyptus, to protect the elms from wind. The historic resource area is 2.2 miles long, bounded by Peninsula Avenue to the south and Ray Drive/Rosedale Avenue to the north. There are approximately 557 trees contained within the resource boundaries and 356 trees are considered contributing trees. The majority of the trees contributing to the historic resource are mature blue and manna gums from the original planting. The remaining contributing trees are elms which are comprised of mature elms and those planted since 2006 by the California Department of Transportation and City of Burlingame. These new plantings are noteworthy because the elm species had been the predominant tree type specified in the original landscape plan for the El Camino Real in this area.11 Three trees adjacent to the project site have been mapped by Caltrans (CT 195 to CT 197) as part of the historic preservation efforts for the tree row. CT 195 is an approximately 85-foot tall and 40-inch diameter historic eucalyptus tree, located directly north of the project site adjacent to El Camino Real. CT 196 is a newly planted, contributing 10 Carey & Company, Inc. Inventory of Historic Resources. October 6, 2008. 11 Burlingame Historical Society. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. July 31, 2011. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 44 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 elm tree to the historic tree rows that is centrally located in the park strip fronting the site adjacent to El Camino Real. CT 197 is an approximately 65-foot tall and 16-inch diameter eucalyptus tree, located in the park strip directly south of the entry driveway, that is non-contributing to the historic tree row. Archaeological Resources Based on a review of archaeological literature, the project site and adjacent properties are not listed in federal, state, or local registers. No Native American archaeological sites have been recorded within one-quarter mile of the project site. In this portion of San Mateo County, Native American archaeological sites have been identified on land adjacent to historic bay margins, adjacent to major creeks, and at the base of the hills by waterways. The project and vicinity is located within a gently sloping valley not close to any major watercourse, and historically it was approximately 0.6 miles to the San Francisco Bay. Based on a review of historic-era maps and historical land use patterns, there is no indication that specific historic archaeological deposits might exist within or adjacent to the current project site. There are no archaeological sites that have been recorded on or immediately adjacent to the project site. Native American Resources On September 25, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown signed Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), creating a new category of environmental resources (tribal cultural resources), which must be considered under CEQA. The legislation imposes new requirements for consultation regarding projects that may affect a tribal cultural resource, includes a broad definition of what may be considered to be a tribal cultural resource, and includes a list of recommended mitigation measures. AB 52 also requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified of projects proposed within that area. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource or when it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached. No tribes had requested notice under AB 52 of projects within the geographic area encompassing the project site. Based on a Sacred Lands File (SLF) review and Native American Consultation completed by Holman & Associates, Nno known tribal cultural resources are located at on or adjacent to the project site. TREE LOCATION MAPFIGURE 4.5-145EDDIE CHAU DESIGN556 EL CAMINO REALFEET 08'20'N Source: VMK Design Group, 2018.(REVISED)PLANT LIST:BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAMETREES:CERCIS CANADENSIS ‘FOREST PANSY’ EASTERN REDBUDLAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CRAPE MYRTLEPRUNUS CERASIFERA ‘NEWPORT’ PURPLE-LEAF PLUMULMUS ‘FRONTIER’ SHRUBS:CAMELLIA SASANQUA ‘SETSUGEKKA’ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUSEUONYMUS JAPONICUS ‘MICROPHYLLUS’GARDENIA JASMINOIDES ‘AUGUST BEAUTY’LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM ‘TEXANUM’LIGUSTRUM LUCIDUMNANDINA DOMESTICA ‘HARBOUR DWARF’ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘TUSCAN BLUE’SALVIA CHAMAEDRYOIDESSALVIA GREGGIIGROUNDCOVERS:FESUTCA RUBRATHYMUS X CITRIODORUS ‘AUREUS’GRASSES:FESTUCA OVINAFESTUCA CALIFORNICAVINES:SOLANUM JASMINOIDENOTES:1. TREES AND SHRUBS WILL HAVE SEPARATE IRRIGATION VALVES.2. TREES WILL BE ON BUBBLERS, SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS ON DRIP. COMMON NAMEEASTERN REDBUDCRAPE MYRTLEPURPLE-LEAF PLUMFRONTIER ELM CAMELLIAMEXICAN DAISYBOXLEAF EUONYMUSGARDENIATEXAS PRIVETGLOSSY PRIVETHEAVENLY BAMBOOROSEMARYGERMANDER ROSEAUTUMN SAGERED FESCUELEMON THYMEBLUE FESCUECALIFORNIA FESCUEPOTATO VINECT197TO BE REMOVEDREPLACMENT ELMCT197TO BE REMOVEDREPLACMENT ELMEX. ELMCT 196TO REMAINEX. ELMCT 196TO REMAIN60” TREECT195TO REMAIN60” TREECT195TO REMAIN 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 46 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.5.3 Impacts Evaluation a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource? The project site has been developed with a multi-family residential structure since circa 1954. While over 50 years in age, the existing residential building on-site, as evaluated by Carey & Co. as part of the Downtown Specific Plan, does not appear to have exemplary characteristics in design or be associated with any patterns of development or significant persons or events contributing to the history of the City that would make it eligible for the California or National Registers. According to the Downtown Specific Plan Inventory of Historic Resources, the existing apartment building on-site is not listed as a historic resource. Therefore, the structure is not considered to be an historic resource as defined in Section 21084.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The National Register-eligible property located at 1615 Floribunda Avenue in Hillsborough on the west side of El Camino Real is buffered from the roadway and project site on the east side of El Camino Real by the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. The historic eucalyptus trees in this area are approximately 85 feet in height (refer to Appendix C). The project would not result in any impact to the historic tree row on the west side of El Camino Real, nor would it remove significant contributing trees on the east side of El Camino Real. As described in Section 4.1.3 Aesthetics and shown graphically in Appendix A, due to the orientation of site, shadows from the proposed building would not extend across El Camino Real nor have any effect on the health of the historic eucalyptus trees.12 The project, therefore, would not substantially affect, directly or indirectly any historic buildings or property, including the setting and context for the property located at 1615 Floribunda Avenue. The project would remove one, non-contributing eucalyptus tree (CT 197) on the south end of the project site to accommodate a realigned project driveway. A replacement elm would be planted in the park strip along El Camino Real south of the new entrance driveway to provide a Caltrans-approved replacement planting within the historic tree row with similar spacing to the current condition. The project would retain the existing elm (CT 196) on the El Camino Real frontage and includes tree protection measures for trees adjacent to the site, including the historic eucalyptus (CT 195) to the north of the proposed northerly driveway to the project site. The project maintains a pattern of multi-storied, multi-family development along El Camino Real in the City of Burlingame. The project maintains similar setbacks to the existing development and would not result in substantial changes to the setting of the historic tree rows. The project would not involve any other changes to the El Camino Real frontage of the site that would affect the historic status of El Camino Real or the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. (Less Than Significant Impact) 12 Disco, Bob. City Arborist, City of Burlingame. Memorandum. June 28, 2017. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 47 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 No documented historic buildings are adjacent to or in the vicinity of the site; therefore, the project would have no indirect off-site impacts on historic resources. (Less Than Significant Impact) b – d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource? Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? Based on the identification of archaeological resources in the City of Burlingame completed for the Downtown Specific Plan, there are no known archaeological resources within the boundaries of the project site. Project related construction activities involving ground- disturbance during construction could result in significant impacts, if any unknown culturally significant sites are discovered. If remains were unearthed during project construction, damage to or destruction of significant archaeological remains would be a potentially significant impact. The site has no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, it is possible, though unlikely, that the presence of human remains on a site may be discovered during site excavation and grading. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains, such as bones, teeth, shells, and wood, are found in geologic deposits (rock formations). The project site has been previously developed and no known paleontological resources have been recorded. Because the proposed project would not result in excavation in bedrock conditions given alluvial deposits were encountered to depths of 51 feet and project excavation would extend to 28 30 feet, significant paleontologic discovery would be unlikely. However, significant fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of supposed low sensitivity. Impact CUL – 1: Construction of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources, unique paleontological resources/sites, unique geologic features, or human remains, if present on-site. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measure: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to ensure project impacts to cultural resources are reduced to a less than significant level: MM CUL – 1.1: Unique Paleontological and/or Geologic Features and Reporting. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project site during any phase of construction, all ground disturbing activities within 25 feet shall cease and the Community Development Director notified immediately. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find and prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The identified mitigation measures shall be implemented. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 48 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. Upon completion of the paleontological assessment, a report shall be submitted to the City and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. MM CUL – 1.2: Cultural Sensitivity Training. Prior to any ground-disturbing construction activity on the site, cultural resource sensitivity training for construction personnel on the project shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist. The training shall outline potential indicators of archaeological materials and artifacts to be aware of during grading and excavation activity on the site. MM CUL – 1.3: Undiscovered Archaeological Resources. If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the Community Development Director shall be notified. The project sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The Community Development Director shall consult with the archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than- significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeological documentation. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) form and filed with the NWIC. MM CUL – 1.43: Human Remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground- disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the Community Development Director and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 49 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. MM CUL – 1.54: Report of Archaeological Resources. If archaeological resources are identified, a final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Manager prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources found and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. MM CUL – 1.6: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Action Plan. The project shall implement measures contained in the final SOIS and ESA Action Plan as required by Caltrans through the encroachment permit process. The proposed measures shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Identify the environmentally sensitive area and/or tree protection zone for tree CT 195 and CT 196 on the work plan for review and approval by Caltrans District 4 Professionally Qualified Staff (PQS). o Project Landscape Architect/ Arborist shall identify appropriate location for planting of a new contributing elm tree to replace CT 197, subject to consultation with Caltrans PQS. o Any subsequent changes to the project shall be reviewed by the Project Landscape Architect/Arborist for consistency with the SOIS and ESA Action Plan and provided to other responsible parties (Caltrans PQS and Community Development Director). o Project Landscape Architect/Arborist shall inform Caltrans PQS and the Community Development Director upon completion of the project per the SOIS and ESA Action Plan. o Project Landscape Architect/Arborist shall document planting of the new elm and provide to Caltrans PQS and the Community Development Director. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 50 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or (2) 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. No tribes have requested notice under AB 52 of projects within the geographic area encompassing the project site. No known tribal cultural resources are located at the project site. For these reasons, the project would result in no impact to tribal cultural resources. (No Impact) 4.5.4 Conclusion Construction of the proposed development, with the implementation of mitigation measures CUL – 1.1 through CUL – 1.64, would not result in a significant impact to buried cultural resources. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) The project would not result in a significant impact to historic resources, nor tribal cultural resources. (Less Than Significant Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 51 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following discussion is based in part on a geotechnical investigation prepared by Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers in April 20132018. A copy of this report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix D. 4.6.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as described on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)? 1,14 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,14 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 14 4. Landslides? 14 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 14 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 14 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? 14 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 14 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 52 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.6.2 Existing Setting Soils The project site is underlain by alluvial deposits consisting primarily of sand-clay mixtures with varying amounts of gravel. Results of soil testing completed on-site indicated that the project site is generally covered with saturated and firm silty-clay with sand for the first 10 feet bgs. Below the silty-clay was moist, very stiff, and dense mottled clayey sand with varying amounts of gravel fragments down to the terminated boring depth of 51.5 feet. Refer to Appendix D for additional detail on soil conditions on the site. Groundwater Based on groundwater data on-site and in the area, it is estimated that the groundwater surface fluctuates seasonally and can reach depths as shallow as five feet below ground surface (bgs).13 Fluctuations in the level of subsurface water can occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors. Seismicity and Seismic-Related Hazards The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Several major fault zones pass through the Bay Area in a northwesterly direction which have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per century strong enough to cause structural damage. The faults causing such earthquakes are part of the San Andreas Fault System, a major rift in the earth’s crust that extends for at least 700 miles along western California. The San Andreas Fault System includes the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, Calaveras Fault Zones, and other faults. The major active faults in the project area are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Hayward faults located approximately 3.7 miles northwest, 14 miles northwest, and 26 miles southeast of the project site, respectively. An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay region could cause considerable ground shaking at the project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure such as that associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential compaction. These seismic-related hazards are discussed below. The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose, saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state during ground shaking. On-site soils consist of cohesive clay-sand mixtures that generally have low potential for liquefaction (refer to Appendix D). Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is the horizontal displacement of flat-lying alluvial material toward an open face, such as the steep bank of a stream channel. Lateral spreading is generally caused by liquefaction of 13 Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation for Planned Residential Development at 556 El Camino Real. April 2013. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 53 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 marginally stable soils underlying gentle slopes. Considering the relatively flat site grades and the absence of a free face on or adjacent to the site the risk of lateral spreading on the site is low. Applicable Plants, Policies, and Regulations Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. The Earthquake Fault Zones indicate areas with potential surface fault-rupture hazards. Areas within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone require special studies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure that no structures intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. California Building Code The State of California provides minimum standards for structural design and site development through the California Building Code [CBC – California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, part 2]. Local codes are permitted to be more stringent than Title 24 but, at minimum, are required to meet all state standards and enforce the regulations of the 2013 CBC. The City’s enforcement of its Building Code ensures the project would be consistent with the CBC. Chapter 16 of the CBC deals with structural design requirements governing seismically resistant construction. Chapter 18 of the CBC includes the requirements for foundation and soil investigations; excavation, grading, and fill; allowable load-bearing values of soils; and design of foundation walls, retaining walls, embedded post and poles. Chapter 33 of the CBC includes requirements for safeguards at work sites to ensure stable excavations and cut or fill slopes and the protection of pedestrians and adjoining properties from damage caused by such work. Appendix J of the CBC includes grading requirements for design of excavation of fills and for erosion control. City of Burlingame General Plan The Seismic Safety Element, as well as the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan contains policies, recommendations, and actions to avoid or mitigate geology and soils impacts resulting from development within the City. The proposed project would be subject to conformance with applicable General Plan policies, including those listed below. Policies Description Policy SS(B) Require that new development incorporate seismic hazard mitigation measures to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Policy S(A) Identify existing natural and man-made safety hazards, and devise a reasonable assignment of responsibility for their correction or reduction which will be within limits of economic acceptability. Policy S(C) Identify any urgently needed implementation measures or new legislation. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 54 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.6.3 Impacts Evaluation a, c) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, ii) strong seismic ground shaking, iii) seismic-related ground failure, or iv) landslides? Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Seismic Shaking and Liquefaction While the likelihood of fault rupture at the project site is extremely low, the project site is located in a seismically active region and strong ground shaking would likely occur at the project site during seismic activity throughout the life of the project. Given the alluvial nature of the soil deposits at the site, there is a potential that liquefiable soils could exist in discrete pockets with limited vertical and lateral extent. If liquefaction were to occur in soils beneath the site, the ground surface would be susceptible to up to one inch of liquefaction- induced settlement. Therefore, there is a relatively low potential for damage to buildings from liquefaction. The project would conform to the standard engineering and building practices and techniques specified in the CBC. The proposed buildings would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of a geotechnical report prepared for the site (refer to Appendix D), which identifies the specific design features related to geologic and seismic conditions. The basement excavation would be shored using soldier piles and horizontal whalers that would be braced by cross lot bracing to avoid the need for tie-backs or underpinning of adjacent structures. The buildings would meet the requirements of appropriate Building and Fire Codes, as adopted by the City of Burlingame. The project, in conformance to applicable regulations and with the implementation of the recommendations in the geotechnical report, would not result in significant impacts from seismicity and seismic-related hazards including ground shaking and liquefaction. (Less Than Significant Impact) Landslides The site and surrounding areas are generally level. Therefore, the hazard due to landsliding is very low for the site. (Less Than Significant Impact) Groundwater Impacts Groundwater at the project site has been encountered at depths as shallow as five feet bgs. The below grade structure would require soil excavation up to approximately 28 30 feet bgs. Therefore, the project could risk exacerbating environmental hazards or risks on the site through the construction of the proposed development. If groundwater is encountered during construction, dewatering and special soil preparation may be necessary to allow construction in a dry condition and on a stable subgrade. Dewatering activities that lower groundwater level could increase the effective stress on underlying sediments, potentially resulting in ground settlements and damage to structures, roadways, and/or utilities. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 55 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 According to the Downtown Specific Plan, lowering the local shallow groundwater table could contribute to land subsidence and reduce the aquifer volume. Impacts of development under the Downtown Specific Plan on groundwater, therefore, would be potentially significant. Impact GEO – 1: The project may be subject to high groundwater levels over the life of the proposed structure. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: The following Standard Condition of Approval would reduce impacts to groundwater to a less than significant level: MM GEO – 1.1: For development under the Downtown Specific Plan, projects with subgrade structures require that the project sponsor prepare a Geotechnical Study identifying the depth to the seasonal high water table at the project site. No permanent groundwater dewatering would be allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Instead, all residential uses must be elevated to above the seasonal high water table and all areas for non-residential uses shall be floodproofed and anchored, in accordance with floodplain development requirements, to the design depth as recommended by a geotechnical engineer. Final design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works prior to receiving a building permit. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) b, d, e) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Soil Impacts The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and, therefore, the last threshold is not discussed further. Due to the relatively flat topography of the site and surrounding area, the project would not result in substantial erosion, or loss of topsoil. Expansive soils are not present on the site (refer to Appendix D). Therefore, impacts to structures from expansive soils would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.6.4 Conclusion The project would not result in significant geology and soil impacts with the implementation of mitigation measure GEO – 1.1. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 56 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.7.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2,10, 11,15 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 2,10, 11,15 4.7.2 Existing Setting The project site is currently developed with a multi-family residential structure. GHG emissions from existing uses on-site include emissions resulting from building and operations (e.g., heating/cooling and lighting) and vehicular travel to and from the site. Background Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which are discussed in Section 4.4 and have local or regional impacts, emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere over time. The principal GHGs contributing to global warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 57 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are: • For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. • For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e. Stationary source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria, then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For condominiums and townhouses, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines set a screening threshold of 78 dwelling units. Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations State of California Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed in 2006 and established a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Prior to the adoption of AB 32, the Governor of California also signed Executive Order S-3-05 into law, which set a long term objective to reduce GHG emissions to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The CalEPA is the state agency in charge of coordinating the GHG emissions reduction effort and establishing targets along the way. In December 2008, CARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal. The First Update to the Scoping Plan was approved on May 22, 2014 and builds upon the Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations. The First Update defines CARB’s priorities over the next five years and lays the groundwork to reach long-term goals set forth in Executive Order S-3-05. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 58 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Senate Bill 375 Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035 in comparison to 2005 emissions. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035. The four major requirements of SB 375 are: 1. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks through land use and transportation strategies. 2. MPOs must create a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), to provide an integrated land use/transportation plan for meeting regional targets, consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 3. Regional housing elements and transportation plans must be synchronized on eight-year schedules, with Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation numbers conforming to the SCS. 4. MPOs must use transportation and air emissions modeling techniques consistent with guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013 in response to SB 375. The strategies in the plan are intended to promote compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by local jurisdictions. The project site is located within a PDA. Regional and Local Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP) addresses air emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. One of the key objectives in the CAP is climate protection. The 2010 CAP includes emission control measures and performance objectives, consistent with the state’s climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, designed to reduce emissions of GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. City of Burlingame General Plan The Housing Element of the City’s General Plan contains policies, recommendations, and actions to promote energy conservation. Through energy conservation, GHG emissions are reduced. The proposed project would be subject to conformance with applicable General Plan policies, including the policy listed below. Policy Description Policy H (E-1) Promote the use of energy conservation in residential construction 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 59 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Climate Action Plan The City’s Climate Action Plan serves as a guiding document to identify methods that the City and community can implement to significantly reduce GHG emissions. Adopted in 2009, the Climate Action Plan establishes a framework of action that the City and community can implement and also provides a statement of intent for long-term and short-term priorities. In addition, it creates a baseline of emissions, sets achievable targets stipulated by AB 32, and recommends steps to be taken to reduce emissions, increase sustainability, and improve quality of life. Green Building Ordinance In 2010, the City of Burlingame adopted the Green Building Ordinance, which required enhanced green building measures for non-residential projects and residential construction projects with a value of $50,000 or more. For residential construction, compliance with the Green Building Ordinance required the submittal of a GreenPoint checklist, or equivalent, with a minimum rating of 50 points to the Planning Division or Building Division, depending on whether Planning Commission approval is required. Then in 2014 the Green Building Ordinance was superseded by CalGreen (California Green Building Code). 4.7.3 Impacts Evaluation a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The project proposes 21 units and is well below the 78 dwelling units screening level specified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, therefore it is not anticipated that the project will create significant operational GHG emissions. (Less Than Significant Impact) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan [specifically Policy H (E-1) of promoting energy conservation in residential construction], Downtown Specific Plan, Climate Action Plan, and CalGreen because the project proposes to be constructed in compliance with the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24), which requires efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce water and energy consumption. By complying with CalGreen, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment nor would it conflict with an applicable policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less than Significant Impact) 4.7.4 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant GHG emission impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 60 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.8.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1 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? 1 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1,2 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, will it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1,2 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1,2,17 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 17 g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1,2 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1,2 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 61 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.8.2 Existing Setting Background Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of which are naturally-occurring and some of which are man-made. Examples include motor oil and fuel, metals (e.g., lead, mercury, arsenic), asbestos, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical compounds used in manufacturing and other activities. A substance may be considered hazardous if, due to its chemical and/or physical properties, it poses a substantial hazard when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or released into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. Determining if such substances are present on or near project sites is important because exposure to hazardous materials above regulatory thresholds can result in adverse health effects on humans, as well as harm to plant and wildlife ecology. On-Site Hazardous Materials The project site has been residential since 1954. Therefore, residents would likely use and store small quantities of household hazardous wastes (i.e., ammonia, paints, oils) which would not be considered significant. There are no known hazardous materials releases associated with the project site. Off-Site Hazardous Materials According to Geotracker, several facilities (within 1,000 feet of the property site) were documented as having a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) that could potentially contaminate the project site and neighboring areas if contaminants are absorbed into the groundwater or soil. A nearby school (McKinley Elementary School) approximately 700 feet north of the project site, documented a LUST case that was closed by December 1994. A LUST case was also recorded at Hillsborough Town Hall approximately 500 feet west of the project site and remediated by March 1999. Lastly, a LUST case was recorded at a nearby private residence approximately 300 feet west of the project site and remediated in 2000. The primary contaminant of concern for the LUST cases was gasoline and diesel. No other LUST cases have been recorded in the vicinity of the project site. The project includes a below-grade parking garage that will require excavation to 28 30 feet bgs in an area where groundwater was encountered at five (5) feet bgs. Due to natural groundwater fluctuations, the project could encounter groundwater during excavation activities on the site which would need to be removed from excavated areas and disposed. Based on the distance of the previous LUST cases from the project site, residual contaminants found in groundwater are unlikely to flow towards the project site. Applicant Plans, Policies, and Regulations Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), initially authorized in 1976, gives the U.S. EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from “cradle-to-grave.” This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 62 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 enabled the U.S. EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. Department of Toxic Substances Control The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates hazardous waste, remediation of existing contamination, and evaluates procedures to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup and emergency planning. From these laws and regulations, DTSC develops guidelines and regulations that define what those who handle hazardous waste must do to comply with the laws. These rulemakings are subject to public review and comment. Government Code §65962.5 (Cortese List) Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) to develop and update (at least annually) a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The project site is not listed on the Cortese List. City of Burlingame General Plan The Seismic Safety Element, as well as the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan contains policies, recommendations, and actions to avoid or mitigate hazards and hazardous material impacts resulting from development within the City. The proposed project would be subject to conformance with applicable General Plan policies, including those listed below. Policies Description Policy SS(B) Require that new development incorporate seismic hazard mitigation measures to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Policy S(A) Identify existing natural and man-made safety hazards, and devise a reasonable assignment of responsibility for their correction or reduction which will be within limits of economic acceptability. Policy S(C) Identify any urgently needed implementation measures or new legislation. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 63 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.8.3 Impacts Evaluation a, b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? The proposed multi-family residential development would not involve the transport, use, storage or disposal of reportable quantities of hazardous materials. Future residents, as is likely true of current site residents, would likely use and store small quantities of household hazardous wastes (i.e., ammonia, paints, oils) which would not be considered significant. During construction, the project may store fuels and chemicals used in the construction of the proposed residential building. Redevelopment of the proposed project will require the demolition of a multi-family residential building on the site, which may contain asbestos building materials and/or lead- based paint. In conformance with State and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, will be conducted prior to the demolition of the building to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint. The project will be required to implement the following measures in conformance with existing regulations: • Asbestos is regulated as a hazardous air pollutant and as a potential worker safety hazard. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Regulation 11 and the California division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations restrict asbestos emissions from demolition and renovation activities and specify safe work practices to minimize the potential for release of asbestos fibers. • Fluorescent light ballasts may contain PCBs, and if so, are regulated as hazardous waste and must be transported and disposed of as hazardous waste. • Cal/OSHA standards establish a maximum safe exposure level for types of construction work where lead exposure may occur, including demolition of structures where materials containing lead are present; removal or encapsulation of materials containing lead; and new construction, alteration, repair, or renovation of structures with materials containing lead. • Lighting tubes typically contain concentrations of mercury that may exceed regulatory thresholds for hazardous waste and, as such, must be managed in accordance with hazardous waste regulations. Elemental mercury also can be found in many electrical switches which also must be managed in accordance with hazardous waste regulations. Demolition done in conformance with these federal, State and local laws and regulations, will avoid significant exposure of construction workers and/or the public to asbestos and lead- based paint. (Less Than Significant Impact) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 64 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 McKinley Elementary School is located approximately 700 feet north of the project site. Future residents on-site, as is likely true of current site residents, would likely use and store small quantities of household hazardous wastes (i.e., ammonia, paints, oils) which would not be considered significant. Therefore, the proposed residential uses would not use or emit significant quantities of hazardous materials that would have any effect on McKinley Elementary School. (Less Than Significant Impact) d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to [Government Code Section 65962.5] and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and, therefore, is not anticipated to have any impact on adjacent uses from existing conditions on the site. The project site has been developed with the existing apartment building since 1954 and soils and groundwater on the site are not known or anticipated to contain hazardous materials contamination. Excavation on the site for construction of the subgrade parking garage would require export of soils to offsite locations (i.e. landfills or other development sites). Any landfill operator or developer receiving the exported soil will require sampling to ensure the soil meets applicable criteria for the specific receiving site, and the project applicant will share the soil sampling results with the City prior to issuance of a grading permit to document there is no potential to affect worker safety and adjacent residents. (Less Than Significant Impact) e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). At its highest point, the Downtown Specific Plan Area, which includes the project site, is approximately 40 feet above mean sea level (msl), and the tallest buildings under the Downtown Specific Plan would not exceed 75 feet (115 feet msl). Thus, the building heights in the Plan Area would be well under the 300- to 350-foot high surface boundary of the SFIA ALUP, and the proposed project would not conflict with the ALUP height restrictions. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace” (referred to as FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures and minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 65 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above ground. For the project site, any proposed structure of a height greater than approximately 100 feet above mean sea level is required under FAR Part 77 to be submitted to the FAA for review. The proposed project will be 55 feet in height to the top of the roof. The project site is approximately 40 feet above msl. Therefore, the total height of the structure would not exceed 95 feet which falls under the FAR Part 77 height restrictions of 100 feet above msl. (Less Than Significant Impact) The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, private airstrip uses would not be a hazard to people visiting or residing on the project site. (No Impact) g, h) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that residents of the proposed building are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. The Fire Marshal has required that the building be equipped with a minimum NFPA 13R designed system with electronic monitoring system and be protected by a fire alarm system, which is required to be monitored by an approved central station. This requirement will reduce potential fire hazards for the project. Burlingame also participates in a county-wide mutual aid program for large-scale fires and related emergencies. The City of Burlingame's water system that serves this site is rated as a Class 3 system by the Insurance Services Offices, and is adequate for fighting fires at this location.14 The City has established goals and policies in its General Plan Safety Element that are designed to address potential threats to the City and its residents. As stipulated by the Safety Element, the City, in cooperation with the Town of Hillsborough, has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan. The plan is to be used by City staff to provide emergency support during and after a disaster. Therefore, the continued residential use of the site will not impede the Emergency Operations Plan enforced by the City. (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project area is entirely urbanized and does not contain wildlands, nor is it adjacent to wildlands. Therefore, wildland hazards are not a concern.15 (No Impact) 4.8.4 Conclusion The project is not proposing new hazardous materials uses and is not located on a site contaminated with hazardous materials. There proposed project would therefore not result in significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 14 City of Burlingame Planning Staff Project Comments to Fire Division. November 19, 2014. 15 City of Burlingame. Downtown Specific Plan Initial Study. May 27, 2010. Page 150. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 66 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.9.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,2 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1,2 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which will result in flooding on-or off-site? 1,2 e) Create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1,2 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,16 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows? 1,16 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1,2 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 67 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: j) Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,2 4.9.2 Existing Setting Water Quality The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain. Surface Water The project site is located within the Burlingame/Ralston Creek Watershed. Approximately 55 percent of the project site is covered with impervious materials. Stormwater runoff in this watershed is entirely contained within a storm drain system and combined with the flows from Burlingame Creek. Groundwater Groundwater on the project site was recorded at a depth of about five feet below ground surface (bgs). Fluctuations in the groundwater level in the area may occur due to seasonal changes, variations in rainfall and underground drainage patterns, and other factors. The City of Burlingame does not use local groundwater for its drinking water supply, nor does it participate in active groundwater recharge activities. Flooding and Other Inundation Hazards The Citywide storm drainage system includes five major watershed areas: Easton, Burlingame/ Ralston Creek, Sanchez/Terrace, Mills, and El Portal/Trousdale. The project site is located within the Burlingame/Ralston Creek watershed. The Burlingame/Ralston Creek watershed experiences flooding in the following areas: areas upstream from El Camino Real at Heritage Park and Crescent Avenue, the Burlingame Avenue Downtown business area, the Ralston Creek area, and the residential area bounded by California Drive and Rollins Road. The project site is not located within any of the areas of this watershed that experience flooding. Flooding within the Burlingame/Ralston Creek watershed is a result of undersized drainage facilities. The combined Burlingame Creek and Ralston Creek storm drain system has a capacity of a 10-year 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 68 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 storm event as opposed to the City’s 30-year storm capacity standard. There are two undersized box culverts beneath Burlingame Avenue in the Plan Area; and there are two undersized pipelines along Oak Grove Avenue to San Francisco Bay. The City has proposed the following improvements to remedy these drainage issues that have been funded by a bond measure: • Install a 60-inch pipeline bypass from Burlingame Creek at El Camino Real along Howard Avenue to San Francisco Bay with floodgates. • Install a 60-inch bypass pipeline from Ralston Creek to the channel along the Caltrain ROW. The planned improvements have been funded and are currently in the design phase. The project site is not located in a 100-year floodplain. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is designated Zone X which are areas of moderate risk areas within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of one-percent-annual-chance flooding where average depths are less than one foot, areas of one- percent-annual-chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile, and areas protected from the one-percent-annual-chance flood by a levee. Given the topography of the project site and area, the project site is not subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudslide hazards. Sea Level Rise The project is located at an elevation of approximately 40 feet above mean sea level, and it is not within a shoreline area vulnerable to projected sea level rise from global climate change of up to 55 inches.16 Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations National Flood Insurance Program In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and creates Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that has a one in 100 (one percent) chance of being flooded in any one year based on historical data. As discussed in more detail in Section 4.9.2.4 above, the project site is not located in a 100-year floodplain. 16 Bay Conservation and Development Commissions. 2011. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco and on its Shoreline. Approved on October 6, 2011. Accessed April 21, 2016. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBay.pdf. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 69 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 City of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 of the City’s Municipal Code, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control, ensures the future health, safety, and general welfare of City of Burlingame citizens by: (a) eliminating non-storm water discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer, (b) controlling the discharge to municipal separate storm sewers from spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than storm water, and (c) reducing pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable in compliance with applicable permits (e.g., NPDES Permit and MRP) and with the implementation of best management practices. 4.9.3 Impacts Evaluation a, f) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts Construction of the project requires excavation to a maximum depth of approximately 28 30 feet. Groundwater depth on the project site fluctuates seasonally and was observed as shallow as five feet bgs. As a result, excavation and construction of the project could encounter groundwater and dewatering would be required. Minor construction dewatering would be covered under the statewide Construction General Permit. In accordance with the Downtown Specific Plan Design and Character guidelines, any groundwater dewatering required during construction would be temporary and would not substantially affect groundwater levels. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, if the City determines an individual water discharge requirements (WDR) and NPDES permit is required for construction dewatering, it would include discharge limitations and monitoring requirements to be protective of water quality and ensure water quality standards are not violated. All storm drain inlets in the area of construction work would be protected with sediment controls such as berms, fiber rolls or filters. (Less Than Significant Impact) Post-Construction Water Quality Impacts The project would include stormwater treatment measures implemented in order to reduce and/or mitigate the potential for polluted runoff. All roof runoff would be directed away from sidewalks and walkways and would be directed to vegetated areas. The floor drains in the parking garage area would drain to the sanitary sewer. The landscaping pallet would include a diverse species selection and would include pest and/or disease-resistant, drought tolerant, and/or species that attract beneficial insects. Efficiently planned and operated irrigation systems would be put into place to minimize runoff. All discharge for fire sprinkler testing would be designed to discharge to landscaped areas or the sanitary sewer. With the implementation of stormwater treatment measures, the project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality. (Less Than Significant Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 70 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? As previously discussed, groundwater at the project site has been encountered at five feet bgs. The below grade parking garage would require soil excavation to approximately 28 30 feet bgs. As noted in the geotechnical investigation, groundwater levels on the site may exist at shallower depths than noted in borings on the site with seasonal fluctuations. If groundwater is encountered during construction, dewatering and special soil preparation may be necessary to allow construction in a dry condition and on a stable subgrade. Dewatering activities that lower groundwater levels could increase the effective stress on underlying sediments, potentially resulting in ground settlements and damage to structures, roadways, and/or utilities (refer to Section 4.6 Geology and Soils). In areas where parking structures would intersect the seasonal high groundwater table, flood- proofing or permanent groundwater dewatering may be required. The local, shallow groundwater is not used as a local water supply; water supply in the City of Burlingame is from surface water resources. Potential impacts of depleting groundwater supplies or reducing groundwater recharge, therefore, would be less than significant. The Downtown Specific Plan, which includes the project site, has a Standard Condition of Approval for projects with subgrade structures that requires the project sponsor to prepare a Geotechnical Study and implement mitigation measures (MM GEO – 1.1) to ensure no permanent groundwater dewatering and reduce potential impacts on the local groundwater table and aquifer volume. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? There are no waterways on the project site and, therefore, redevelopment of the project site would not alter the course of a stream or river. Construction on the site will comply with the City’s stormwater regulations to ensure construction activities on the site do not result in increased soil erosion or siltation off-site. (Less Than Significant Impact) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which will result in flooding on-or off-site? The 0.35-acre project site is currently primarily paved and covered with a two-story multi- family residential structure. As shown in Table 4.9-1, the project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site by about 3,639 square feet, an increase in area roughly equivalent to the roof area and paving for a new single family home. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 71 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Table 4.9-1 Pervious and Impervious Surfaces On-Site Site Surface Existing/Pre- Construction (SF) % Project/Post- Construction (SF) % Difference (SF) % Impervious 8,328 55 11,967 79 +3,639 +24 Pervious 6,779 45 3,140* 21 -3,639 -24 Total 15,107 100 15,107 100 *The landscaped area (2,542 s.f.) includes the total stormwater treatment area (598 s.f.). Under existing conditions, the site is 55 percent impervious (8,328 square feet of the 0.35- acre project site). The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on-site by only 3,639 square feet, an increase of 24 percent of the project site. The result of this change could be an incremental increase in the amount of stormwater runoff from the project site. The project includes bioretention areas to ensure stormwater runoff from the site would not exceed current runoff rates. Given the limited increase in impervious surfaces on the site and use of bioretention areas, runoff from the project would not result in additional flooding on- or off-site. (Less Than Significant Impact) e) Create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? As described above, the proposed project would result in a 24 percent increase in impervious surfaces on the site which could result in an incremental increase in runoff. Given the limited increase in impervious surfaces on the site and use of bioretention areas, the project would not substantially increase runoff volumes or pollutant loads in runoff from the site and the project is not anticipated to exceed the City’s storm drainage system capacity with the implementation of planned and funded storm sewer improvements. (Less Than Significant Impact) g – i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The project site is not located in a 100-year floodplain and, therefore, would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area or impede or redirect flood flows within a 100- year flood hazard area. The project site is not located in a dam failure inundation area for the Burlingame and Crocker Dams. Therefore, the project site would not be exposed to risks involving the failure of a levee or dam.17 (No Impact) 17 County of San Mateo. Dam Failure Inundation Maps. Accessed April 13, 2016. http://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/Dam_Failure_Inundation.pdf 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 72 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site, due to its topography, is not subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudslide hazards. (No Impact) 4.9.4 Conclusion The proposed project, in compliance with applicable water quality regulations and mitigation measures (MM GEO – 1.1), would not result in significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 73 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.10.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2,17 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1 4.10.2 Existing Setting The project site is located in an urban area bounded by El Camino Real to the west, three-story multi- family residential buildings to the north, and a three-story multi-family residential building to the south (refer to Figure 2.2-3). The project site is currently developed with a multi-family residential building. The site is not used for agricultural or forestry uses. The site is not located within an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan. Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations The project site is designated in the General Plan as High Density Residential. This allows for over 51 dwelling units per acre. Areas for high density residential uses are designated in the area northwest of the Burlingame Avenue-Park Road shopping center. High density residential areas provide good access to all forms of transportation and proximity to downtown. The project site is zoned in R-3 zoning district. All uses permitted in R-3 districts include multi- family residential uses with an average unit size of 1,250 square feet (as specified by the Downtown Specific Plan). Churches, convents, and parish houses are also permitted in R-3 zoning districts. Building heights are limited to 35 feet in height without the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The project site is located in the R-3 Base District of the Downtown Specific Plan. This district is on the north side of Downtown and is bounded by Oak Grove Avenue to its north; development fronting California Drive to its east; El Camino Real to its west and development fronting Bellevue Avenue and Douglas Avenue to its south. The land uses in the R-3 Base District are predominantly multi- family residential including some lower intensity residential uses such as single-family homes, 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 74 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 duplexes, apartment homes, multi-family homes and accessory buildings. Uses in this district also include public buildings, public parks and playgrounds, and religious facilities. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Francisco International Airport and Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 In 1967, the State legislature adopted legislation requiring the establishment of airport land use commissions in counties with one or more airports serving the general public. Amendments adopted by the legislature in 1970 required each commission to develop comprehensive airport land use compatibility plans (ALUPs). The purpose of the ALUPs is to provide for the orderly growth of airports and the surrounding areas to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Properties within the AIA may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (e.g., noise, vibration, and odors). The airport/land use compatibility of a proposed development or land use policy action shall be determined by comparing the proposed development or land use policy action with the safety compatibility criteria, noise compatibility criteria, and airspace protection/height limitation criteria in the ALUP. The ALUP for SFO identifies safety zones where certain land uses are incompatible and should be avoided. The project site is not located within an identified safety zone. Properties located within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour for SFO warrant land use controls to promote noise compatibility. The project site is not located within 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour for SFO. The ALUP also includes airspace protection/height limitation criteria based on Federal Aviation Regulations. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace” (referred to as FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures and minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above ground. For the project site, any proposed structure of a height greater than approximately 100 feet above mean sea level is required under FAR Part 77 to be submitted to the FAA for review. 4.10.3 Impacts Evaluation a) Physically divide an established community? The project site is located in a developed urban area with residential uses to the north, south, and east. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the demolition of an existing 14-unit multi-family structure and the construction of a 21-unit multi-family residential structure on the site. The layout and design of the project does not include any features that would physically divide the community (e.g., impeding roadways or sidewalks). 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 75 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community. (Less Than Significant Impact) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? According to the City’s General Plan, the project site is designated as High Density Residential, which allows for over 51 dwelling units per acre. The project site has a density of 60 units per acre, therefore it is consistent with General Plan. The proposed multi-family residential development is a permitted use in the R-3 Base District. All uses permitted in R-3 districts include multi-family residential uses with an average unit size of 1,250 square feet. The proposed project would have an average unit size of 1,055 square feet. The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for SFO. Although aircraft-related noise would occasionally be audible at the project site, the project site lies outside of the 65 dB CNEL contour for SFO, as established in the ALUP. For the project site, any proposed structure of a height greater than approximately 100 feet above mean sea level is required under FAR Part 77 to be submitted to the FAA for review. The proposed project will be 55 feet in height to the top of the roof. The project site is approximately 40 feet above msl. Therefore, the total height of the structure would not exceed 95 feet which falls under the FAR Part 77 height restrictions of 100 feet above msl. The project would not result in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, the project would result in a less than significant land use impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is not located within an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (No Impact) 4.10.4 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a significant land use impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 76 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1,2,3 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? 1,2,3 4.11.2 Existing Setting The San Mateo County General Plan identifies 13 mineral resources found in San Mateo County and classifies these resources into four categories. Seven of these minerals: chromite, clay, expansible shale, mercury, sand and gravel, sands (specialty), and stone (dimension), are not likely to be used primarily because of limited quantities, urbanization or economic infeasibility. Due to the fact that the project site is located on urban land in the City of Burlingame, there are no significant mineral resources on or in the vicinity of the project site. 4.11.3 Impacts Evaluation a, b) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? According to the San Mateo County General Plan Mineral Resources Map, the project site is not located in an area containing known mineral resources. Furthermore, according to the State of California Department of Mines and Geology, Mineral Resources Zones and Resources Sectors Map, the project site is located in an area designated as MRZ-1. This designation refers to an area “where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.” Therefore, implementation of the project would not impact mineral resources. (No Impact) 4.11.4 Conclusion The project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. (No Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 77 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION 4.12.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1,2,3 b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2,3 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2,3 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1,2,17 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1,2 4.12.2 Existing Setting Background Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Acceptable levels of noise vary from land use to land use. In any one location, the noise level will vary over time, from the lowest background or ambient noise level to temporary increases caused by traffic or other sources. State and federal standards have been established as guidelines for determining the compatibility of a particular use with its noise environment. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level or dBA.18 This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Typical noise descriptors 18 The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. All sound levels in this discussion are A-weighted, unless otherwise stated. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 78 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 include maximum noise level (Lmax), the energy-equivalent noise level (Leq), and the day-night average noise level (Ldn). The Ldn noise descriptor is commonly used in establishing noise exposure guidelines for specific land uses. For the energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor called Leq the most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening hours, 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ldn (sometimes also referred to as DNL), is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of 10 dB to noise levels measured in the nighttime between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour A-weighted noise level from midnight to midnight after the addition of five dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. On-Site Conditions The project site is bounded by El Camino Real to the west, and multi-family residences to the north, east, and south. The noise environment on the project site results primarily from vehicular traffic along El Camino Real, a major arterial roadway located directly west of the project site. 4.12.2.1 Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Francisco International Airport As discussed in more detail in Section 4.10 Land Use, the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Properties within the AIA may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (e.g., noise, vibration, and odors). The airport/land use compatibility of a proposed development or land use policy action shall be determined by comparing the proposed development or land use policy action with the safety compatibility criteria, noise compatibility criteria, and airspace protection/height limitation criteria in the ALUP. Properties located within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour for SFO warrant land use controls to promote noise compatibility. The project site is not located within SFO’s 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour. 2014 State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 The State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings which house people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses and dwellings other 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 79 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 than single-family dwellings. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB Ldn or CNEL in any habitable room. City of Burlingame General Plan The Noise Element of the General Plan sets forth noise and land use compatibility standards to guide development, and noise goals and policies to protect citizens from the harmful and annoying effects of excessive noise. According to the General Plan, suitable outdoor noise levels for residential land uses ranges up to 60 dBA CNEL and the indoor noise level for residential land uses is 45 dBA CNEL or lower. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan contains policies, recommendations, and actions to avoid or mitigate land use impacts resulting from development within the City. The proposed project would be subject to conformance with applicable General Plan policies, including those listed below. Policies Description Policy N(A) Preserve peaceful noise conditions in the City where they do exist. Policy N(B) Reduce annoying levels of noise for existing situations; aircraft, motor vehicle and domestic animal noise were identified by a Noise Questionnaire to be the most annoying at present. Policy N(C) Achieve a peaceful acoustic environment in portions of the city to be developed. Policy N(D) Consider use of existing city and inter-governmental processes to accomplish noise control. Policy N(E) Arrive at resultant implementation programs which are consistent with State and Federal guidelines and which are (i) legally valid, (ii) not unduly costly, and (iii) do not impose undue hardship upon residential property owners and community business interests. Policy N(F) Foster in the citizens of all segments of the City an assurance that their concerns with unwanted sound levels are of importance to the City, and publicize the existence of avenues by which these problems can be quantified and mitigated. City of Burlingame Municipal Code The Building Construction Section of the Municipal Code establishes daily hours for construction in the City of Burlingame. Chapter 18.07.110-305.1 states that no person shall erect, demolish, alter, or repair any building or structure other than between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, except under circumstances of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety. An exception must be approved in writing by the building official and shall be granted for a period of no more than three days for projects including structures with a gross floor area of less than 40,000 square feet; when reasonable to accomplish the erection, demolition, alteration, or repair, the exception shall not exceed 20 days for projects including structures with a gross floor area of 40,000 square feet or greater. 4.12.3 Impacts Evaluation a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 80 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 The Noise Element of the General Plan establishes 60 dBA CNEL as the maximum suggested outdoor noise level for land uses that include single and multi-family residences. Based on the General Plan noise contours, noise levels on the project site are expected to exceed 70 CNEL due to traffic levels along El Camino Real. Because the proposed project is a multi-family residential land use, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations will require a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare a design-level acoustical study as a prerequisite to building permit issuance for multi-family residential development applications where noise levels could exceed 65 dBA. The study shall include post-construction monitoring to ensure that interior ambient noise levels for multi-family housing are at or below 45 dBA. The project site includes a common open space on the eastern side of the site that would be acoustically protected by shielding from the proposed building that fronts El Camino Real, adjacent three-story buildings fronting El Camino Real and proposed six-foot privacy fencing along the property line. The proposed building design and siting of the proposed open space would ensure a common use area is available to residents with noise levels of 60 dBA DNL or less which is consistent with the outdoor noise levels for residential uses identified in the General Plan. (Less Than Significant Impact) b) Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction of the proposed condominium will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity. The proposed residences once occupied would not generate excessive or perceptible vibration. (Less Than Significant Impact) c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The proposed residential structure will include air conditioning units generating noise and would result in some additional vehicle trips in the project area. Increased vehicle trips would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels as new traffic volumes from 21 dwelling units (reflecting a net increase of seven units above current 14) would be low compared to existing traffic volumes on El Camino Real and surrounding streets. The proposed project air conditioning units will be designed to meet the City’s 60 dBA Leq noise levels at adjacent residential property lines consistent with the City’s Municipal Code which will be verified by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.19 (Less Than Significant Impact) d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Project implementation would result in intermittent short-term noise impacts resulting from construction-related activities. Section 18.07.110 of the City’s Municipal Code limits the 19 City of Burlingame. Municipal Code Section 26.30.070(f)(4). 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 81 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 hours of construction to between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. During the hours permitted by the City for construction activities, project-related construction noise may create unacceptable peak noise levels for surrounding land uses, and thus result in a temporary but potentially significant impact. Due to the size of the project site and proposed land use it is anticipated that the effects of construction noise levels would be reduced through the implementation of standard permit conditions. As described in Section 3.0 Project Description, construction on the site would last approximately 22 months. Impact NV – 1: The project would construct a multi-story residential building adjacent to noise sensitive, residential uses which could result in temporary disturbances during construction. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures will be implemented by the project to ensure impacts from construction noise are reduced to a less than significant level: MM NV – 1.1: The Project applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor:20 • Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: o Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; o Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; o Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; o Minimize backing movements of equipment; • Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible; • Impact equipment (e.g., jackhammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible; • Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; and • Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Community 20 City of Burlingame. Downtown Specific Plan Initial Study. May 27, 2010. Page 165. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 82 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Development Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. • The project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. • The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not yet been adopted, within 2 miles of a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is a major international airport located approximately 3.4 miles north of the project site. The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for SFO. Although aircraft-related noise would occasionally be audible at the project site, the project site lies outside of the 65 dB CNEL contour for SFO, as established in the ALUP. In addition, the vehicular traffic noise levels measured at the project site exceed 65 dBA Ldn, therefore, any overhead aircraft noise would not be significant in relation to the existing, local traffic noise. (Less Than Significant Impact/No Impact) 4.12.4 Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of mitigation measure NV – 1.1 would ensure that construction noise impacts would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 83 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,2 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 4.13.2 Existing Setting According to California Department of Finance 2014 Census data, Burlingame’s population for 2014 was 30,298 persons.21 From 2010 to 2014, there were 13,027 households with an average of 2.38 persons per household.22 According to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan, the projected population in 2040 will be 38,400 persons occupying 16,134 households. The project site currently provides 14 residences, which accommodate approximately 33 residents, assuming the City’s average household size. The Downtown Specific Plan, which includes the project site area, would allow construction of up to 1,232 residential units. Therefore, based on the household size estimated in the ABAG 2007 Projections, the residential component of the Downtown Specific Plan would increase the population of Burlingame by 1,374 persons by the year 2020. This would represent partial build out of the Downtown Specific Plan. By the year 2030, when the Downtown Specific Plan would be at full build out, the residential component would directly increase the population by 2,723 persons. Thus, the total population would increase to 32,123 at full build out under the Downtown Specific Plan in 2030. The jobs/housing balance is the relationship between the number of housing units required as a result of local jobs and the number of residential units available in the City. This relationship is quantified by the jobs/employed resident ratio. When the ratio reaches 1.0, a balance is struck between the supply of local housing and local jobs. The jobs/employed resident ratio is determined by dividing the number of local jobs by the number of employed residents that can be housed in local housing. 21 State of California, Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State—January 1, 2014 and 2015. May 2015. Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e- 1/view.php. 22 U.S. Census Bureau. “American Fact Finder.” Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2014, for the City of Burlingame. Available at: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 84 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Burlingame currently has a higher number of jobs than employed residents (approximately 2.42 jobs per employed resident). 4.13.3 Impacts Evaluation a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Implementation of the project will replace the existing 14-unit multi-family residential structure on-site with a 21-unit condominium building, which will create more housing by adding a net increase of seven dwelling units. This increase in housing would result in a net increase in local population by approximately 16 residents.23 The number of additional residents will be part of the planned growth in the Downtown area of the City as envisioned in the Downtown Specific Plan, which accommodates an increased population of up to approximately 2,723 new residents. The minor increase in population associated with the project would not induce substantial growth in the City of Burlingame, and is part of the planned growth for the Downtown Specific Plan area. The project’s impact due to population growth would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) b, c) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Construction of the proposed project would result in the demolition of a multi-family residential building. Since the proposed project will be adding seven residential dwelling units to the City’s housing supply, the loss of the existing structure would not require replacement housing to be constructed elsewhere, although the current residents would be required to vacate the site and find existing replacement housing elsewhere. Because the project would add a net increase to the City’s housing supply, the impact from loss of the current 14 units and displacement of existing residents would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.13.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the City’s population and housing supply. (Less Than Significant Impact) 23 Based on the latest US Census data for the City, the average residents per household is 2.38. 2.38 residents per household x 7 net new units = 16 residents. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 85 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: - Fire Protection? - Police Protection? - Schools? - Parks? - Other Public Facilities? 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 4.14.2 Existing Setting Because the project is infill, represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City, and is located on an already developed site, the existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the proposed 21-unit condominium building. Fire Service Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which also serves the Town of Hillsborough and City of Millbrae. The CCFD provides all-risk services and plays a role in fire suppression, rescue, emergency medicine, operational training, fire prevention and investigation, and community education. The CCFD also participates in a Joint Powers Agreement within San Mateo County, providing Advanced Life Support as part of a 20-city, 56 engine company workforce. In addition, the CCFD is part of the San Mateo County Fire Services Automatic Aid Agreement, which calls for the CCFD to assist neighboring fire departments (and vice versa) in providing fire protection services (as needed) throughout the County. The City’s General Plan does not identify a service ratio goal, response time goal, or other performance standard for fire services. However for reference, the CCFD has a 6:59 minute response time standard for emergency medical services, and a minimum goal of 13 personnel to a structure fire within eight minutes. The closest station to the project site is CCFD Fire Station 34, located at 799 California Drive, approximately 0.6 miles north of the project site. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 86 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Police Service Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive, approximately 2.4 miles north of the project site. The BPD currently consists of 37 police officers and 25 professional staff, and includes an Operations Division, Administration Division, Traffic Division, and Investigations Section. Select members of the BPD also belong to a regional Special Operations Unit, which includes Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT). The City’s General Plan does not identify a service ratio goal, response time goal, or other performance standard for police services. Schools Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. Students in the project area attend McKinley Elementary School, Burlingame Intermediate School, and Burlingame High School. McKinley Elementary School is located approximately 700 feet north of the project site, Burlingame Intermediate School is located approximately 2.2 miles north of the project site, and Burlingame High School is located approximately 0.9 miles east of the project site. Parks The City of Burlingame provides and maintains developed parkland and open space to serve its residents. Residents of Burlingame are served by regional and community park facilities, including regional open space, community and neighborhood parks, playing fields, and trails. The City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for development, operation, and maintenance of all City park facilities. The City’s General Plan does not identify a service ratio goal, or other performance standard for park facilities. The closest parks to the project site include Paloma Playground located approximately 0.5 miles to the north and Heritage Park located approximately 0.5 miles to the south. Libraries The Burlingame Public Library System consists of one main library and one branch library. The Main Library is located at 480 Primrose Road, 0.4 miles east of the project site, and the Easton Branch Library is located at 1800 Easton Drive, 1.1 miles north of the project site. The City’s General Plan does not identify a service ratio goal, or other performance standard for library services. Applicable Public Services Regulations and Policies Government Code Section 65996 State law (Government Code Section 65996) specifies an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities as the payment of a school impact fee prior to issuance of a building permit. California Government Code Sections 65995-65998, sets forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development as exclusive means of “considering and 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 87 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur or might occur as a result of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, by any state or local agency involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property” [§65996(a)]. The legislation goes on to say that the payment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA [§65996(b)]. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code. The school impact fees and the school districts’ methods of implementing measures specified by Government Code 65996 would mitigate project-related increases in student enrollment. In the City of Burlingame, fees are collected on all new construction projects and residential remodels that add 500 square feet or more. School fees are collected to offset costs of rehabilitation and maintenance of school buildings; the fees are split between the Burlingame School District and San Mateo Union High School District. City of Burlingame General Plan The Open Space and Land Use Elements of the City’s General Plan contain policies, recommendations, and actions to protect and enhance existing and future open space areas within the City. The proposed project would be subject to conformance with applicable General Plan policies, including those listed below. Policy Description Policy OS(B) Increase privacy, amenity and safety, and assure provision of light and air. Policy OS(D) Provide open space for recreational needs and for the preservation of sites of historical and cultural significance. 4.14.3 Impacts Evaluation Fire Protection Services As part of the permitting process, the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety regulations. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate substantial additional demand for fire protection services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project’s potential impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) Police Protection Services The project proposes to demolish the existing apartment building and construct a 21-unit condominium building, resulting in a net increase in seven dwelling units on-site. The project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or construction of police facilities. The project’s potential impact on police services would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 88 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Schools The proposed project would only slightly increase the number of occupied housing units on-site from 14 to 21; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children would only increase slightly. The State of California has determined that housing units yield approximately 0.7 students per unit.24 The proposed project would generate approximately five net new students (beyond the approximately ten students generated by the current 14 units on the project site) that would attend McKinley Elementary School, Burlingame Intermediate Middle School, and Burlingame High School. Under, Section 65996 of the State Government Code, payment of school impact fees established by SB 50 is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for school impacts from development. Developer(s) of new housing units under the Downtown Specific Plan are required to pay these school impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code. Fulfillment of this requirement would mitigate the impact of the project to schools to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact) Parks The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 neighborhood parks and playgrounds, a dog park, tennis courts, an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. The Downtown Specific Plan area does not include any existing park facilities. Planned open space facilities would be provided in downtown in the vicinity of Primrose Avenue and Burlingame Avenue as well as within a roundabout at Primrose Avenue adjacent to City Hall. Since the proposed project would only cause a slight increase in the number of occupied units on-site (seven net new units with approximately 16 residents), and provides common open space, the project would not generate substantial additional demand for parks or other public facilities and therefore this impact would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.14.4 Conclusion The project would result in a less than significant impact to public services. (Less Than Significant Impact) 24 City of Burlingame. Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Initial Study. May 27, 2010. Page 174. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 89 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.15 RECREATION 4.15.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? 1,2 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,2 4.15.2 Existing Setting The City of Burlingame currently operates 13 neighborhood parks, an aquatic center, tennis courts, a dog park, and a golf and soccer center. Planning, acquisition, and development of City parks and recreational facilities in Burlingame are the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department. The City also has an agreement with the Burlingame School District that allows the use of the fields at Burlingame Intermediate School and Franklin Elementary School. The closest parks to the project site include Paloma Playground located approximately 0.5 miles to the north and Heritage Park located approximately 0.5 miles to the south. Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations City of Burlingame General Plan The Open Space and Land Use Elements of the City’s General Plan contain policies, recommendations, and actions to protect and enhance existing and future open space areas within the City. The proposed project would be subject to conformance with applicable General Plan policies, including those listed below. Policy Description Policy L(F) The City residents are served by three classes of parks and open space: community parks, neighborhood parks and preserves. Policy OS(D) Provide open space for recreational needs and for the preservation of sites of historical and cultural significance. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 90 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.15.3 Impacts Evaluation a, b) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The City of Burlingame provides and maintains parkland and open space within the City for residents and visitors to enjoy. Based on the latest US Census data for the City, it is estimated that the project would generate approximately 16 net new residents beyond current site resident population. The project residents would be served by existing parks in the project area and other open space and recreational facilities in the region. The proposed project includes common open space in the form of a fenced yard east of the building. It is not anticipated that the project’s incremental demand for park and recreational facilities in the area would result in the substantial, physical deterioration of existing park and recreational facilities or require the expansion or construction of new facilities. The impact, therefore, would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.15.4 Conclusion Given the limited number of new residents, the proposed project would not substantially deteriorate existing park facilities or require expansion of recreational facilities that would adversely affect the existing environment. (Less Than Significant Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 91 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC The following discussion is based, in part, on a site access analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants in November 2016February 2018. A copy of this report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix E. 4.16.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 1,2 b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1,2 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1,18 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 1,2 4.16.2 Impact Evaluation a, b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Would the project 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 92 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Redevelopment of the site with the proposed 21-unit development would result in seven new residential units on the site, as the current 14 apartment units are part of the existing environmental setting and would offset the trips and other impacts of 14 of the new condominium development’s units. Based on the ITE’s Trip Generation 9th Edition, daily trip generation rates of 5.81 trips/unit, seven net new condominium units would result in 41 net new daily vehicle trips. As noted above, the approximately 82 daily trips generated by the current 14 apartment units are part of the existing environmental setting and will offset an equal amount of the new condominium units’ trips. The Congestion Management Program requires a traffic impact analysis when a project would result in 100 or more peak hour trips. The project, which would generate approximately three AM and four PM net new peak hour trips, therefore, does not require a detailed traffic impact analysis to show conformity to the CMP. The project would not result in a conflict with any other adopted plan, ordinance, or policy related to the effectiveness of the circulation system. Additionally, the traffic impacts from the full implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan, which includes the proposed development on the project site, were evaluated when the Downtown Plan was approved in 2010. The full build-out of the Downtown Specific Plan would add substantially to delays at three study area intersections located at California Drive/Lorton Avenue, El Camino Real/Peninsula Avenue/Park Road, and California Drive/Howard Avenue. As identified in the Downtown Specific Plan Initial Study, Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 would reduce the delays at these intersections to less-than-significant levels by year 2030.25 Since the proposed project is only contributing seven net new units on the site, and is not within the nearby vicinity of the aforementioned study intersections, traffic impacts would as a result of the project would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project would not affect air traffic patterns in the vicinity of the site. (No Impact) d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The project proposes a subgrade parking garage that would use an automated system. The initial application specified a Parkmatic Multi-Parking system, but the application has since been revised to specify a CityLift Tower system; both systems have similar functional characteristics. The system has been designed to automatically move the vehicles by lift which then transfers it to a waiting cart on one of the three parking garage levels. The carts then travel horizontally and place the vehicle in its appropriate slot. There will be 35 parking 25 Refer to the Downtown Specific Plan Initial Study Traffic Section, pages 129 to 131. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 93 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 spaces provided in a below-grade garage that will be accessed through a garage door on the front of the building. There will also be two additional spaces above ground for delivery vehicles and guests. One of the spaces at grade would include an electric vehicle charging station. An updated queuing analysis was conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix E) on the currently proposed Parkmatic Multi-ParkingCityLift parking system that was specified in the initial application, based upon the average service rate reported for a similarly sizedthe proposed automated parking system. According to the supplier of a similarly sized parking systemCityLift, the average parking and retrieval time for vehicles entering/exiting the parking structure is approximately 155 90 seconds (12.5 minutes), meaning the parking system can handle approximately 24 40 vehicles per hour.26 The project with 21 units is expected to generate 11 10 trips during the PM peak hour of which six trips would be inbound and four trips would be outbound.27 The proposed design would allow queueing for four three vehicles on the site at the garage entrance. The queuing analysis was conducted based on a conservative estimate of four vehicles arriving during the peak 15-minute period. By designing the driveway storage to accommodate up to four three vehicles, the chance of queue spillback onto El Camino Real is reduced to 0.02approximately 0.01 percent, therefore the likelihood the project would not be able to accommodate cars entering the site in the afternoon PM peak hour and cause unsafe conditions with cars spilling back into El Camino Real travel lanes is extremely low. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. (Less Than Significant Impact) e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The residential development proposed on the site will be reviewed and approved by the Burlingame Fire Department to ensure adequate emergency access. (No Impact) f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed project would not conflict with existing or planned multimodal transportation facilities or conflict with the City of Burlingame’s General Plan policies and regulations. The proposed project does not include any features that would conflict with the City of Burlingame’s Bicycle Transportation Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact bicycle circulation. In addition, the Downtown Specific Plan includes Goals C-2, S-1, S-4, D-3, and D-4, along with the associated policies encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation. (Less Than Significant Impact) 26 The CityLift Tower system specifies an average retrieval time of 120 90seconds (2.01.5 minutes), compared to 155 seconds (2.5 minutes) assumed in the Hexagon Transportation Consultants analysis based on a similarly sized system. The Hexagon analysis, therefore, can be considered a conservative estimate. 27 Based on ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017). 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 94 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.16.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not generate a substantial amount of new vehicle trips that would exceed the capacity of the street system serving the site, nor would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access, nor change in air traffic patterns. The proposed parking facilities and site design would allow for adequate vehicle queuing and would not result in traffic hazards on El Camino Real. (Less Than Significant Impact) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 95 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1,2 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,2 c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,2 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1,2 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1,2 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1,2 4.17.2 Existing Setting Water Supply and Services The City of Burlingame provides potable water service to its business and residential customers within the City limits, and to residents of the unincorporated Burlingame Hills area. The City purchases its potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The City also uses well water and recycled water for supplying non-potable water. Based on the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, Burlingame is expected to have adequate water supply for projected demands in a normal rainfall year until the year 2040. During a single-dry rainfall year, water demand may exceed supply by seven to 17 percent after 2020 and under multiple dry years demand may exceed supply from 21 to 30 percent after 2020. The City of Burlingame has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan to address up to a 50 percent supply reduction. During 2015, the 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 96 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 City had a cumulative water demand reduction of approximately 31 percent relative to 2013 water demand.28 There is an existing six-inch water main in El Camino Real that serves the site. The existing apartment building on the site is estimated to use approximately 1,960 gallons of water per day (GPD). Wastewater Services The City maintains the sewer system within the City boundaries. With few exceptions, the sewer system is gravity fed to lift stations located in the industrial sections of town, then to the Burlingame Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) at 1103 Airport Boulevard. The WWTP provides treatment of domestic and commercial wastewater originating from the City of Burlingame, Town of Hillsborough, and the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District. The treatment process consists of influent screening, grit removal, primary clarification, activated sludge biological treatment, secondary clarification, and disinfection using sodium hypochlorite. The WWTP is part of the North Bayside System Unit (NBSU), a joint powers authority that includes the cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, South San Francisco and San Bruno, as well as the San Francisco International Airport. Based on the joint use agreement, the WWTP discharges treated and disinfected effluent through the NBSU force main to the South San Francisco, and San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, where the effluent is dechlorinated before being discharged into the Lower San Francisco Bay. Sanitary sewer mains along the El Camino Real project frontage were rehabilitated in 2005.29 Based on an assumed sewage generation rate of 85 percent of water use, the existing apartment building on the site is estimated to generate sewage of approximately 1,666 GPD. Storm Drainage The Citywide storm drainage system includes five major watershed areas: Easton, Burlingame/ Ralston Creek, Sanchez/Terrace, Mills, and El Portal/Trousdale. The project site is located within the Burlingame/Ralston Creek watershed. The Burlingame/Ralston Creek watershed experiences flooding in the following areas: areas upstream from El Camino Real at Heritage Park and Crescent Avenue, the Burlingame Avenue Downtown business area, the Ralston Creek area, and the residential area bounded by California Drive and Rollins Road. The project site is not located in any of these flooding areas. Flooding within the Burlingame/Ralston Creek watershed is a result of undersized drainage facilities. The combined Burlingame Creek and Ralston Creek storm drain system has a capacity of a 10-year storm event as opposed to the City’s 30-year storm capacity standard. There are two undersized box culverts beneath Burlingame Avenue in the Plan Area; and there are two undersized pipelines along Oak Grove Avenue to San Francisco Bay. The City has proposed the following improvements to remedy these drainage issues that have been funded by a bond measure: 28 City of Burlingame. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. 29 City of Burlingame. Downtown Specific Plan Initial Study. May 27, 2010. Page 179, Figure L-1. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 97 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 • Install a 60-inch pipeline bypass from Burlingame Creek at El Camino Real along Howard Avenue to San Francisco Bay with floodgates. • Install a 60-inch bypass pipeline from Ralston Creek to the channel along the Caltrain ROW. The planned improvements have been funded and are currently in the design phase. The project site is currently 55 percent covered with impervious materials. Stormwater runoff in this watershed is entirely contained within a storm drain system and combined with the flows from Burlingame Creek. Solid Waste The City of Burlingame is a member of Rethink Waste, South Bayside Waste Management Authority (Rethink Waste). Rethink Waste is a joint powers authority comprised of the cities of Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, unincorporated San Mateo, and West Bay Sanitary District. Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain Landfill), is the principal landfill for Rethink Waste.30 Ox Mountain Landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 69 million cubic yards and has an estimated closure date of 2040.31 Rethink Waste contracts with Ox Mountain Landfill for disposal of its member agencies, including the City of Burlingame. The contract expires in 2019. Recology San Mateo (Recology) provides solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services to all residential and commercial customers within the 12 member agencies of Rethink Waste. Electricity and Natural Gas PG&E transmits and delivers electricity and natural gas to residents and businesses in the City of Burlingame. Electricity and natural gas are used for operating on-site appliances, lighting, and general building operations (such as heating and cooling) for the residential uses on-site. Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations Assembly Bill 939 Assembly Bill 939 was established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board and requires all California counties to prepare integrated waste management plans. AB 939 required all municipalities to divert 25 percent of their solid waste from landfill disposal by January 1, 1995. Fifty percent of the waste stream was to be diverted by the year 2000. Assembly Bill 341 As of July 1, 2012, per Assembly Bill 341, all businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of garbage per week and multi-family dwellings with five or more units in California are required to 30 Feldman, Cliff. Personal Communications with Rethink Waste Recycling Programs Manager. December 8, 2014. 31 McGourty, Scott. Personal Communications with Environmental Manager at Ox Mountain Landfill. November 6, 2014. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 98 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 recycle. Multi-family dwellings include: apartments, townhouses, and condominiums. The purpose of the law is to reduce garbage sent to landfills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. City of Burlingame Construction and Demolition Ordinance Demolition, new construction projects, and alterations over $50,000 are subject to the City of Burlingame’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (C&D Ordinance). The C&D Ordinance requires applicable projects to recycle at least 60 percent of total waste during demolition or construction. 4.17.3 Impacts Evaluation a, b, e) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB regulates wastewater discharges to surface waters, such as San Francisco Bay, through the NPDES program. Wastewater permits contain specific requirements that limit the pollutants in discharges. As required by the RWQCB, the WWTP monitors its wastewater to ensure that it meets all requirements. The RWQCB routinely inspects treatment facilities to ensure permit requirements are met. Sewage from development on the project site would be treated at the WWTP in accordance with the existing NPDES permit. The estimated total project demand for water is approximately 2,940 GPD or 140 GPD per dwelling unit, less existing water demand from existing 14 units of approximately 1,960 GPD for a net new demand of 980 GPD. For the purposes of this analysis, wastewater generation rates are assumed to be 85 percent of the total on-site water use (approximately 2,500 GPD, less existing generation from 14 units of approximately 1,666 GPD). Given the small increase in sewage generation and prior rehabilitation of the sewer main on El Camino Real, the project would not result in the need for existing wastewater conveyance or treatment facilities. The project would generate a small increase in water demand (approximately 980 GPD) but would be required to upgrade the existing six-inch water main to an eight-inch pipe on El Camino Real in order to accommodate the proposed project and fire flow demands. The required water main improvements would occur in existing disturbed right-of-way and would be subject to the same mitigation for ground disturbance as required elsewhere in this Initial Study. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 99 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 The developer will be required to install water and sewer laterals to service the property. Based on the existing facilities available to serve the site and required upgrades, the project would not result in any significant impacts related to the provision of water and wastewater facilities to the site. (Less Than Significant Impact) c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on-site from 55 to 79 percent. The project would result in a 24 percent increase in impervious surfaces, approximately 3,639 square feet in the area, which would incrementally increase runoff from the site. Stormwater runoff from the development, however, will be directed to and treated in bioretention areas and flow-through planter areas on-site. The bioretention areas would be designed to minimum depths of three feet to reduce the excess runoff generated by the proposed project in order to maintain a stormwater discharge rate that does not exceed the pre-development discharge rate. Due to the fact that the proposed project incorporates bioretention areas on-site and only marginally increases on-site impervious surface area, it is concluded that the existing storm drain system would continue to adequately serve the project site and the project would not require the construction of new or expanded storm drain facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The City of Burlingame purchases all of its water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Water is supplied to the City by several SFPUC pipelines that are connected to six metered connections at various locations throughout the City. Based on water usage rates of 140 gallons per unit per day (GPD) the project would require 2,940 GPD, an increase of 980 GPD over the site’s existing developed condition with 14 units. The proposed project would upsize the existing six-inch water line to an eight-inch pipe, thereby allowing for adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the proposed project. The project’s increased water demand was accounted for in the comprehensive analysis completed for the Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed project, therefore, would not result in the need for new or expanded water supply entitlements. (Less Than Significant Impact) f, g) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Would the project comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San Carlos Transfer Station and The Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting, then disposal at Ox Mountain Landfill. Residential development on the site is anticipated to result in waste generation of approximately eight (8) tons of solid waste 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 100 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 annually.32 Development on the project site with 21 housing units will be required to conform to City plans and policies to reduce solid waste generation. 33 Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project would be adequately served by existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.4 Conclusion The project, which would replace a 14-unit apartment building with a 21-unit condominium building, would not result in significant impacts related to the construction of minor upgrades in the water main serving the site nor would it exceed the current capacity or require the construction of other new infrastructure or service facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 32 CalRecycle. Solid Waste Disposal Rates. Accessed September 2, 2016. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/ResDisp.htm 33 Recology San Mateo County. http://www.recologysanmateo.com/index.php/. Accessed September 2, 2016. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 101 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.18.1 Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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? Pgs. 14- 10094 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Pgs. 14- 10094 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Pgs. 14- 10094 4.18.2 Impacts Evaluation a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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? As discussed in the individual sections, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment with the implementation of identified General Plan policies, applicable regulations, and mitigation measures. As discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the project is located in an urban environment and would not impact sensitive habitat or species; however, nesting birds and retained trees may be affected during project construction if not adequately protected. While there is a potential for buried archaeological resources on-site, implementation of the identified General Plan policies mitigation measures in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, would ensure less than significant impacts to cultural archaeological resources. The project also includes tree protection mitigation measures to ensure impacts to the historic Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows avoided. While the project removes a 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 102 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 eucalyptus tree within the historic Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, the tree is non- historic and will be replaced with an appropriate elm tree, and the removal of a non-historic eucalyptus tree and replacement with an elm street tree will not significantly alter the setting or context for the historic property located at 1615 Floribunda Avenue across El Camino Real. Therefore, the implementation of identified mitigation measures would ensure biological and cultural impacts related to the proposed residential redevelopment of the site would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” As defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Because criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions would contribute to regional and global emissions of such pollutants, the identified thresholds developed by BAAQMD and used by the City of Burlingame were developed such that a project-level impact would also be a cumulatively considerable impact. The project would not result in a significant emissions of criteria air pollutants, construction emissions (refer to Table 4.18-1 below), or GHG emissions and, therefore, would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative air quality or GHG emissions impacts. Table 4.18-1 Cumulative Construction Source Health Risks Proposed Project Construction Unmitigated Infant =222.3 Adult = 3.8 1.12 0.19 El Camino Real at 90 feet 5.1 0.07 <0.01 Cumulative Total 227.4 1.19 <0.20 BAAQMD Thresholds Cumulative Source >100 >0.8 >10.0 Significant? Yes Yes No Mitigated Project Construction 5.6 0.05 <0.01 El Camino Real at 90 feet 5.1 0.07 <0.01 Cumulative Total 10.7 0.12 <0.02 BAAQMD Thresholds Cumulative Source >100 >0.8 >10.0 Significant? No No No With the implementation of mitigation measures and standard permit conditions, residential development on the site would not result in significant geology and soils or hydrology and 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 103 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 water quality impacts and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources. Also, the project would not impact agricultural and forest resources or mineral resources and, therefore, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on these resources. The project is located in an urban area and given its limited size would not contribute to a cumulative impact on aesthetics, population and housing, public services, recreation, and transportation with the implementation of Municipal Code requirements. Additionally, the proposed project has been evaluated as part of the implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan which was approved in 2010. The full build-out of the Downtown Specific Plan would have significant impacts on traffic and air quality. Appropriate mitigation measures have been identified in the Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND that would reduce impacts from future development as part of the Downtown Plan to less-than- significant levels by year 2030. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed project does not present significant environmental effects that would adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly. Adverse impacts to humans that may be associated with the proposed project are related to air quality, geology and soils, hazardous materials, and noise. The project site does not contain any known hazardous materials contamination that would be disturbed by the project. Mitigation measures are included in the project to ensure temporary construction impacts to air quality and noise levels would be less than significant. Mitigation measures have also been included in the project to ensure the building is designed to account for high groundwater levels on the site. The proposed project with the incorporation of mitigation measures would not result in any significant impacts on human beings directly or indirectly. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 104 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Checklist Sources 1. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this assessment, based upon a review of the site and surrounding conditions, as well as a review of the project plans. 2. City of Burlingame. Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND. October 4, 2010. Accessed July 22, 2016. 3. City of Burlingame. General Plan. 1975. Accessed July 22, 2016. 4. City of Burlingame Municipal Code. 5. Department of Transportation. Scenic Highway Mapping System. 2011. Accessed August 18, 2015. <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm> 6. VMK Design Group. 556 El Camino Real Shadow Studies. August 16, 2016. 7. California Department of Conservation. San Mateo County Williamson Act FY 2006/2007 Map. 2012. 8. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2014 Map. February 2016. 9. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. 10. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2 011. 11. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 556 El Camino Real Residential Development Construction Health Risk Assessment. November 11, 2016. 12. Kielty Arborist, LLC. Arborist Report 556 El Camino Real. June 27, 2016. 13. Carey & Company, Inc. Inventory of Historic Resources Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. October 6, 2008. 14. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers. Geotechnical Investigation for Planned Residential Development at 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. April 7, 2018. 15. City of Burlingame. Climate Action Plan. June 2009. Accessed April 9, 2016. 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. July 16, 2015. 17. San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: San Francisco International Airport. 18. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Peer Review of the Queuing Analysis Completed for the Proposed Residential Project at 556 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California. November 18, 2016February 13, 2018. 19. Holman & Associates. Results of a CEQA Archaeological Literature Search and Initial Native American Consultation for 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California. June 5, 2017. 20. Ward Hill, Architectural Historian. Historical Resources Compliance Report. June 1, 2017. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 105 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES Burlingame Historical Society. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Howard- Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. July 31, 2011. Burlingame School District. District Boundaries. Accessed: August 2, 2016. Available at: http://www.bsd.k12.ca.us/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1406631635571 California Air Resources Board. First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Accessed August 12, 2016. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm California Building Standards Commission. CalGreen Code. 2014. Accessed August 12, 2016. Available at: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2014 Map. February 2016. ---. San Mateo County Williamson Act FY 2006/2007 Map. 2012. California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. “2006 Impaired Water Bodies, California’s 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments.” August 5, 2013. Accessed April 6, 2016. Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_lists2006_epa.shtml CalRecycle. Solid Waste Disposal Rates. Accessed September 2, 2016. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/ResDisp.htm CalRecycle. Solid Waste Facility Database. Accessed September 2, 2016. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41-AA-0002/Detail/ Carey & Company, Inc. Inventory of Historic Resources Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. October 6, 2008. City of Burlingame. Climate Action Plan. June 2009. Accessed August 16, 2016. City of Burlingame. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. County of San Mateo Planning and Building. San Mateo County Hazards Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Accessed August 16, 2016. Available at: http://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/Dam_Failure_In undation.pdf Department of Transportation. Scenic Highway Mapping System. 2011. Accessed August 18, 2016. <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm> Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers. Geotechnical Investigation for Planned Residential Development at 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. April 147, 20132018. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 106 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, 06081C0153E. October 16, 2012. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Peer Review of the Queuing Analysis Completed for the Proposed Residential Project at 556 El Camino Real in Burlingame, CA. November 18, 2016.February 13, 2018. Holman & Associates. Results of a CEQA Archaeological Literature Search and Initial Native American Consultation for 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California. June 5, 2017. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 556 El Camino Real Residential Development Construction Risk Assessment. November 11, 2016. Kielty Arborist, LLC. Arborist Report 556 El Camino Real. June 27, 2016. San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan: San Francisco International Airport. December 1996. VMK Design Group. 556 El Camino Real Shadow Studies. August 16, 2016. Ward Hill, Architectural Historian. Historical Resources Compliance Report. June 1, 2017. 556 El Camino Real Condominium Project 107 2nd Revised Initial Study City of Burlingame February June 2017May 2018 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS 6.1 LEAD AGENCY City of Burlingame Community Development Department William Meeker, Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager 6.2 CONSULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Akoni Danielsen, Principal Project Manager Will Burns, Senior Project Manager Tali Ashurov, Assistant Project Manager Zach Dill, Graphic Artist Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Transportation Consultants Michelle Hunt, Principal Associate Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants Sunshine Psota, Senior Associate Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Air Quality Consultants Joshua Carman, Staff Consultant Tanushree Ganguly, Staff Consultant Ward Hill, Architectural Historian ((RREEVVIISSEEDD)) AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX DD GGEEOOTTEECCHHNNIICCAALL IINNVVEESSTTIIGGAATTIIOONN REPORT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Planned Residential Development At 556 El Camino Real Burlingame, California Prepared for: Mr. Roman Knop 1856 Pacific A venue, #9 San Franc isco, C A 94109 Prepared by: H. ALLEN G RUEN, CE, G E 360 Grand A v enue, Suite 262 Oakland, California 94610 (5 10) 839-0765 Project Number: 12-3798f H . All en Gruen R eg istered G eote chnical En gi neer No. 2 14 7 April 14 , 2013 (Upd at ed 4/7 /18 ) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... ) P URPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 1 S CO PE ........................................................................................................................................... 1 PROPO SED DEVELOP MENT ............................................................................................................ 1 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 2 SITE D ESC RIPT ION ......................................................................................................................... 2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 2 EARTH MA TERTALS ....................................................................................................................... 3 GRO UN D\VA TER .................................................................................................................. ······ .... 3 CONCLUSIO NS ............................................................................................................................ 3 GEN ERAL ...................................................................................................................................... 3 T EMPORARY SLOPES AN D UN DERMINING OF EX ISTING S TRUCTURES ........................................... 3 GRO UNDWA TER CONSI DERATIONS ................................................................................................ 4 FOUN DAT ION SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 4 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ..................................................................................................................... 5 Fa ulting .................................................................................................................................... 5 Earthquake Shaking ................................................................................................................. 5 Liquefaction ............................................................................................................................. 5 Lateral Spreading .................................................................................................................... 6 Densification ............................................................................................................................ 6 Landsliding .............................................................................................................................. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 6 SITE P REPARATION AND GRADlNG ................................................................................................ 6 General .................................................................................................................................... 6 Clearing ................................................................................................................................... 7 Overexcavation ........................................................................................................................ 7 Sub grade Preparation .............................................................................................................. 7 Material for Fill ....................................................................................................................... 7 Co mpaction of Fill ................................................................................................................... 7 Underpinning ........................................................................................................................... 8 Temporary Slopes .................................................................................................................... 8 Finished Slopes ........................................................................................................................ 8 T EMP ORARY SHORING .................................................................................................................. 8 S E ISMIC D ES IGN .......................................................................................................................... 10 FO UN DAT [ONS ............................................................................................................................. l 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED Mat Slab Foundation ............................................................................................................. 10 Drilled Piers ........................................................................................................................... 11 RETAJNING WALLS ...................................................................................................................... 11 SLABS ON GRADE ........................................................................................................................ 13 SITE DRAINAGE ........................................................................................................................... 13 SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 13 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 14 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ A -1 LIST Of PLATES ........................................................................................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. B-1 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 8-l APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................ C -1 FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................. C-1 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................. C-1 APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................ D -1 DISTRIBUTIO N·························································································································· D-1 11 Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Number: 12-3798f 556 E l Camino Real , Burlingame April 14, 2013 (Updated 4/7/18) Purpose INTRODUCTION Page 1 A geotechnica l investigation has been completed for the proposed residential development at 556 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California. The purposes of this study have been to gather information on the nature, distribution, and characteristics of the earth materials at the site, assess geo lo gic hazards, and to provide geo technical design criteria fo r the p lann ed improvements. Scope The scope of our services is outlined in our Proposal and Professional Service Agreement dated April 12, 20 12. Our investigation included a reconnaissance of the site and surrounding vicin ity; sampling and logging one test boring to a depth of 51 -Yz feet below the ground surface; laboratory testing conducted on selected samples of the earth materi al s recovered from the boring; a review of publi shed geotechnicaJ and geologic data pertinent to the project area; geotechnical interpretation and engineering analyses ; a nd preparation of this report. This report contains the results of our investigation, including findings regarding site , soil, geologic, and groundwater conditions; conclusions pertaining to geotechnical considerations such as weak soils , settl ement, and construction considerations; conclusions regarding exposure to geologic hazards, including faulting , gro und shaking, liquefactio n, lateral spreading, and slop e stabi li ty ; and geo technical recommendations for design of the proposed project including site preparation and grading, foundations, retaining walls, s labs on grade, and geotechnical drainage. Pertinent exhibits appear i11 Appendix A. The location of the test boring is depicted relati ve to s ite features on Plate 1, Boring Location Map. The log of the te st boring i s displaye d on Plate 2. Exp lanations of the symbols and other codes used on the lo g are presented on Plate 3, Soil Classification C hart and Key to Test Data. References consulted dming the course of this inves tigation are listed in Appendix B. Detail s regarding the field exploration program appear in Appendix C. Proposed Development ft is our unders tanding that the project wi ll consis t of the design and construction of a new 5- story, 21-unit residential deve lopment with 3 levels of unde rground parking. We have reviewed the preliminary plans by Triad/Ho lm es Associates , CSE Structural E n gineers, In c., and CityLift. We have also reviewed the architectural set by VMK Designs. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Number: 12-3798f 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame April 14 , 20 13 (Updated 4/7 /18) Page2 l have reviewed the parking garage foundation s ite plans and building secti ons of 550 El Camino Real , the building on the south property line of 556 El Camino. In the revised design , there will be a distance of at least 20 1 between the neighboring building and the excavation required to comp lete 556 El Cam ino Real. As such , excavation to build the proposed parking s tructure at 556 El Camino is far enough from the adjacent building that underpinning of the adjacent building will not be required. The excavation for the basement will be shored by soldier piles and horizontal wailers that will be braced by cross lot bracing that el iminates the need for tie- backs. If underpinning is not utilized on the adjacent building foundation t hen the proposed garage wall at 556 El Camino and the temporary shoring will need to be designed for the smcharge from the adjacent building. Conventional soldier p i le and lagging may be used. Smaller deflection of the adjacent strncture would be anticipated if the shoring were prestressed using internal bracing, struts, and/or whalers . I judge that the proposed construction wil l take place within the subject lot and will not extend onto adjacent lots with tie-backs or underpinning. FINDINGS Site Description The project site is located northeast of El Camino Real, between Floribunda Avenue and Bellevue Avenue, in Burlingan1e, Cali fornia . The topography in the vicinity of the site slopes downward toward the northeast at an average inclination of about 80: 1 (horizontal:vertical). At the time of our investigation, the subject site was occupied by a residential complex with appurtenant flatwork and yard areas. Geologic Conditions The s ite is within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, which includes the San Francisco Bay and the northwest-trending mountains that parallel the coast of California. Tectonic forces resulting in extensive foldjng and faulting of the area formed these features. The o ldest rocks in the a rea include sedimentary, volcanic, and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan Complex, and sandstone, shale, and congl omerate of the Great Valley Sequence. These units are Jurassic to Cretaceous in age and form the basement rocks in the region. The area bas been mapped by Pampeyan (1994) as being underlain by older alluvium. Eaiih Mechanics Consulting Engineers ProjectNumber: 12-3798f 556 E l Camino Real, Burlingame April 14 , 2013 (Update d 4/7/18) Earth Materials Page 3 The boring drilled for this investigation encountered alluvial deposits con s isting predominate ly of sand-clay mi xtmes with varying amounts of grave l. Detail ed descriptions of the materials encountered as well as test res ults are presented on the Boring Log, Pl ate 2. Groundwater Free groundwater was encountered in the boring drilled at the subj ect si te at a dep th of about 5 fee t below the ground surface. We anticipate that this represents surface water infiltration that has become perched on a c layey soil len se, and not the phreatic groundwater surface. We a nti c ipate that the depth to groundwater wi ll vary depending on precipitatio n , ai1d possible other fac to rs. Seepage may be encountered into excavatio ns n ear th e ground surface following rainfall or irrigation in the v icinity of the subject site. CONCLUSIONS General It is our opinio n that th e site i s suitable fo r support of the planned improvements provided the recommendations con tained in this report are followe d during the design and construction of the project. The pri mary geotechnicaJ conc ern s at the site ai·e suppmi of temporary slopes and adjacent improvements, groundwater co ns iderations , supporting improvements in competent earth materials, and se ismi c shaking and r e lated effects durin g earthquakes. These i tems are di sc usse d below. Temporary Slopes and Undermining of Existing Structures Temporary slopes will be necessary during the planned site excavations. In order to safe ly d evelop the site , te mporary s lopes will need to be laid back in conformance with OSHA standards at safe inclinations, or temporary sh ori ng will h ave to be installed. The contractor may choo se to excavate test pits to evaluate site so il s and the n eed fo r temporary s horin g. If excavations undermine or remove support from the ex isting o r adjacent structures, it may be necessary to underpin those s truc tures. Care sh ould be taken to provide adequate s horing or underpinning to support the affected improvements as a result of the loss of supp ort. Temporary slopes and support of structures during constru ction are the responsibility of the contractor. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers is avai la bl e to provide geotechnical consultation re garding stability of excavations and support of improvements. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engin eers Project N wnber: 12-3798f 556 E l Camino Real, Burlingame April 1 t 2013 (Updated 4/7 /18) Groundwater Considerations Page4 F ree groundwater was encountered in the boring drilled a t the subject site at a depth of about 5 feet below the ground smface. We anticipate that thi s represents s mface wat er infiltration that has b ecome perched on a clayey soi l lense, and n ot the phreatic groundwater surface . Based on my experience in the area, I r ecommend a design high ground water depth for the project analys is of l O feet be asswned . A piezometer m ay be installed at the site and monito red to more accurate ly determ in e the depth of the phreati c groundwater table. My exper ienc e wi th s imil ar s ites in the v icinity indicates that shallow ground water could significantly impact building excavation and other underground con struction . These impacts typically consist of potentially wet and w1 stable subgrad e, difficulty achieving compaction, and difficult underground utility installation. Dewatering rnay be possible as part of the shoring of the excavations. GroW1d water levels a re expected to be s ignificantly above the planned excavati on bottom for s ite excavati ons . Therefore, either temporary d ewatering wi ll be necessary uuring construction or the s horing will n eed to be design as undrained cut off wa ll s. Temporary draw d own of the groundwater table can cause subsidence outside th e exca vation area, cau si ng settlement adjacent improvements. If settlem e nt i s deemed excessive, a lternative shoring methods such as s lurry wal ls or soil-mixed curtain wa!Js m ay be co n si dered. Shallow groundwater may al so present several design ch a ll enges for the permanent s tructure. Bec ause the planned l ower l evel s of the garage wi ll likel y be b el ow seasonal groundwater levels, draining the garage w a!Js and lower level s lab would requi re an expensive full-time dewatering sys lem. Therefore, waterproofing the bel ow-grade wal ls may be considered, and designing th e mat foundation and garage walls , including construction j o ints to resist h ydrostatic pressure. The garage waU above the d e si gn groundwater level m ay be drained for a more efficient wall design above that e levati o n , a nd as a precaution agai n st h.i gher than expected uplift forces for the structure. Foundation Support Due to the variabl e depths of foundation support and th e variability of the s ubsm fac e earth materials, we recommend that the proposed structure be sup ported on a mat s lab foundation . Earth Mechanics Consul ting E ngineers Project Number: 12 -3798f 556 EI Camino Real , Burlingame April 14, 2013 (Updated 4/7/18) Geologic Hazards Faulting Page 5 The property does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest mapped active fault in the vicinity of the site is the San Andreas Fault located about 6 miles to the southwest. No active faults are shown crossing the site on reviewed published maps , nor did we observe evidence of faulting during our reconnaissance. Therefore we conclude that the potential for damage to the improvements from faulting is low. Earthquake Shaking Ea1ihquake shaking results from the sudden release of seismic energy during ctisplacement along a fault. During an earthquake, the intensity of ground shaking at a particular location will depend on a number of factors including the earthquake magnitude, the distance to the zone of energy release, and l ocal geologic conditions. We judge that the site wilJ be exposed to strong earthquake s haking during the life of the improvements. The recommendations contained in the applicable Building Code should be followed for reducing potential damage to the improvements from earthquake shaking. Liquefaction Liquefaction results in a loss of shear strength and potential volume reduction in saturated, loose, granular soils below the groundwater level from earthquake shaking. The occurrence of this phenomenon is dependent on many factors, i ncluding the intensity and duration of ground shaking, soi I dens ity and pruticle size distribution , and position of the groundwater table (Seed and Idriss, 1982). The soi l encountered in our boring consisted of cohesive clay-sand mixtures that generally had a relativel y low potential for liquefaction . However, g iven the alluvial nature of the soil deposits at the site, there is a pot ential that liquefiable soils co uld exist. It is our opinion that if potentially liquefiable deposits exist beneath the s ubject s ite , they are contained in discrete pockets of limited vertical and lateral extent. We judge that the impact of potentially liquefiable deposits at the subject site would be limited to post-liquefaction settlements of Jess than I inch. Therefore, it is our opinion that there is a relatively low potential for damage to the planned improvements from liquefaction. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Number: 12-3798f 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame Apri l 14, 2013 (Updated 4/7/18) Lateral Spreading Page 6 Lateral spreading or lurching is generall y caused by liquefaction ofmarginally stab le soils underlying gentle slopes. In these cases, the s urficial soils move toward an unsupported face, such as an incised channel, river, or body of water. We judge that if potentially liquefiable depos its exist beneath the subject site, they would be contained in isolated pockets of limited lateral and vertical extent, which would not be conducive to lateral spreading. Therefore, we judge that there is a low risk for damage of the improvements from seismically-induced lateral spreading. Densification Dens ification can occur in clean, loose granular soils during emihquake shaking, resulting in seismic settlement m1d differential compaction . It is om opinion that earth mate1ials subject to seismic densification do not exist beneath the site in sufficient thickness to adversely impact the planned improvements . Landsliding The s ubject site is relatively level. The geologic maps of the site vicinity reviewed for thi s study did not indicate the presence of l andslides at the si te or its immediate vicinity. During our si te reconnaissance, we did not observe evidence of active slope instability at the site or its immediate vicinity. Therefore, it is our opinion that the potential for landsliding at the site under static or seismic loading is low provided the recommendations in this report are incor porated into the plans and specifications for the planned improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation and Grading General We assume that the planned improvements wi ll be constructed at or below existing site grades. If site grades are raised by fill in g more than about 1 foot, we should be retained to calculate the impact of filling on slope st ability; site settlements, and foundations. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Number: 12-3798f 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame April 14 , 2013 (Updated 4/7 /18) Clearing Page 7 Following removal of existing improvements to be demolished, areas to be graded should be cleared of debris, deleterious materials, and vegetation, and then stripped of the upper soils containing root growth and organic matter. We an ticipate that the required depth of stripping will generally be less than 2 inches. Deeper stripping may be required to remove lo calized concentrations of organic matter, such as tree roots. The cleared materials should be removed from the site; strippings may be stockpiled for reuse as topsoil in landscaping areas or should be hauled off site. Overexcavation Loose, porous soils and topsoil, if encountered, should be over excavated in areas designated for placement of future engineered fill or support of improvements. Difficulty in achieving the recommended minimwn degree of compaction described below should be used as a field criterion by the geotechnical engineer to identify areas of weak soils that should be removed and replaced as engineered fill. The depth and extent of excavation should be approved in the field by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of fill or improvements. Subgrade Preparation Exposed soils designated to receive engineered fill should be cut to form a level bench, scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, in accordance with ASTM test designation D 1557. Material for Fill It is anticipated that the on-site soil will be suitable for re use as fill provided that lumps greater than 6 inches in largest dimension and perishable mate1ials are removed, and that the fill materials are approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to u se. Fill materials brought onto the site should be free of vegetative mater and deleterious debris, and should be primarily granular. The geotechnical engineer should approve fill material prior to trucking it to the site. Compaction of Fill Fill s hould be placed in level lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Each lift should be brought to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, in accordance with ASTM test designation D 1557 . Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Number: 12-3798f 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame April 14 , 2013 (Updated 4/7/18) Underpinning Page 8 During excavations adjacent to improvements, care should be taken to adequately support the existing in1pro v ements. When excavating below the level of fmmdations supporting existing structures, some fom1 of underpinning may be required where excavations extend below an imaginary plane sloping at I : 1 downward and outward from the edge of the existing footings. All temporary underpinning design and construction are the re sponsibility of the contractor. Eaith Mechanics is available to provide consultation re garding underpinning adjacent improvements . Temporary Slopes Temporruy slopes will be necessary during the planned site excavations. In order to safely develop the site, temporary slopes will need to be laid back in conformance with OSHA standards at safe inclinations, or temporary shoring will have to be installed. All temporary slopes and shoring design are the responsibility of the contractor. Earth Mechanics is available to provide consultation regarding s tability and suppmt of temporary s lope s during construction. Finished Slopes In general, finished cut and fill slopes should be con structed at an inclination not exceeding 2 : 1 (horizontal :ve1tical). Routine maintenance of slopes should be anticipated . The tops of cut slopes should be rounded and compacted to reduce the risk of erosion . Fill a nd cut s lope s should be planted with vegetation to resi st erosion, or protected from erosion by other measures, upon completion of grading. Surface water runoff should be intercepted and diverted away from the tops and toes of cut and fill slopes by us ing berms or ditches. Temporary Shoring T emporaiy shoring may be required to provide suppon to excavation walls. The temporary shoring will need to accommodate loading from the adjacent improvements and provide for limited movement of the adjacent improvem ents . Restrained shoring will be required to limit deflections at the top of the excavation that could re s ult in settlement of adjacent impro vements. Monitoring of cracking, horizontal and vertical mo vements may be conducted to determine the effects of the construction on nearby improvements . Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project N umber: 12 -3798f 556 EL Camino Real, Burlingame April 14, 2013 (Updated4/7/18) Page 9 Most likely temporary shoring will support the plan culs. I have provided geotechnical design criteria in the section below. The cuts m ay be supported by soldier beams and tye-backs, braced excavations, soi l nailing, or potentially other methods. Where shoring w ill extend about more than about 10 feet, restrained s horing will most likely be required to limit detrimental lateral deflections . In addition to soil earth pressures, the shorin g system wjll need to suppol1 adjacent loads such as construction vehicles and incidental loading, existing structure foundation loads, and street loading. We recommend that heavy construction loads and material stockpiles are kept at least 15 feet behind the s horing. Were this loading cannot be set back, the shoring will need to be desi gned to support the loading. Maximum suggested geotechnical parameters for shoring desig n are provided in the tit le below. Design Perimeter Design Value Minimum Lateral Wall Surcharge (upper 5 120 psf feet) Cantilever Wall-T1iangle Eru1 h Pressure **40 pcf Restrained Wall-Trapezoidal Eruth Pressure ** Increase from Oto 25H* psf Passive Pressure -Staring at 2 feet below the 300 pcf up to 3 ,000 psf maximum uniform bottom of the excavation press ure *H equals the h eight of the excavation; passive pressures are assumed to act over twice the so ldier pile diameter. ** The cantilever and restrained pressures are for drained designs with dewatering. Where undrained shoring is des igned, an additional 40 pcf should be added for hydrostatic pressures below the design ground water level. The ''Retaining Wall s" ru1d "Temporary Shoring" sections of our geotechnical inves tigation report were for canti lever walls. The basement level of the proposed structure will necess itate excavations ofup to 40 feet in some sections. If the subsurface walls are braced or restrained, the geotechnical design criteria of thi s section may be used. Braced s ubsurface walls should be desi gned to resist a uniform active earth pressure equi valent to 25 x H pounds per square foo t, where His the height ofretained soil. A s urcharg e pressure of I 00 psf acting over t he uppermost 10 feet of braced walls should be app lied to account for traffi c loading surcharge within I 0 horizontal feet of traffic areas. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project N umber: 12-3798f 556 El Camino Real , Burlingame April 14 , 2013 (Update d 4/7/18) Page 10 Lagging between soldier piles may be calculated using the geotechnical pm-an1 eters below: Design Perimeter Design Value Type of Soil Cohesive Internal angle of friction 28 degrees Unit coh esive strength 1,000 psf Seismic Design ]fthe improvements are designed u sing the 20 13 Cali fo rnia Bu ilding Code, the following paran1eters apply using 2010 ASCE 7 w ith July 2 013 e1rnta : Site C lass C Risk Category VII/11 I Ss = 2.396, S1 = 1.151 Fa= 1.0, Fv = 1.3 SMs = 2 .3%, S1v'll = 1.496 Sos= 1.597, S01 = 0 .9 97 Foundations Mat Slab Foundation Due to the variable depths of foundation support and the variabi lity of the subsurface earth materials, we recommend that the proposed structure be supp orted on a mat slab foundation . The m at can be designed for an average be arin g p ressure over the entire mat of 3,000 p sf for combined dead plus su staine d live lo ads, and 4,500 psf for total loads including wind or seismic forces. The we ight of the m at extending below cmTent site grade may be neglected in computing bearing loads . Localized increases in bearing press ures ofup to 5 ,000 psf may be utili zed . For elastic design, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 50 kips per cubic foot may be used. A passive equivalent fluid pressure of 2 80 pounds per cubic foot and a friction factor of 0.3 may be used to resist latera l force s and s liding . P assive pressures s h ould be disregarded in areas with less than 7 feet of horizontal soil confinement and fo r the uppermost 1-foot of foundation depth unless confined by concre te s labs or pavements. We estimate that improvements suppmied on foundations designed and constructe d in accordance with our re commendations will experience post-construction total settlements from static loading of less than 1 inch w i th d ifferentia l settl ements of le ss than Yi inch over a 50-foot s pan. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Number: 12-3798f 556 E l Camino Real , Burlingame April 14, 2013 (Updated 4/7/18) Drilled Piers Page 11 Drilled, cast-in-pl ace, reinforced concrete piers may be used for shoring excavation walls and underpinning adjacent improvements. Piers should be designed for a maximum allowable skin friction of 500 psf for combined dead plu s s ustained live loads . The above values may be increased by one-third for total loads, including the effect of seismic or wind forces. The weight of the fow1dation concrete extending below grade may be disregarded. Resistance to lateral di splacement of indi v idual piers wi ll be generated primarily by passive earth pressures acting against two pier diameters. Passive pressures s hould be assumed equivalent to thos e generated by a fluid weighing 250 pcf. Passive pressures should be disregarded in areas with less than 7 feet of hori zontal soil confinement and for the uppem1ost 1-foot of fom1dation depth unless confined by concrete slabs or pavements. Where groundwater is encountered during pier sh aft drilling , it should be removed by pumping, or the concrete must be p laced by the tremie method. If the pier shafts will not stand open, temporary casing may be necessaty to support the sides uf the pier shafts unti l concrete is placed . Concrete should not be allowed to free fall more than 5 feet to avoid segregation of the aggregate. Retaining Walls Un less clean, free draining sand is encountered throughout the depth of the retaining wall , retaining walls should be fully backdrained. The backdrains should consist of at least a 3-inch- diameter , rigid perforated p ipe , or equivalent such as a "high profile coll ector drain", sunounded by a drainage blanket. The pipe should be sloped to drnin by gravity to appropriate outlets. Accessib le subdrain cleanouts should be provided and maintained on a routine basis. The drainage bl anket should consist of clean, free-draining crushed rock or gravel, wrapped in a filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N . Alternatively, the drainage blanket could consist of Caltrans Class 2 "Permeable Material'' or a prefabricated drainage structure such as Mirafi Miradrain. The bottom of the collector drain should be at least 12 inches bel ow lowest adjacent grade. Aggregate drainage blankets should be at least 1 foot in width and extend to within 1 foot of the surface. The uppennost 1-foot should be backfilled with compacted native soil to exclude surface water. Vertica l retaining walls that are fr ee to rotate at the top should be des i gned to resi st active lateral soil pressures equivalent to those exerted by a fluid weighing 40 pcf where the backslope is leve l , and 60 pcf for backfill at a 2: 1 (hori zontal :vertical) slope. For intermediate slopes interpolate between these values . I should be consulted to calculate lateral pressm es on retaining walls that are braced. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Number: 12-3798f 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame April 14. 2013 (Updated 4/7/18) Page 12 In addition to lateral earth pressures, retaining walls must be designed to resist horizontal pressures that may be generated by surcharge foundation loads applied at or near the ground surface. If a footing smcharge is located above a retaining wall within a horizontal distance of 0.4•H, where His the height of soil retained by the wall, then a horizontal lateral resultant force equal to 0.55•QL should be applied to the retaining wall at a height above the base of the wall equal to 0.6•H. ~ equals the equivalent resultant footing line load . This footing surcharge load applies equally to walls that are fixed or free to rotate. As an example, a retaining wall supporting l O feet of soil has a footing 2 feet away from the top of the wall carrying a line load of 1,000 pounds per lineal foot. This footing is w ithin 0.4•H =4 feet of the retaining wall. The resultant horizontal force on the retaining wall from the footing surcharge load wouJd be 0.55xl ,000=550 pounds acting 0.6•H =6 feet above the base of the retaining wall. In addition to lateral earth pressures and adjacent footing loads, retaining walls must be designed to resist horizontal pressures that may be generated by surcharge loads applied at or near the ground surface. Where an imaginary l :1 (H:V) plane projected downward from the outermost edge of a surcharge load intersects a retaining wall, that portion of the wall below the intersection should be designed for an additional horizontal thrust from a uniform pressure equivalent to one- third the maximum anticipated surcharge pressure . In some cases, this value yields a conservative estimate of the actual lateral pressure imposed. I should be contacted if a more precise estimate of lateral loading on the retaining wall from surcharge pressures is desired. Rigid retaining walls constrained against such movement could be subjected to "at-rest" lateral eai1h pressures equivalent to those exerted by the fluid pressures listed above p lus a uniform load of 6•H pounds per square foot, where H is the height of the backfill above footing level. Where an imaginai·y 1:1 (H:V) plane projected downward from the outermost edge ofa surcharge load intersects a lower retaining wall, that portion of the constrained wall below the intersection should be designed for an additional h orizontal thrust from a uniform pressure equivalent to one- half the maximum anticipated surcharge pressure . In some cases, this value y ie lds a conservative estimate of the actual lateral pressure imposed. I should be contacted if a more precise estimate of lateral loading on the retaining wall from surcharge pressures is desired. If retaining walls ai·e designed using the 20 13 California Building Code, a seismic pressure increment equivalent to a rectangular pressure distribution of 6•H pounds per square foot may be used, where H is the height of the soil retained in feet. The seismic pressure increment does not need to be appl ied to constrained wall s where at-rest lateral earth pressure is applied, nor to temporary shoring. Wal I backfi I I shou ld consist of soil that is spread in level lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Each lift should be brought to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction, per ASTM test designation D 1557 . Retaining walls may yield slightly during backfilling. Therefore, walls should be properly braced dming the backfilling operations. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Number: 12-3798f 556 El Camino Real , Burlingame April 14 , 20 13 (Updated 4/7/18) Page 13 Where migration of moisture through retaining walls would be detrimental or W1desirable, retaining wall s should be waterproofed as specified by the project architect or structural engineer. Retaining walls should be supported on footings de signed in accordance with the recommendations presented above. A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against overturning and sliding should be used in the design of retaining walls. Slabs on Grade The subgrade soil in slab and flatwork areas should be proof rolled to provide a firm, non- yielding surface. If moisture penetration through the slab would be objectionable, slabs should be W1derlain by a capillary moisture breal< consisting of at least 4 inches of clean, free-draining crushed rock or gravel graded such that 100 percent will pass the 1-inch sieve and none will pass the No. 4 sieve. Further protection against slab moisture penetration can be provided by means of a moisture vapor barrier membrane, placed between the drain rock and the slab. The membrane may be covered w ith 2 inches of damp, clean sand to protect it during construction. Site Drainage Positive drainage should be provided away from the improvements. Roof runoff should be directed toward downspouts that discharge into closed conduits that drain into the site storm drain system. Surface drainage facilities (roof d ownspouts and drainage inlets) s hould be maintained entirely separate from subsurface drains. Drains should be checked periodically, and cleaned and maintained as necessary to provide unimpeded flow. Supplemental Services Earth Mechanics recommend that we be retained to review the project plans and specifications to determine if they are consistent with our recommendations. In addition, we should be retained to observe geoteclmical construction, pmticularly s ite excavations, placement of retaining wall backdrains, fill compaction , and excavation of folmdations, as well as to pe1form appropriate field observations and laboratory tests . If, dming construction, subsurface conditions different from those described in this repo1t are observed, or appear to be present beneath excavations, we shou ld be advised at once so that these conditions may be reviewed and our recommendations reconsidered . The recommendations made in this repo1t are contingent upon ow· notification and review of the changed conditions. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Number: 12-3 798f 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame April 14, 2013 (Updated 4/7/18) Page 14 If more than 18 months have elapsed between the submiss ion of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed because of natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, the recommendations of this report may no longer be valid or appropriate. In such case, we recommend that we review this rep01t to determine the applicability of the co nclus ions and recommendations considering the time elapsed or changed conditions. The recommendations made in this report are contingent upon such a review. These services are performed on an as-requested basis and are in addfrion to th is geotechnical investigation. We cannot accept responsibility for conditions, situations or stages of construction that we are not notified to observe. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclu s ive use of Mr. Roman Knop and his consultants for the proposed project described in this report. Our services consist of professional opinions and conclusions developed in accordance with generally-accepted geotechni"cal engineering principles and practices. We prnvide no other wan-anty, either expressed or implied. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the information provided us regarding the proposed construction, our site reconnaissance, review of published data, and professionaJ judgment. Verification of our conclusions and recommendations is subject to our r eview of the project plans and specifications, and ow-observation of constmcti on. The test boring log represents subsurface condi tions at the location and on the date indicated . It is not warranted that it i s representative of s uch conditions elsewhere or at other times. Site conditions and cultmal features described in the text of thi s report are those existing at the time of our field exploration, conducted on April 5 , 2013, and may not necessarily be the same or comparable at other times . The lo cation of the t est boring was established in the field by reference to existing features and should be considered approximate o nl y. The scope of our services did not include an environm ental assessment or an investigation of the presence or absence of hazardous, tox ic, or corrosive materials in the soi l, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below, or around the site, nor did it include an evaluation or investigation of the presence or absence of wetlands. Earth Mechanics Con su lting E ngin eers P roject Number: 12-3798f 556 E l Camino Real , Burlingame April 14, 2013 (Updated 4/7/18) List of Plates Plate 1 Plate 2 APPENDIX A Boring Location Map Log of Boring 1 Page A-1 Pl ate 3 Soil Classification Chart and Key to Test Data +B-1 LEGEND Boring Locati on and Number NOTTO SCALE Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Job. No : 12 -3798 Appr: Drwn : LPDD Dote: 4/8 /13 SUBJECT LOT BORING LOCATION MAP 556 El Camino Real Burlingame , California PLATE 1 Other Lab or ator y Tests (l) .; E -~ (l) ~ .>(. (l) (.) C 0 (l) 0.. a. 20.7 20.6 13.4 1 2.7 1 3 .0 21 .4 15.0 18.1 11 .9 16 .6 1 3.0 Ex i sti ng g round surface. Earth Mechanics Consulting E ngineers >-.... 'iii C "' 0 ~n o.9- <ll Ol > C <ll -~ 'Q) ~o a.. 0 *~ 59 7 6 22 1 1 17 73 30 66 4 7 37 52 .... 0 0 ~ ti) ~ 0 iii 71 J ob No: Appr: Drwn: Date: DEPTH .E (FEET) a. E ro (/) 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 EQUIPMENT: 4" Flight Auger LOGGED BY: A.K . Asph alt 3" ELEVATION : * START DATE: 4 -5-13 FINISH DATE: 4-5-13 bark sro·w n sandv .. siity ci'avitL~MU, mo1 s 1:. firm . sz . . . ........... ..... .. ...... .. = Brow n Silty Clay w ith Sand (CL-ML), saturated , stiff M o ttled Brow n Clayey Sancf w .ith Gravel (SC). moist, medium dense Mottled Brown Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand (GP-GC), moist, medium dense M o ttled· Lig·h·t Brown Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC), moist , medium den se Bro w n Lean C lay w ith Sand (CL), moist, ver y stiff Brown Clayey Sand (SC ), moist , med ium dense Bluish Grey Sandy Silty C lay (CL-MU , moi s t , very stiff Orangish Brown C layey Sand (SC ), moist, ve r y dense -brown wit h light grey, dense 51 Light Orangish ·srowii Sand y Lean Ciay (Cf.). moist, ~"""-'~ hard Bottom o f Boring = 51 -1 /2' Water@ 5' 12-37 98 LOG OF BORING 1 PLATE 556 El Camino Real 2 LP D D APR 2013 Burlingam e, Cal iforn ia MAJOR DIVISIONS VI.. CLEAN GRAVELS GW ; ,b; WITH LITTLE OR ;;-. ~ a> NO FINES GP • • CJ) ~ MORE THAN HALF • • :=! .iii COARSE FRACTIO N : ·,1: 55 °0 IS LARGER THAN GM ;I .. ~ GRAVELS WITH 4 ~ ~ NO. 4 SIEVE OVER 12% FINES ~ GRAVELS TYPICAL NAMES W ELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND POOR LY GRADED GRAVELS , GRA VEL-SAND M IXTURES SIL TY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-SI LT MIXTURES CLAVEY GRAVELS, POORL Y GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MI XTU RES ~ I\ GC~ ~~~--------~--------~-r..~.~.~.~--------------------1 ffi ~ CLEAN SANDS SW :::;:;: WELL GRADED SAN DS, GRA V ELLY SANDS ~ ~ SANDS WITH LITTLE <··.~: a: ..C OR N O FINES SP . POORLY GRADED SAND S, GRAVELL Y SANDS ~ ..-MORE THAN HALF 0 Q) U o COARSE FR ACTI ON ~ IS SMALLER THAN NO . 4 SIEVE SAND S WITH OVER 12% FINES Q) > .~ U) U) SILTS AND C LAYS :=! 0 oo (/)~ 8 v LIQU I D LIMIT LESS T HAN 50 • •• 1.· SM ·• J' SI LT Y SANDS , POOOR LY GRADED SAND-SILT MIXTURES SC w.: CLAYEY SAND S.POORLY GRADED SA ND-CL AY MIXTURES ML CL ~ I' 11 I OL I I INORGANIC SIL TS AND VERY FIN E SANDS, ROCK FLO UR, Si l TY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS. OR CLA YEY SIL TS WITH SLI GH T PLASTIC ITY IN ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDI UM PL ASTIC ITY. GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CL A YS. SILTY CLAYS , LE A N CLAYS ORGANI C CLAYS AND ORGAN IC SIL TY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY z-~-------------------~~~-------------------~ <i: rn a:: I c.:J C: uJ ro z -:S LL ~ 0 ~ Co n so l LL MH SILTS AND CLAYS CH~ LIQUID LIMIT GRE AT ER THAN 50 HIGH LY O RG AN IC SO IL S Pt .!! ,,,, INORGAN IC SI LT S, M ICACEOUS OR DIATOMACIOUS FINE SANDY OR SI L TY SO ILS, ELASTI C SIL T S INORGANI C CLAYS OF HIGH PLA STICIT Y, FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HI GH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SI L TS PEA T AND OTHER HIGH LY ORGA NI C SOI LS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM I, Sh ear S,reng t h , pst Conf ining Pressure, p sf Co nsolidat1on Tx 2630 (240) U nconso l idated Undrained Triaxial Liquid Li mi t (in %) T x sat 2100 (575) U nco nso l id ared Undrained Tria x ial, saturated prior to t est PL Plastic Limit (1n %) OS 3740 (960) U n co nsolidated Undr ained Direct Shear Pl Plast icit y In d ex TV 1 320 T o rvane S h ear Gs Specific G ravity UC 4 200 Un con f ined Compress io n SA Sieve Analysis LVS 500 La boratory Vane Sh ear • Undisturbed Sample (2 .5-inch ID) FS Free Swell ~ 2-inch-lD Sample El Expansion Ind e x ii.:] Standard Pen e tration T est Perm Permeabi li ty ~ Bulk Sampl e SE Sand Equivalent KEY TO TEST DAT A Job N o: 1 2 -3798 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART PLATE Appr: AND KEY TO TEST DATA Drwn : LPDD 556 El Cam i no Real 3 Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Date : APR 2013 Burlingame, Ca l ifornia Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Nwnber: 12-3798£ 556 E l Camino Real , Burlingame April 14 , 2013 (Updated 4/7/18) List of References Page B-1 APPENDIXB I . Brabb, E.E., and Pampeyan, E.H., 1983, Geologic Nfap of San Mat eo County, California, Un ited States Geological Survey Miscellaneous In vestigati ons Seri es Map 1-1257 A, Scale 1 :6 2,500. 2 . Califo rnia Department of Conservation, Division of M ines and Geol ogy, 1998 , Maps of Known Active Fault N ear-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Porhons of Nevada. 3. Pampeyan, E . H ., 1994, Geologic Map of the Montera Mountain and San Mateo 7-1/2' Quadrangles, San Mateo County, California, United States Geol ogical Survey M iscellaneou s Investigation Series Map 1-2 390, Scal e 1 :24,000. 4. Seed, H .B ., and Idri ss, E . 1982 , Ground Motion and Soil Liquefaction During Eart hquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research In stitute Monograph. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Project Number: 12-3798f 556 El Camino Real, Bmlingame Apri l 14, 2013 (Updated 4/7/18 ) Field Exploration Page C-1 APPENDIXC Our fie ld exploration consisted of a geologi c reconnaissance and subsurface exploration by means of one test boring logged by ou r Engineer on Apri l 5, 20 13. The test boring was drilled with truck mounted equipment utilizing continuous flight, hollow stern, 8-inch-diameter augers. The boring was drilled at the approximate location shown on Plate 1. The log of the test boring is displayed on Plate 2. Representative undisturbed samples of the earth materials were obtained from the test boring at selected depth intervals with a 1.4-inch inside diameter, split-banel Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound hammer tluough a 30-inch free fall. The sampler was driven 18 inches and the number of b lows was recorded for each 6 inches of penetrat ion. The blows per foot recorded on the Boring Log represent the accumulated nwnber of blows that were required to drive the s ampler the l ast 12 inches or fraction thereof. The soil classifications are shown on the Boring Log and referenced on P l ate 3. Laboratory Testing Natural water contents and percentages of gravel, sand, and fines were determined on selected soi l samples recove red from the test boring . The data are recorded at the appropriate sample depths on the Boring Log. Earth Mechanics Consulting E ngineers Project Num ber : 12-3798f 55 6 El Camino Real , Burlingame April 14 , 2013 (Updated 4/7/18) Distribution Mr. Roman Knop 18 56 Pacifi c A venue , #9 San Franci sco, CA 94109 romanrornkon@yahoo.com janekn op J 5 @ gm a il.com anoush@ csesf.com Page D-1 APPENDIXD (4 cop ies) ((RREEVVIISSEEDD)) AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX EE TTRRAAFFFFIICC QQUUEEUUIINNGG AANNAALLYYSSEESS TALUS|ENGINEERING, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date:May 1, 2015 Job No.:2015-05 To:Vadim Malik-Karamov VMK Design Group 3777 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 420 Santa Clara, CA 95051 Copies To:- From: Easton McAllister, PE Subject: 556 El Camino Real - Parking Comments: Vadim, I have reviewed the information provided regarding a parking queue for residents while utilizing the automated parking structure. Based on the information provided, it appears that a traffic engineer has estimated that the peak 15-minute traffic rate generated from the new development would create a 3 car backup while operating the automated stacker. The current design provides ample room for three cars in the driveway, however the City is requesting additional space. It is unclear how many additional spaces the City is requesting. It appears that room for a fourth car is almost available in the current design. Pulling building back from El Camino would only add one car, there is not enough space to add any more and maintain a single line. Extending the driveway closer to the property line would be more effective since there is more space to increase driveway length. Regardless, alternative means may be preferable to avoid backup on El Camino Real. My recommendations are summarized below: Methods for improving circulation: ·Lengthen driveway towards the property’s westerly boundary. This shift would be more effective than pulling back from El Camino since there is more space in that dimension. ·A fourth car would create a factor of safety of 33%, which seems adequate for this project. ·Notify future residents that blocking ECR is not allowed. If the queue is full, residents must circle the block. ·Provide signage to this effect as requested by traffic engineer. ·Paint stripes in driveway to place cars in order. This could prevent excessive separation between cars and show incoming residents whether all spaces in the queue are full. No matter what the estimated queue would be, a higher number may occur on any given day. Requiring overflow to prevent blockage on El Camino would be a worthwhile requirement of the residents. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Signed, Easton C. McAllister, PE Civil and Transportation Engineering C e l e b r a t i n g 3 5 y e a r s o f s e r v i c e i n n o r t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a May 5, 2015 Mr. Vadim Melik-Karamov VMK Design Group 3777 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite # 420 Santa Clara, California 95051 RE: 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame Dear Vadim: I have evaluated your 22 unit residential condominium project with respect to vehicle trip generation and queuing. Enclosed is a table showing time of day vehicle trip generation for a 22 unit condominium development. During the morning peak hour it is projected that 12 vehicles will leave the site and three vehicles will enter the site. During the afternoon peak hour 11 vehicles are projected to enter the site and five vehicles will leave the site. The afternoon peak hour is the one during which the most vehicles will be entering the site and the one where queuing of vehicles waiting to enter the parking machine. During the peak hour there will be a peak 15 minutes with the highest rate of vehicles entering and exiting the site. If you consider the peak rate within the peak hour to be 19 vehicles per hour and the service rate of the parking machine to be 30 vehicles per hour, the queue would be on the order of one vehicle during the peak 15 minutes of the peak hour. If the service rate of the machine drops to 25 vehicles per hour, the queue increases to 2.5 vehicles. As the service rate approaches 19 vehicles per hour, the queue increases exponentially. The greater the queue, the longer time it will take to clear the queue because of the lack of maneuverable space in front of the building. All this means a small decrease in the service rate of the parking machine will result in significant increases in queued vehicles. At the least you should plan to queue three vehicles at the front of the site waiting to enter the parking structure. The queue should not be so positioned to block those vehicles exiting the site from the parking structure. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at your convenience or e-mail me at rhopper@rkhengineering.com. Sincerely, RKH Richard K. Hopper, P.E. Principal encl. 837 Columba Lane • Foster City, CA 94404 • (650)212-0837 • FAX(650)212-3150 Location:556 El Camino Real, Burlingame Date:5/5/2015 22 DU 7.83 VTE/DU 172 VTE/DAY INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL 12MN-1AM 1.0 0.3 1.3 2 1 2 1-2 0.5 0.2 0.7 1 0 1 2-3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 0 1 3-4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0 0 1 4-5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 5-6 0.1 0.5 0.6 0 1 1 6-7 0.4 1.9 2.3 1 3 4 7-8 1.0 5.1 6.1 2 9 11 8-9 1.5 7.0 8.5 3 12 15 AMPH 9-10 1.4 4.1 5.5 2 7 9 10-11 1.3 2.7 4.0 2 5 7 11-12NN 2.2 2.0 4.2 4 3 7 12NN-1PM 2.7 1.8 4.5 5 3 8 1-2 2.4 2.1 4.5 4 4 8 2-3 2.5 2.5 5.0 4 4 9 3-4 3.1 2.5 5.6 5 4 10 4-5 4.4 2.5 6.9 8 4 12 5-6 6.4 3.1 9.5 11 5 16 PMPH 6-7 5.5 3.0 8.5 9 5 15 7-8 3.8 3.0 6.8 7 5 12 8-9 3.1 2.1 5.2 5 4 9 9-10 2.5 1.6 4.1 4 3 7 10-11 2.1 1.2 3.3 4 2 6 11-12MN 1.6 0.4 2.0 3 1 3 50.0 50.0 100.0 86 86 172 Reference:ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition ©2012 Caltrans 13th Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts RKH - Civil and Transportation Engineering - Foster City, California RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE LAND USE TRIP GENERATION %AWDT HOUR VTE/HR. (230) February 13, 2018 Mr. Will Burns David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1111 Broadway, Suite 1510 Oakland, California 94607 Re: Peer Review of the Queuing Analysis Completed for the Proposed Residential Project at 556 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California Dear Mr. Burns: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a peer review of the queuing analysis completed by RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering, dated May 5, 2015, for the proposed residential development at 556 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California. The proposed project would construct 21 residential condominium units. The peer reviewed traffic analysis was based on an earlier site plan, which showed 22 units. Thus, the traffic analysis by RKH is conservative in that it slightly overstates the project trip generation and queue lengths associated with the currently proposed project. Access to the site would be provided by a semi-circular one-way driveway that intersects El Camino Real at two locations; the northern end of the driveway would be the exit and the southern end of the driveway would be the entrance. There would be two surface parking stalls with electric vehicle charging stations along the northern edge of the site near the exit driveway. In addition, the project would provide a completely automated parking system in which users drive into the transfer compartment, exit the vehicle, and the vehicle is automatically delivered to one of 35 parking spaces. When the driver is ready to leave, he or she swipes a card or enters a code and the transfer compartment retrieves the vehicle. The automated parking system bay will meet ADA guidelines for accessibility. Of the 35 parking spaces, 23 would have sufficient vertical clearance to accommodate high-profile vehicles (e.g. vans or SUV’s), while 12 spaces would be limited to low-profile vehicles (e.g. sedans). The queuing analysis completed by RKH includes an estimate of project generated traffic and an analysis of the queue length for inbound vehicles waiting to enter the automated parking system to determine if the project may cause vehicle queues that spill back onto the public street. RKH recommended that the project driveway provide on-site storage space for at least three vehicles waiting to enter the automated parking system. Current site plans show three vehicles could queue in the driveway leading to the parking system entrance assuming a typical spacing of 20 feet per vehicle. Our independent analysis shows that the proposed on-site storage would be sufficient to prevent queues from extending onto El Camino Real based on the average parking system service times. Details of our peer review and additional recommendations to facilitate parking operations and to prevent excess queues during parking system malfunctions are presented below. Project Trip Generation The project trip generation estimates prepared by RKH list the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition and the Caltrans 13th Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts as references. Subsequent to the analysis by RKH, the Mr. Will Burns February 13, 2018 Page 2 of 4 10th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual has been published, which indicates that midrise townhomes in suburban areas generate vehicle trips at a lower rate than previously reported. Thus, the project trip estimates prepared by RKH may overstate the actual trip generation. Hexagon recommends using daily and peak-hour trip rates from ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, which is the most widely accepted, comprehensive, and current source of data. As seen in Table 1, based on current ITE rates, the project is estimated to generate 114 daily trips, with 8 trips occurring during the AM peak hour (7-9 AM) and 10 trips occurring during the PM peak hour (4-6 PM). Using the PM peak hour to account for the busiest time, this equates to an average demand on the automated parking system of one vehicle every 360 seconds, or around one vehicle every six minutes. Table 1 Trip Generation for Proposed Residential at 556 El Camino Real Queueing Analysis It is unclear how RKH derived their conclusions regarding the probable queue length as the methodology is not described in their letter report, and there are no calculations attached. Furthermore, RKH reports the likely queue for a range of service rates. The applicant has indicated that the parking system will be provided by CityLift. According to CityLift, the proposed parking system would have an average service time of 90 seconds, which means that the automated parking system can service 40 vehicles per hour. Note that the same transfer compartment is responsible both for parking inbound vehicles and retrieving outbound vehicles. However, only the inbound vehicles would queue in the driveway while waiting to be parked, while outbound vehicles would remain in their parking space while waiting to be retrieved. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles in the queuing system using the following formula: P (x=n) = n e – ( n! Where: P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue n = number of vehicles in the queue (including the vehicle in the transfer compartment) Daily Daily Pk-Hr Pk-Hr Land Use Size Units Rates Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Use Residential Condominiums / Townhouse1 21 DUs 5.44 114 0.3626 8 0.446410 Total Proposed Project Trips 114 2 6 8 6 4 10 Notes: DUs = dwelling units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1Multifamily Housing, Midrise, General Urban/Suburban (Land Use 221), ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition , 2017, average rates are used. Mr. Will Burns February 13, 2018 Page 3 of 4 Average number of vehicles in the queue (vehicle arrivals per hour / vehicles processed by the parking system per hour) The estimated outbound vehicle trips during the PM peak hour (4 vehicles per hour) were subtracted from the average service rate (40 vehicles per hour) in order to estimate the average number of inbound vehicles that could be served during the PM peak hour (36 vehicles per hour). This means that the automated parking system can service one inbound vehicle in an average time of 100 seconds. As shown in Table 1, the project is expected to generate six inbound vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. However, the headway between inbound vehicles would not be uniform. The queuing analysis was conducted based on the estimated vehicle arrivals during the peak 15-minute period within the PM peak hour. To be conservative, it is assumed that four vehicles would arrive during the peak 15-minute period, which equates to a rate of 16 vehicle arrivals per hour. The vehicle queue estimates and a tabulated summary of the findings are provided in Table 2. Table 2 Queuing Analysis The analysis indicates that during the peak 15-minute period, there is only about a 0.01 percent chance that there would be more than four vehicles in the queue including one vehicle in the transfer compartment and three vehicles queued in the inbound driveway. Recommendations The following recommendations are provided to ensure the proposed automatic parking system does not disrupt traffic flow on El Camino Real.  The site driveway should include signage and/or striping to instruct inbound vehicles where to wait so as not to block vehicles exiting the transfer compartment.  The ramp that leads to the parking system entrance has a slope that ranges from 8 to 18 percent. Vehicles may have difficulty stopping and maintaining their position in a queue on such a steep slope. The previous site design, which showed vehicles entering from the northern end of the semi-circular driveway, would avoid the need for vehicles to queue on the ramp by providing flat queuing space for inbound traffic within the semi-circular Number of Queued Vehicles (n) * Individual Probability P (x=n) Cumulative Probability P (x<=n) 0 0.6412 0.6412 1 0.2850 0.9261 2 0.0633 0.9895 3 0.0094 0.9989 4 0.0010 0.9999 5 0.0001 1.0000 * includes vehicle in the transfer compartment in the process of parking/retrieving. Mr. Will Burns February 13, 2018 Page 4 of 4 driveway and signaling for a vehicle to proceed down the ramp when the parking system is available to receive the next incoming vehicle.  Clear signage should be provided at the top of the ramp advising of the parking system’s vehicle size limits and whether visitors are permitted to park in the parking system. The signage is important because there is no space for vehicles to turn around at the bottom of the ramp if they discover they are not able to enter the parking system.  The automated parking entrance should include some means to communicate with drivers the expected wait time and any malfunction of the parking system. Residents should be notified that parking and/or stopping is not permitted on El Camino Real. Furthermore, residents should be informed of the nearest alternative legal parking locations to be used if the automated parking system is inoperable. Thank you for the opportunity to conduct this peer review. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Michelle Hunt Vice President and Principal Associate AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA SSHHAADDEE AANNDD SSHHAADDOOWW AANNAALLYYSSIISS 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com December 21, 2016 Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manger City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Shadow Analysis Peer Review 556 El Camino Real Condominium Development Overview David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. (DJP&A) was provided a shadow study summary prepared by VMK Design Group for the proposed condominium building at 556 El Camino Real in Burlingame. The following presents a summary review of our findings. The project site is located on the north side of El Camino Real in Burlingame. The project site is bounded by El Camino Real to the south and southwest, a three-story multi-family residential buildings to the north and northwest, and a multi-family residence to the east and northeast. The proposed project would construct a five-story condominium building over a sub-grade parking podium. Conclusion DJP&A has reviewed the Shadow Study Summary provided to the City of Burlingame by Vadim Melik-Karamov, President of VMK Design Group on August 24, 2015. DJP&A independently calculated and plotted the anticipated shadows cast by the proposed building and found the shadow study provided by the architect to be accurate. The Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan specifically states that shadow diagrams should be evaluated for 9 AM, 12 noon, and 3 PM to determine impacts to major pedestrian routes for the autumnal and vernal equinoxes as well as the summer and winter solstices. The shadows cast by the proposed building at these times would not significantly increase shadows on the adjacent public sidewalk along El Camino Real (refer to Figures A, B, and C). Please contact me with any questions regarding this peer review. Regards, Will Burns, AICP SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY - EQUINOXFIGURE xEl Camino RealAlmer RoadAlmer RoadEl Camino RealResidentialResidentialResidentialResidential3pmProject Boundary9am12pmAerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Aug. 9, 2016.Photo Date: Apr. 20160 25 100 200 Feet SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY - SUMMER SOLSTICEFIGURE xEl Camino RealAlmer RoadAlmer RoadEl Camino RealResidentialResidentialResidentialResidential3pmProject Boundary9am12pmAerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Aug. 9, 2016.Photo Date: Apr. 20160 25 100 200 Feet SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY - WINTER SOLSTICEFIGURE xEl Camino RealoadAlmer RoadEl Camino RealAAAlmmeerrResidentialResidentialResidentialResidential3pmProject Boundary9am12pmAerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Aug. 9, 2016.Photo Date: Apr. 20160 25 100 200 Feet AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN HHEEAALLTTHH RRIISSKK AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT 556 EL CAMINO REAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DRAFT CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT Burlingame, CA November 11, 2016 Prepared for: Will Burns David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1111 Broadway, Suite 1510 Oakland, CA 94607 Prepared by: Tanushree Ganguly and Joshua Carman 1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120 Petaluma, CA 94954 (707) 794-0400 I&R Project# 16-159 P a g e | 1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to address community risk impacts associated with the proposed condominium project located at 556 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California. The project proposes the development of a 21-unit, five story condominium building. The proposed building would include a lobby and a below-grade parking garage. The building would consist of ten, three-bedroom units, eight, two-bedroom units and three, one-bedroom units for a total of 21 dwelling units. Common open space shall be provided in the rear yard along the northeastern side of the building. Community risk air quality impacts could occur due to tempora ry emissions from the construction site and exposure of residences in the vicinity to toxic air contaminants (TACs). This analysis addresses these issues following guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Setting The project is located in the San Mateo County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State, and federal level. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three- quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in -use public and utility fleets, and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008, CARB approved a new P a g e | 2 regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from existing on-road heavy-duty diesel fueled vehicles.1 The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance requirements between 2014 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010 model-year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle. The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. At the State level, the CARB (a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level. The BAAQMD has recently published California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines that are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects.2 Attachment 1 includes detailed community risk modeling methodology. Sensitive Receptors There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family residential apartments to the north, west and east of the project site. Additional residences are located further south. Significance Thresholds In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA. These Thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA and were posted on BAAQMD’s website and included in the Air District's updated CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011). The significance thresholds identified by BAAQMD and used in this analysis are summarized in Table 1. BAAQMD’s adoption of significance thresholds contained in the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines was called into question by an order issued March 5, 2012, in California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. BAAQMD (Alameda Superior Court Case No. RGI0548693). The order requires the BAAQMD to set aside its approval of the thresholds until it has conducted environmental review under CEQA. The ruling made in the case concerned the environmental impacts of adopting the thresholds and how the thresholds would indirectly affect land use development patterns. In August 2013, the Appellate Court struck down the lower court’s order to set aside the thresholds (Cal. Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Case Nos. A135335 & A136212). CBIA sought review by the California Supreme Court on three issues, including the appellate court’s decision to uphold the BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds, and the Court granted review on just one: Under what circumstances, if any, does CEQA require an analysis of 1 Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed: November 21, 2014. 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. P a g e | 3 how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users of a proposed project? In December 2015, the Supreme Court determined that an analysis of the impacts of the environment on a project – known as “CEQA-in-reverse” – is only required under two limited circumstances: (1) when a statute provides an express legislative directive to consider such impacts; and (2) when a proposed project risks exacerbating environmental hazards or conditions that already exist (Cal. Supreme Court Case No. S213478). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and remanded the matter back to the appellate court to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Accordingly, the case is currently pend ing back in the Court of Appeal. Because the Supreme Court’s holding concerns the effects of the environment on a project (as contrasted to the effects of a proposed project on the environment), and not the science behind the thresholds, the significance thresholds contained in the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are applied to this project. Table 1. Community Risk Significance Thresholds Health Risks and Hazards for Single Sources Excess Cancer Risk >10 per one million Hazard Index >1.0 Incremental annual PM2.5 >0.3 µg/m3 Health Risks and Hazards for Combined Sources (Cumulative from all sources within 1,000 foot zone of influence) Excess Cancer Risk >100 per one million Hazard Index >10.0 Annual Average PM2.5 >0.8 µg/m3 Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less; Project Construction Activity Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. These exhaust air pollutant emissions would not be considered to contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. Construction exhaust emissions may still pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted that evaluated potential health effects of sensitive receptors at these nearby residences from construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5.3 The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include the multi-family residential apartments to the north; northeast and south of the project site (see Figure 1). Emissions and dispersion modeling was conducted to predict the off-site concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer risks and non -cancer health effects could be evaluated. 3 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer. P a g e | 4 Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. Fugitive dust emissions would also depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of equipment operating. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less than significant if best management practices are employed to reduce these emissions. Mitigation Measure 1 would implement BAAQMD-required best management practices. Construction Period Emissions Construction activity is anticipated to include demolition, grading, site preparation, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction period emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2016.3.1 (CalEEMod). A construction buildout schedule, including proposed equipment list, was provided by the project applicant and input to the model. The proposed project land use was entered into CalEEMod, which included 21 dwelling units entered as “Condo/Townhouse”, and 41 spaces as “Enclosed Parking with Elevator” on a 0.35-acre site. Construction of the project is anticipated to take about 23 months. The CalEEMod modeling included emissions from truck and worker travel on or near the site, assumed to occur over a distance of 0.5 miles. Export of 7,721 cubic yard (cy) of soil is expected for the garage and was entered into the model. Additionally, demolition of 10,750 square feet (sf) of buildings and 6,779 sf of pavement is anticipated and was entered into the model. PM10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be Diesel Particulate Matter) from the off-road construction equipment and from on-road vehicles, with total emissions from all construction stages were computed by CalEEMod as 0.1505 tons (301 pounds). The on-road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during demolition and grading activities, worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. These emissions from on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site were modeled as occurring at the construction site. Fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were calculated by CalEEMod as 28.9 pounds for the overall construction period. Dispersion Modeling The U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at existing sensitive receptors (residences) in the vicinity of the project construction area. The AERMOD dispersion model is a BAAQMD-recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these types of emission activities for CEQA projects.4 The AERMOD modeling utilized two area sources to represent the on-site construction emissions, one for 4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May 2011. P a g e | 5 exhaust emissions and one for fugitive dust emissions. To represent the construction equipment exhaust emissions, an emission release height of 6 meters (19.7 feet) was used for the area source. The elevated source height reflects the height of the equipment exhaust pipes plus an additional distance for the height of the exhaust plume above the exhaust pipes to account for plume rise of the exhaust gases. For modeling fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 2 meters (6.6 feet) was used for the area source. Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. Construction emissions were modeled as occurring daily between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., when the majority of construction activity would occur. Figure 1 shows the project site and nearby sensitive receptor (residences) locations where health impacts were evaluate d. The modeling used a five-year data set (2009-2013) of hourly meteorological data from the San Francisco International Airport that was prepared for use with the AERMOD model by BAAQMD for use in health risk assessments. Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities during 2017 and 2018 were calculated using the model. The maximum-modeled DPM concentration occurred just east of the construction site at the second floor level of a mutli-family residential apartment. The maximum PM2.5 concentration occurred at the same location as the cancer risk maximally exposed individual (MEI). The location where the maximum PM2.5 and DPM concentrations occurred (and maximum cancer risk) is identified on Figure 1. The detailed emission modeling results and health risk calculations can be found in Attachment 2. Cancer Risks Results of this assessment indicate that the maximum excess residential cancer risks would be 222.3 in one million for an infant exposure and 3.8 in one million for an adult exposure. The maximum residential excess cancer risk would be greater than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Predicted Annual PM2.5 Concentration The maximum-modeled annual PM2.5 concentration, which is based on combined exhaust and fugitive dust emissions, was 1.12 μg/m3, occurring at the residential MEI. The maximum annual PM2.5 concentration at the MEI residential receptor location would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Non-Cancer Hazards The maximum modeled annual residential DPM concentration (i.e., from construction exhaust) was 0.967 μg/m3. The maximum computed HI based on this DPM concentration is 0.19, which is lower than the BAAQMD significance criterion of a HI greater than 1.0. P a g e | 6 Combined Construction Risk Assessment Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of a project site. These sources include freeways or highways, busy surface streets and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. Traffic on high volume roadways is a source of TAC emissions that may adversely affect sensitive receptors in close proximity to the roadway. For local roadways, BAAQMD considers roadways with traffic volumes of over 10,000 vehicles per day to have a potentially significant impact. A review of the project area indicates that traffic on El Camino Real (SR-82) is the only substantial sources of mobile TAC emissions within 1,000 feet of the project site. BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Tool did not identify any stationary sources with the potential to affect the project site receptors or the nearby sensitive receptors. The combined impacts from project construction and traffic on El Camino real have b een summarized in Table 2. BAAQMD provides a Highway Screening Analysis Google Earth Map tool to identify estimated risk and hazard impacts from highways throughout the Bay Area. Cancer risk, non-cancer hazard and PM2.5 impacts at various distances from the highway are estimated for different segments of the highways. The tool uses the average annual daily traffic (AADT) count, fleet mix and other modeling parameters specific to that segment of the highway. Impacts from El Camino Real (SR- 82), Link 129 (6ft elevation) were identified at the construction MEI using this tool. Table 2. Cumulative Construction Risk Assessment Source Maximum Cancer Risk (per million) Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Maximum Hazard Index Unmitigated project construction 222.3 1.12 0.19 El Camino Real at 90 feet 5.1 0.07 <0.01 Cumulative Total 227.4 1.19 <0.20 BAAQMD Threshold – Cumulative Sources >100 >0.8 >10.0 Significant? Yes Yes No Mitigated Construction Mitigated project construction 5.6 0.05 <0.01 El Camino Real at 90 feet 5.1 0.07 <0.01 Cumulative Total 10.7 0.12 <0.02 BAAQMD Threshold – Cumulative Sources >100 >0.8 >10.0 Significant? No No No P a g e | 7 Mitigation Measure 1: Include basic measures to control dust and exhaust during construction. During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less than significant level. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. P a g e | 8 Mitigation Measure 2: Selection of equipment during construction to minimize emissions. Such equipment selection would include the following. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average 96 percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or more. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:  All diesel-powered off-road equipment above 25hp operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. Note that the construction contractor could use other measures to minimize construction period DPM emission to reduce the predicted cancer risk below the thresholds. The use of equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters5 or alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would meet this requirement. Other measures may be the use of added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 is considered to reduce exhaust emissions by 5 percent. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 would further reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions. This would reduce the cancer risk proportionally, such that the mitigated risk would be less than 5.6 in one million. The annual PM2.5 concentration would be reduced to 0.05 μg/m3. After implementation of these mitigation measures, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with rest to community risk caused by construction activities. 5 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm P a g e | 9 Figure 1. Project Construction Site and Locations of Off-Site Sensitive Receptors and Maximum TAC and PM2.5 Impact Attachment 1: Health Risk Assessment Methodology A health risk assessment (HRA) for exposure to Toxic Air Contaminates (TACs) requires the application of a risk characterization model to the results from the air dispersion model to estimate potential health risk at each sensitive receptor location. The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop recommended methods for conducting health risk assessments. The most recent OEHHA risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015.6 These guidelines incorporate substantial changes designed to provide for enhanced protection of children, as required by State law, compared to previous published risk assessment guidelines. CARB has provided additional guidance on implementing OEHHA’s recommended methods.7 BAAQMD has not formally adopted recommended procedures for applying the newest OEHHA guidelines. However, BAAQMD is in the process of developing new guidance and has proposed HRA Guidelines as part of the amendments to Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.8 Exposure parameters from the 2015 OEHHA guidelines and newly proposed BAAQMD HRA Guidelines were used in this evaluation. Cancer Risk Potential increased cancer risk from inhalation of TACs are calculated based on the TAC concentration over the period of exposure, inhalation dose, the TAC cancer potency factor, and an age sensitivity factor to reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and children to cancer causing TACs. The inhalation dose depends on a person’s breathing rate, exposure time and frequency of exposure, and the exposure duration. These parameters vary depending on the age, or age r ange, of the persons being exposed and whether the exposure is considered to occur at a residential location or other sensitive receptor location. The current OEHHA guidance recommends that cancer risk be calculated by age groups to account for different breathing rates and sensitivity to TACs. Specifically, they recommend evaluating risks for the third trimester of pregnancy to age zero, ages zero to less than two (infant exposure), ages two to less than 16 (child exposure), and ages 16 to 70 (adult expo sure). Age sensitivity factors (ASFs) associated with the different types of exposure are an ASF of 10 for the third trimester and infant exposures, an ASF of 3 for a child exposure, and an ASF of 1 for an adult exposure. Also associated with each exposure type are different breathing rates, expressed as liters per kilogram of body weight per day (L/kg-day). As recommended by the BAAQMD, 95th percentile breathing rates are used for the third trimester and infant exposures, and 80th percentile breathing rates for child and adult exposures. Additionally, CARB and the BAAQMD recommend the use of a residential exposure duration of 30 years for sources with long -term emissions (e.g., roadways). 6 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. February. 7 CARB, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23. 8 BAAQMD, 2016. Workshop Report. Proposed Amendments to Air District Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants. Appendix C. Proposed Air District HRA Guidelines . January 2016. Under previous OEHHA and BAAQMD HRA guidance, residential receptors are assumed to be at their home 24 hours a day, or 100 percent of the time. In the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidance, OEHHA includes adjustments to exposure duration to account for the fraction of time at home (FAH), which can be less than 100 percent of the time, based on updated population and activity statistics. The FAH factors are age-specific and are: 0.85 for third trimester of pregnancy to less than 2 years old, 0.72 for ages 2 to less than 16 years, and 0.73 for ages 16 to 70 years. BAAQMD recommends using these FAH factors for residential exposures. Functionally, cancer risk is calculated using the following parameters and formulas: Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 106 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor The health risk parameters used in this evaluation are summarized as follows: Exposure Type  Infant Child Adult Parameter Age Range  3rd Trimester 0<2 2 < 16 16 - 30 DPM Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)- 1 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)* 361 1,090 572 261 Inhalation Absorption Factor 1 1 1 1 Averaging Time (years) 70 70 70 70 Exposure Duration (years) 0.25 2 14 14 Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350 350 350 350 Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 1 Fraction of Time at Home 0.85 – 1.0 0.72 – 1.0 0.72 – 1.0 0.73 * 95th percentile breathing rates for 3rd trimester and infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Non-Cancer Hazards Potential non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI), which is the ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). OEHHA has defined acceptable concentration levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the REL are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The total HI is calculated as the sum of the HIs for each TAC evaluated and the total HI is compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds to determine whether a significant non-cancer health impact from a project would occur. Typically, for residential projects located near roadways with substantial TAC emissions, the primary TAC of concern with non-cancer health effects is diesel particulate matter (DPM). For DPM, the chronic inhalation REL is 5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). Annual PM2.5 Concentrations While not a TAC, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) has been identified by the BAAQMD as a pollutant with potential non-cancer health effects that should be included when evaluating potential community health impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The thresholds of significance for PM2.5 (project level and cumulative) are in terms of an increase in the annual average concentration. When considering PM2.5 impacts, the contribution from all sources of PM2.5 emissions should be included. For projects with potential impacts from nearby local roadways, the PM2.5 impacts should include those from vehicle exhaust emissions, PM2.5 generated from vehicle tire and brake wear, and fugitive emissions from re-suspended dust on the roads. Attachment 2: Construction Schedule, CalEEMod Output and Health Risk Calculations Construction Schedule Project Name: 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor Project Size 21 Dwelling Units total project acres disturbed s.f. residential s.f. retail s.f. office/commercial s.f. other, specify: s.f. parking garage spaces s.f. parking lot spaces Construction Hours am to pm Qty Description HP Load Factor Hours/day Total Work Days Avg. Hours per day Annual Hours Comments Demolition Start Date:e.g., 1/1/2017 Total phase:20 Overall Import/Export Volumes End Date:1/28/2017 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 8 0 0 Demolition Volume Excavators 162 0.38 0 0 Square footage of buildings to be demolished 1 Rubber-Tired Dozers 255 0.4 1 0 0 (or total tons to be hauled) 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 6 0 0 _?_ square feet or _?_ Hauling volume (tons) Site Preperation Start Date:1/30/2017 Total phase:5 Any pavement demolished and hauled? _?_ tons End Date:2/6/2017 1 Graders 174 0.41 8 0 0 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.4 0 0 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 0 0 Grading / Excavation Start Date:2/6/2017 Total phase:60 End Date:4/24/2017 Soil Hauling Volume 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 8 0 0 Export volume = 7721.41 cubic yards? Graders 174 0.41 0 0 Import volume = 0.00 cubic yards? 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.4 1 0 0 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 6 0 0 Other Equipment? Trenching Start Date:Total phase:30 End Date: Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.37 0 0 Excavators 162 0.38 0 Other Equipment? Building - Exterior Start Date:4/25/2017 Total phase:250 Cement Trucks? _?_ Total Round-Trips End Date:4/21/2018 1 Cranes 226 0.29 4 0 0 Electric? (Y/N) ___ Otherwise assumed diesel 2 Forklifts 89 0.2 6 0 0 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) ___ Otherwise Assumed diesel Generator Sets 84 0.74 0 0 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) __yes_ 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 0 0 Welders 46 0.45 0 0 Other Equipment?0 Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date:4/23/2018 Total phase:150 End Date:10/19/2017 1 Air Compressors 78 0.48 6 0 0 Aerial Lift 62 0.31 0 0 Other Equipment? Paving Start Date:10/22/2018 Total phase:25 End Date:10/23/2018 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 6 0 0 1 Pavers 125 0.42 7 0 0 Paving Equipment 130 0.36 0 0 1 Rollers 80 0.38 7 0 0 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 7 0 0 Other Equipment? Equipment types listed in "Equipment Types" worksheet tab. Equipment listed in this sheet is to provide an example of inputs It is assumed that water trucks would be used during grading Add or subtract phases and equipment, as appropriate Modify horepower or load factor, as appropriate Asphalt? ___ cubic yards or ____ round trips? Complete ALL Portions in Yellow CalEEMod Output Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Revised CO2 Emission Intensity Land Use - From the project description and the site plan Construction Phase - Applicant provided construction schedule Off-road Equipment - Applicant provided equipment information Off-road Equipment - CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 429.6 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.029 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006 70 Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2019 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) Condo/Townhouse 21.00 Dwelling Unit 0.35 29,070.00 60 Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 41.00 Space 0.00 16,400.00 0 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 1 Date: 11/11/2016 3:54 PM 556 El Camino Real, TAC Emissions - San Mateo County, Annual 556 El Camino Real, TAC Emissions San Mateo County, Annual tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 250.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 150.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 Demolition - 10750+6779 sf of building demolished Grading - 7721.41 cy of soil exported during the grading phase Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Best Management Practices and Tier 4 Interim Mitigation for all Equipment > 25 HP Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Trips and VMT - Reduced trip length for health risk assessment tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.50 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 429.6 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2019 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.37 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.31 0.35 tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 21,000.00 29,070.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 21,000.00 29,070.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/28/2017 1/30/2017 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 7,721.41 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/4/2017 2/6/2017 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/14/2018 10/22/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/19/2018 4/23/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/29/2017 4/25/2017 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/13/2018 4/9/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/18/2018 11/23/2018 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 5.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/14/2018 11/16/2018 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 60.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 25.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 0.0000 147.9273 147.9273 0.0393 0.0000 148.90950.0162 2.6200e- 003 0.0188 3.5000e- 003 2.6100e- 003 6.1100e- 003 2017 0.0365 0.6757 1.0908 1.6100e- 003 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 147.9275 147.9275 0.0393 0.0000 148.90970.0343 0.1076 0.1419 0.0143 0.0999 0.1142Maximum0.2821 1.6734 1.0959 1.6100e- 003 0.0000 69.8337 69.8337 0.0169 0.0000 70.25635.7000e- 004 0.0429 0.0434 1.6000e- 004 0.0404 0.040620180.2821 0.6635 0.5170 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 147.9275 147.9275 0.0393 0.0000 148.90970.0343 0.1076 0.1419 0.0143 0.0999 0.114220170.1704 1.6734 1.0959 1.6100e- 003 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 0.50 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 0.50 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 2.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 150 6 Paving Paving 10/22/2018 11/23/2018 5 25 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/23/2018 11/16/2018 5 60 4 Building Construction Building Construction 4/25/2017 4/9/2018 5 250 3 Grading Grading 2/6/2017 4/28/2017 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2017 2/3/2017 5 5 End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2017 1/27/2017 5 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date Highest 0.4798 0.1874 6 4-1-2018 6-30-2018 0.1654 0.1123 7 7-1-2018 9-30-2018 0.1671 0.1280 4 10-1-2017 12-31-2017 0.4739 0.1675 5 1-1-2018 3-31-2018 0.4012 0.1633 2 4-1-2017 6-30-2017 0.4798 0.1874 3 7-1-2017 9-30-2017 0.4741 0.1678 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2017 3-31-2017 0.3958 0.1810 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0051.99 97.47 88.92 74.67 97.30 95.19 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 42.38 58.22 0.20 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive PM10 0.0000 147.9273 147.9273 0.0393 0.0000 148.90950.0162 2.6200e- 003 0.0188 3.5000e- 003 2.6100e- 003 6.1100e- 003 Maximum 0.2243 0.6757 1.0908 1.6100e- 003 0.0000 69.8336 69.8336 0.0169 0.0000 70.25635.7000e- 004 1.1800e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.6000e- 004 1.1800e- 003 1.3400e- 003 2018 0.2243 0.3006 0.5189 7.8000e- 004 0.50 0.50 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTArchitectural Coating 1 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 0.50 0.50 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 5 22.00 5.00 0.00 Grading 4 10.00 0.00 965.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 0.50 0.50 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 80.00 0.50 Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38 Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40 Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40 Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 58,867; Residential Outdoor: 19,622; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 984 (Architectural Coating – sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3486 0.3486 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.35002.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 Hauling 1.1000e- 004 4.1300e- 003 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 10.6985 10.6985 2.1000e- 003 0.0000 10.75118.6300e- 003 7.3200e- 003 0.0160 1.3100e- 003 6.9800e- 003 8.2900e- 003 Total 0.0121 0.1050 0.0792 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 10.6985 10.6985 2.1000e- 003 0.0000 10.75117.3200e- 003 7.3200e- 003 6.9800e- 003 6.9800e- 003 Off-Road 0.0121 0.1050 0.0792 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.6300e- 003 0.0000 8.6300e- 003 1.3100e- 003 0.0000 1.3100e- 003 Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads 0.50 0.50 0.50 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving718.00 0.00 0.00 3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 0.0000 0.4023 0.4023 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.40386.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 Total 2.2000e- 004 4.1800e- 003 1.9700e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0537 0.0537 0.0000 0.0000 0.05384.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Worker 1.1000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3486 0.3486 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.35002.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 Hauling 1.1000e- 004 4.1300e- 003 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 10.6985 10.6985 2.1000e- 003 0.0000 10.75113.8800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 4.0600e- 003 2.9000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 Total 2.3700e- 003 0.0455 0.0794 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 10.6985 10.6985 2.1000e- 003 0.0000 10.75111.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 Off-Road 2.3700e- 003 0.0455 0.0794 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.8800e- 003 0.0000 3.8800e- 003 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.9000e- 004 Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.4023 0.4023 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.40386.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 Total 2.2000e- 004 4.1800e- 003 1.9700e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0537 0.0537 0.0000 0.0000 0.05384.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Worker 1.1000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 6.7100e- 003 6.7100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 6.7200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 6.7100e- 003 6.7100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 6.7200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 2.2669 2.2669 6.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.28421.3300e- 003 1.1800e- 003 2.5100e- 003 1.4000e- 004 1.0900e- 003 1.2300e- 003 Total 2.1300e- 003 0.0263 0.0109 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2669 2.2669 6.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.28421.1800e- 003 1.1800e- 003 1.0900e- 003 1.0900e- 003 Off-Road 2.1300e- 003 0.0263 0.0109 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.3300e- 003 0.0000 1.3300e- 003 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 32.0955 32.0955 6.3100e- 003 0.0000 32.25330.0230 0.0220 0.0450 0.0125 0.0209 0.0334Total0.0363 0.3149 0.2376 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 32.0955 32.0955 6.3100e- 003 0.0000 32.25330.0220 0.0220 0.0209 0.0209Off-Road 0.0363 0.3149 0.2376 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0230 0.0000 0.0230 0.0125 0.0000 0.0125Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 6.7100e- 003 6.7100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 6.7200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 6.7100e- 003 6.7100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 6.7200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 2.2669 2.2669 6.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.28426.0000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 6.4000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 Total 4.4000e- 004 7.7500e- 003 0.0146 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2669 2.2669 6.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.28424.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 Off-Road 4.4000e- 004 7.7500e- 003 0.0146 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00006.0000e- 004 0.0000 6.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 32.0955 32.0955 6.3100e- 003 0.0000 32.25320.0104 5.3000e- 004 0.0109 2.8100e- 003 5.3000e- 004 3.3400e- 003 Total 7.1000e- 003 0.1363 0.2381 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 32.0955 32.0955 6.3100e- 003 0.0000 32.25325.3000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 Off-Road 7.1000e- 003 0.1363 0.2381 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0104 0.0000 0.0104 2.8100e- 003 0.0000 2.8100e- 003 Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 4.3662 4.3662 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 4.38323.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 Total 1.7100e- 003 0.0500 0.0176 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1610 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.16131.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Worker 3.3000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 2.0400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.2052 4.2052 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.22202.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 004 Hauling 1.3800e- 003 0.0498 0.0156 4.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1.0567 1.0567 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.05857.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 004 Worker 2.1900e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0134 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.3704 2.3704 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.37952.1000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 Vendor 1.0800e- 003 0.0302 0.0129 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 94.6643 94.6643 0.0290 0.0000 95.38940.0769 0.0769 0.0707 0.0707Total0.1147 1.1419 0.7223 1.0200e- 003 0.0000 94.6643 94.6643 0.0290 0.0000 95.38940.0769 0.0769 0.0707 0.0707Off-Road 0.1147 1.1419 0.7223 1.0200e- 003 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 4.3662 4.3662 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 4.38323.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 Total 1.7100e- 003 0.0500 0.0176 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1610 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.16131.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Worker 3.3000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 2.0400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.2052 4.2052 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.22202.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 004 Hauling 1.3800e- 003 0.0498 0.0156 4.0000e- 005 Category tons/yr MT/yr 3.5 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 0.0000 3.4271 3.4271 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.43809.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0400e- 003 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 Total 3.2700e- 003 0.0312 0.0263 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0567 1.0567 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.05857.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 004 Worker 2.1900e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0134 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.3704 2.3704 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.37952.1000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 Vendor 1.0800e- 003 0.0302 0.0129 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 94.6642 94.6642 0.0290 0.0000 95.38931.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 Total 0.0213 0.4009 0.7126 1.0200e- 003 0.0000 94.6642 94.6642 0.0290 0.0000 95.38931.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 Off-Road 0.0213 0.4009 0.7126 1.0200e- 003 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 3.4271 3.4271 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.43809.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0400e- 003 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 Total 3.2700e- 003 0.0312 0.0263 3.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1.3513 1.3513 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.35523.7000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.3000e- 004 Total 1.1400e- 003 0.0119 9.3600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4071 0.4071 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.40772.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 Worker 7.6000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.9442 0.9442 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.94758.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 Vendor 3.8000e- 004 0.0116 4.7200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 36.9241 36.9241 0.0115 0.0000 37.21150.0252 0.0252 0.0232 0.0232Total0.0385 0.3916 0.2752 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 36.9241 36.9241 0.0115 0.0000 37.21150.0252 0.0252 0.0232 0.0232Off-Road 0.0385 0.3916 0.2752 4.0000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 19.1494 19.1494 1.8200e- 003 0.0000 19.19490.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113Total0.2305 0.1504 0.1391 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 19.1494 19.1494 1.8200e- 003 0.0000 19.19490.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113Off-Road 0.0224 0.1504 0.1391 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.2081 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1.3513 1.3513 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.35523.7000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.3000e- 004 Total 1.1400e- 003 0.0119 9.3600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4071 0.4071 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.40772.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 Worker 7.6000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.9442 0.9442 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.94758.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 Vendor 3.8000e- 004 0.0116 4.7200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 36.9241 36.9241 0.0115 0.0000 37.21156.6000e- 004 6.6000e- 004 6.6000e- 004 6.6000e- 004 Total 8.4600e- 003 0.1590 0.2827 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 36.9241 36.9241 0.0115 0.0000 37.21156.6000e- 004 6.6000e- 004 6.6000e- 004 6.6000e- 004 Off-Road 8.4600e- 003 0.1590 0.2827 4.0000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 19.1494 19.1494 1.8200e- 003 0.0000 19.19493.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 Total 0.2122 0.0795 0.1374 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 19.1494 19.1494 1.8200e- 003 0.0000 19.19493.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 Off-Road 4.0900e- 003 0.0795 0.1374 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.2081 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.1564 0.1564 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.15661.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Total 2.9000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 1.7800e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1564 0.1564 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.15661.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Worker 2.9000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 1.7800e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.1173 0.1173 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.11758.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 Worker 2.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.3400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 12.1352 12.1352 3.4200e- 003 0.0000 12.22076.3900e- 003 6.3900e- 003 5.9200e- 003 5.9200e- 003 Total 0.0115 0.1093 0.0903 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000 0.0000 12.1352 12.1352 3.4200e- 003 0.0000 12.22076.3900e- 003 6.3900e- 003 5.9200e- 003 5.9200e- 003 Off-Road 0.0115 0.1093 0.0903 1.4000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.7 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.1564 0.1564 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.15661.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Total 2.9000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 1.7800e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1564 0.1564 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.15661.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Worker 2.9000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 1.7800e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr 0.0000 0.1173 0.1173 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.11758.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 Total 2.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.3400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.1173 0.1173 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.11758.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 Worker 2.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.3400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 12.1351 12.1351 3.4200e- 003 0.0000 12.22071.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 Total 2.0400e- 003 0.0500 0.0863 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000 0.0000 12.1351 12.1351 3.4200e- 003 0.0000 12.22071.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 Off-Road 2.0400e- 003 0.0500 0.0863 1.4000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.1173 0.1173 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.11758.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 Total 2.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.3400e- 003 0.0000 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - Unmitigated PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Construction Emissions for Modeling - Unmitigated DPM PM2.5 Modeled Emission Modeled Emission Construction DPM Area DPM Emissions Area Rate Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate Year Activity (ton/year)Source (lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)(g/s/m2)Year Activity Source (ton/year)(lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)g/s/m2 2017 Construction 0.1076 1_DPM 215.2 0.06551 8.25E-03 1,446 5.71E-06 2017 Construction 1_FUG 0.0143 28.6 0.00871 1.10E-03 1,446 7.59E-07 2018 Construction 0.0429 1_DPM 85.8 0.02612 3.29E-03 1,446 2.28E-06 2018 Construction 1_FUG 0.0002 0.3 0.00010 1.23E-05 1,446 8.49E-09 Total 0.1505 301 0.0916 0.0115 Total 0.0145 28.9 0.0088 0.0011 Construction Hours Construction Hours hr/day =9 (7am - 4pm)hr/day =9 (7am - 4pm) days/yr = 365 days/yr = 365 hours/year = 3285 hours/year = 3285 Emission Summary Health Risk Calculations 556 ECR, Burlingame, CA - Construction Impacts - Unmitigated Emissions Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction Off-Site Residential Receptor Locations - 4.5 meters Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Values Infant/Child Adult Age -->3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30 Parameter ASF = 10 10 3 1 CPF =1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 DBR* =361 1090 572 261 A =1 1 1 1 EF =350 350 350 350 AT =70 70 70 70 FAH =1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 * 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Fugitive Total Year (years)Age Year Annual Factor (per million)Year Annual Factor (per million)PM2.5 PM2.5 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0*--10 ----- 1 1 0 - 1 2017 0.9670 10 158.83 2017 0.9501 1 2.73 0.1695 1.120 2 1 1 - 2 2018 0.3861 10 63.42 2018 0.3861 1 1.11 0.0019 0.388 3 1 2 - 3 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 52 1 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 53 1 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 54 1 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• 60 1 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 61 1 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 62 1 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 63 1 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 64 1 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 65 1 0.0000 --0.0000 1 0.00 66 1 0.0000 --0.0000 1 0.00 67 1 0.0000 --0.0000 1 0.00 68 1 0.0000 --0.0000 1 0.00 69 1 0.0000 --0.0000 1 0.00 70 1 0.0000 --0.0000 1 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 222.3 3.8 * Third trimester of pregnancy Results Summary 556 El Camino real, Burlingame, CA- Project Construction Health Impact Summary Maximum Impacts at Off- Site Residences Unmitigated Maximum Concentrations Maximum Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5 Construction PM2.5/DPM PM2.5 (per million)Index Concentration Year (μg/m3)(μg/m3)Child Adult (-)(μg/m3) 2017 0.9670 0.2466 158.83 2.73 0.193 1.120 2018 0.3861 0.0028 63.42 1.11 0.077 0.388 Total --222.3 3.8 -- Maximum Annual 0.9670 0.2466 --0.193 1.120 AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX CC TTRREEEE SSUURRVVEEYY Kielty Arborist Services LLC Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650- 515- 9783 June 27, 2016 Burlingame Investment LP 1856 Pacific Avenue #9 San Francisco CA 94109 Attn: Jane Knop Site: 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame CA Dear Ms. Knop, As requested on Thursday, June 16, 2016, I visited the above site for the purpose of inspecting and commenting on the trees. A new building is proposed for this site and your concern as to the future health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The trees in question were located on a map provided by you. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of the trees were measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. 556 El Camino 6/27/16 (2) Survey: Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SP Comments 1*P Magnolia 10est 50 30/15 Fair-poor vigor, fair form, die back in (Magnolia grandiflora) canopy, 2 feet from property line. 2*P Lemon 4x3est 40 20/10 Poor vigor, poor form, multi leader at base, (Citrus spp.) in decline. 3*P Magnolia 8est 45 30/12 Poor vigor, poor form, heavy to the south (Magnolia grandiflora) east, in decline. 4*P Pittosporum 12est 40 25/10 Poor vigor, poor form, heavy decay at base, (Pittosporum eugenioides) in decline. 5*P Pittosporum 6-6est 40 20/10 Poor vigor, poor form, heavy decay at base, (Pittosporum eugenioides) in decline. 6*P Redwood 45est 45 85/25 Fair vigor, poor form, slightly drought (Sequoia sempervirens) stressed, 6 feet from property line, failed in past at top or failed top. 7*P Pittosporum 6est 45 20/8 Poor vigor, poor form, topped, suppressed, (Pittosporum eugenioides) planted as hedge, not maintained as hedge. 8*P Pittosporum 5est 45 20/8 Poor vigor, poor form, topped, suppressed, (Pittosporum eugenioides) planted as hedge, not maintained as hedge. 9*P Pittosporum 8est 45 20/8 Poor vigor, poor form, topped, suppressed, (Pittosporum eugenioides) planted as hedge, not maintained as hedge. 10*P Pittosporum 6est 45 20/8 Poor vigor, poor form, topped, suppressed, (Pittosporum eugenioides) planted as hedge, not maintained as hedge. 11 Brush cherry 11.6 45 20/10 Fair vigor, poor form, topped in past, over (Syzygium australe) grown hedge, psyllids. 12 Brush cherry 12.7 45 20/10 Fair vigor, poor form, topped in past, over (Syzygium australe) grown hedge, psyllids, multi leader at 4 feet. 13 Crape myrtle 3x4 50 12/10 Fair vigor, fair form, in raised be, topped. (Lagerstroemia spp.) 14*P Redwood 20est 80 70/25 Good vigor, good form, 8 feet from property (Sequoia sempervirens) line. 556 El Camino 6/27/16 (3) Survey: Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SP Comments 15 Hollywood juniper 4.4 30 10/5 Poor vigor, poor form, in decline, 1 foot (Juniperus chinensis) from existing building. 16 Hollywood juniper 6.4-4.1 30 10/5 Poor vigor, poor form, in decline, 1 foot (Juniperus chinensis) from existing building, history of limb loss. 17 Hollywood juniper 7.5 20 10/5 Poor vigor, poor form, in decline, 1 foot (Juniperus chinensis) from existing building, nearly dead. 18 Hollywood juniper 10.4 30 10/5 Poor vigor, poor form, in decline, 1 foot (Juniperus chinensis) from existing building, topped. 19 Bottle brush 8.2-5.9 45 10/8 Poor-fair vigor, poor form, codominant at 1 (Callistemon spp.) foot with poor crotch. 20 Japanese maple 5.9 50 10/8 Fair vigor, fair form, decay at base. (Acer palmatum) 21P River red gum 16.3 55 60/25 Fair-poor vigor, fair form, leans towards (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) property, die back in canopy, history of limb loss, street tree. 22P Frontier elm 3.5 80 15/8 Good vigor, good from, new planting, street (Ulmus spp.) tree. 23P River red gum 40est 55 85/30 Good vigor, fair-poor form, heavily pruned (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in past, abundance of water sprout growth, street tree. *-Indicates neighbors trees P-indicates protected tree by city ordinance. Summary: The trees on site are all imported trees. The only protected trees located on site are the three street trees #21-23. Trees #1-10 and #14 are located on the neighbors property. All neighbors trees although some of them are not over the protected size for the city of Burlingame are considered protected. The remaining trees are under the protected size and located on the property. Most of the trees including a majority of the neighbors trees are in poor condition, as no maintenance has occurred to the trees for an extended period of time. Tree protection will be required for all three street trees. Tree protection fencing shall completely fence off their entire planting pit. The neighbors trees will be protected by property line construction fencing. The following tree protection plan will help to insure the health of the retained trees on site. 556 El Camino 6/27/16 (4) Tree Protection Plan: Tree protection zones should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for the protection zones should be 6 foot tall metal chain link type supported my 2 inch metal poles pounded into the ground by no less than 2 feet. The support poles should be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. The location for the protection fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible still allowing room for construction to safely continue. Signs should be placed on fencing signifying “Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out”. No materials or equipment should be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the dripline of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4 to 6 inches of chipper chips. Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason should be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. Trenches should be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time should also be covered with layers of burlap or straw wattle and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect exposed roots below. Normal irrigation should be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months. Some irrigation may be required during the winter months depending on the seasonal rainfall. During the summer months the trees on this site should receive heavy flood type irrigation 2 times a month. During the fall and winter 1 time a month should suffice. Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty David P. Beckham Certified Arborist WE#0476A Certified Arborist WE#10724A City of Burlingame Parking Variance Address: 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 135 Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Request: Application for Parking Variance for an intensification of use from office to school use. Applicant: Intelligent Learning School APN: 024-401-550 Property Owner: George and Jenny Chang Trust Lot Area: 101,625 SF General Plan: Office and Warehouse Zoning: IB CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 – Class I- the operation repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing including but not limited to (a) interior or exterior alternations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. Project History: This application is the result of several code enforcement complaints. The previous owner/operator of this business did not obtain the required business license or zoning approval for opening a school use at 1818 Gilbreth Road. A code enforcement case based on a drop-off/parking complaint was initiated in 2014 (#CE14-0052) and a case based on overcrowding of the students without the proper fire exiting was initiated in 2016 (# CE16-0028). Although there is evidence that a school has been in operation at this site or over 5 years, and the applicant's variance application states that it has operated since 2012, the City could not gather definite evidence of operations or code violations until the most recent code enforcement complaint in 2016. The school was previously called Intelligent Learning and now does business as Ingenious Learning, but the school use remains the same. There have been several owners or operators involved with the school and with the application. The code enforcement process resulted in the City of Burlingame’s Building and Fire Divisions issuing a maximum occupancy of 49 persons (including students and staff) for all of Suite 135; this maximum is based on the existing fire exit routes for that suite. The current applicant (and new owner) of the school, has made a Building Permit application to add more exits to Suite 135 (thereby increasing the maximum allowable occupancy), but the Planning Division cannot approve the Building permit until the applicant is approved for the parking Variance that is required to locate a school on the site, as well as approval for a City of Burlingame Business License. Since the study hearing for the parking Variance application approximately one year ago (July 24, 2017), the school has been operating at a capacity of 152 persons (140 students and 12 staff). This was done by expanding the school use into suite 200 (1,768 sf) and suite 143 (550 sf) in addition to suite 135. The Building and Fire Divisions allowed this expansion while the Planning entitlements were being processed because there were no immediate safety concerns. In the event that the Planning Commission grants the requested parking variance, Intelligent Learning will be remodeling Suite 135 and all the proposed operations will be contained in this suite and will be reduced to a maximum of 106 persons (98 students and 8 staff). In the event that the Planning Commission denies the requested parking variance, the school will be required to vacate the site. Project Description: The applicant, Intelligent Learning, is requesting a parking Variance to operate a school at 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 135. The subject site has street frontage on Mitten, Gilbreth, and Cowan Roads and driveway entrances off of Cowan Road and Mitten Road. The building on the site is an existing two-story building that that has 54,322 SF of office space. The tenant space for the proposed school use is located on the first floor in Suite 135 and totals 4,628 SF. There are 36 other suite spaces located in the building and the applicant has provided a list of the current tenants. The applicant's tenant list shows there are currently no vacant suites in the building. Item No. 8d Regular Action Parking Variance 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 135 2 A school use is permitted in the Inner Bayshore zoning district 25.43.020(d) which allows class or school uses in office structures over twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet, where the total class or school use does not exceed twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area on the lot, and with parking as set forth in Section 25.43.080 of this chapter. The proposed school use in suite 135 would occupy 8.5% of the gross floor area on the building (where 20% is the maximum allowed). Proposed School Operation: During the regular school year, the proposed Intelligent Learning School will provide after-school instruction (from 3:00-6:00 p.m.) to school age children (ages 5-12 years). During the summers, a summer camp is proposed at the school on weekdays for children ages 5-12 years, from 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. No weekend school hours are proposed. The maximum number of persons for this proposed school use for after-school instruction is 106 people (98 students and 8 staff). The maximum number of persons for the proposed summer camp is 55 people (50 students and 5 staff). The Building and Fire Officials note that with the proposed exiting changes to suite 135, the space could accommodate a 195-person occupant load. Planning Staff notes that these exiting revisions are not currently shown accurately on the plans submitted to the Planning Commission, but that the plans will be revised for the required Building Permit. The initial parking Variance application request was for a total of 152 persons and this proposed capacity has been reduced to a maximum of 106 persons. In addition, the initial application for this use stated that Intelligent Learning School intended in the future (2-5 years) to expand both the number of students, the staff, and the on- site square footage for the use; this request for future expansion has also been withdrawn from the application. Parking: The proposed school use has a more intense parking requirement than the existing office uses and the tenant is required to provide on-site parking to meet the code requirements. Parking requirements are based on the square footage occupied by the use. The existing office building is non-conforming in parking, with a total of 150 on-site parking spaces (150 total spaces, including 5 accessible spaces), where a total of 181 parking spaces are required for the existing office uses (a deficit of 31 parking spaces). The applicant proposes to use Suite 135 as a school use with 1,712 SF continuing to be used as office (hallways, reception area, and restrooms) and 2,916 SF to be used as classroom area with seated students. The parking requirement to convert 2,916 SF of office (1 parking space: 300 SF) to classroom (1 parking space: 50 SF) generates a parking requirement of 49 on-site parking spaces. The proposed student pick-up schedule for the after-school program (for 98 students from 3:00 – 6:00 p.m. weekdays) is detailed in the attached Variance application. The school has two passenger vans that stop at elementary schools in Burlingame and several other nearby cities to pick up students. In addition to the van transportation, teachers will also be picking up students at schools in their private vehicles and private parent vehicles will be used to transport students to the site. During the summer camp program (from 9:00 a.m. –5:00 p.m. weekdays), there will be no scheduled school van or carpool pick-up of students. Intelligent Learning staff anticipates that most parents will drop off and pick up their children on a daily basis in private vehicles. The Building owner has agreed to dedicate two existing parking spaces (shown shaded on the site plan) to be used solely for pick-up and drop off of students for the Intelligent Learning School. When not in use, the vans and teachers’ vehicles will be parked on site in available parking lot spaces. Students of the school are not required to be accompanied by an adult when dropped off at the school. Because the site is currently nonconforming in parking with no additional opportunities to add on-site parking, the applicant is requesting the following application:  Parking Variance for an incremental increase in the number of parking spaces required on-site due to the conversion of office space to a school use (increase of 49 spaces) (CS 25.70.010 (b)). Parking Variance 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 135 3 1818 Gilbreth Road Lot Area: 101,625 SF Plans date stamped: July 6, 2017 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Parking: 1st floor, Suite 135 Office 4,628 SF 1:300 SF = 15.4 spaces 1st floor, Suite 135 School total 4,628 SF Classroom 2,916 SF 1:50 SF = 58.3 spaces Office 1,712 SF 1:300 SF = 5.7 spaces Total 64 spaces required Classroom 1:50 SF Office 1:300 SF Proposed school use - 64.0 spaces required Existing office use - 15.4 spaces credit 49 space increase ² Building- remainder Office totaling 49,694 SF) 1:300 SF = 165.6 spaces No change Office 1:300 SF 181 spaces TOTAL: 150 spaces ¹ (existing, non- conforming parking) No change 181 spaces required for existing uses 230 spaces required with proposed school use ² ¹ The existing site is nonconforming in parking with 150 on-site parking spaces, where 181 spaces are required for the current office uses on-site (deficit of 31 spaces). ² Parking Variance for 49 parking spaces required for the intensification of use from office to school use. (C.S. 25.70.010 (b) and 25.70.040). Staff Comments: See attached. Planning Staff notes that if at any point in the future the applicant wishes to expand their school use to add square footage (even if there is no proposed increase to the maximum number of persons for the school) additional parking spaces and a second parking variance application are required. In addition, if the Planning Commission findings for the currently requested parking variance (49 space variance) are linked to the total proposed maximum number of persons for the school, the Conditions of Approval for the Variance can limit the maximum number of persons for the school (see Condition #4 of the Conditions of Approval). Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on July 24, 2017, the Commission had several concerns regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached July 24, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below are the Commission's comments and responses by the applicant and by Planning Staff. 1. There are significant concerns with the potential growth because there would be more parents dropping off and therefore more traffic/parking concerns. ▪ The applicant has modified their application to both reduce the size of the proposed operations (from a maximum of 152 to 106 persons) and to withdraw the request to expand their school program at this site (no expansion of the number of people or of the total square footage occupied in the building will occur in the future). The current request is for 106 persons (98 students and 8 staff) during the after school program and 55 persons (50 students and 5 staff) for the summer camp program. All operations for the program will be contained to Suite #135. 2. Not comfortable with the variance, particularly the findings in relation to the uniqueness of the property. Parking Variance 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 135 4 ▪ The applicant has obtained a Parking Variance Analysis, dated January 18, 2018, from Hexagon Transportation Consultants. This study was done during the time that the after-school program was being operated at a capacity of 152 persons (which exceeds the currently requested maximum of 106 persons by 47 people). The applicant has revised the parking Variance form to reflect the information provided in the traffic study; namely that although the school use generates a 49- space parking variance, the actual number of parking spaces required by this school use with older students and with parent dropping off at staggered times is less than the 49 spaces requested. 3. Would like more information about the code enforcement complaints. ▪ The information is noted under Project History in this report. The parking/drop-off complaint made in 2014 and the overcrowding complaint made in 2016 were both anonymous and so no further information can be provided by Planning Staff. 4. Need clarification on the summer camp operating weekdays from 9: a.m. - 5:00 p.m. being the equivalent of a school and so no CUP is required? ▪ The Burlingame Municipal Code defines class as: C.S.25.08.185 “Class” means a group of three (3) or more persons meeting regularly for study, instruction, discussion, counseling or similar activity. Though the school may advertise as a camp and increase their hours of operation over the summer, the use of the space still meets the definition of a class. Required Findings for Parking Variance: In order to grant a Parking Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application 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; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (49-space Parking Variance): That the proposed school use does not generate the code-required permanent parking spaces for a typical class use and that the actual demand for employee parking can be accommodated by the existing parking spaces on site. That the Parking Analysis submitted and date stamped January 31, 2018, demonstrates that the times when drop off and pick up for the school occurs (between 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. during the school year and 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. during the summer camp), there are spaces available on site at 1818 Gilbreth Road. That the proposed school use and the requested parking variance at 1818 Gilbreth Road will not be detrimental or injurious to surrounding properties or improvements in the vicinity because the age of the students for the school allows for drop-off and transportation opportunities for the students that result in only a minor increase vehicles coming to the site. For these reasons the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance 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: Parking Variance 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 135 5 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 6, 2017; and that at the time of the Building Permit submittal, the plans shall be revised to reflect the comments of the Building, Public Works, and Fire Divisions; that the Building permit and work to complete the required exiting in Suite #135 shall be inspected and finaled no later than 60 days after action by the Planning Commission; and that all operations of the Intelligent Learning School shall be contained to only Suite #135 (4,628 SF) of the building at 1818 Gilbreth Road; 2. that the maximum number of persons on site at any time for the Intelligent Learning School shall be 106 persons, not to exceed 98 students and 8 employees; 3. that the two parking spaces directly across from the Intelligent Learning School, facing Cowen Road, shall have signage installed that designates the two spaces as parking limited to drop-off and pick-up for Intelligent Learning School; and that per the recommendation by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., the 11-foot driveway on Cowan Road, across from the Intelligent Learning School entrance, have signage and pavement directional markings installed to restrict the use the driveway to inbound vehicles; and that both of these items shall be installed at the time of the Building permit final inspection, 4. that if at any time in the future the Intelligent Learning School ceases to operate, if the maximum number of persons associated with the operation (106 persons) is increased, or if the square footage for the school is expanded (4,628 SF maximum), then the parking Variance associated with 1818 Gilbreth Road shall be void and/or an amendment to the permit may be required; and 5. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2016 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Jack Matthews, John Matthews Architects, architect Carol Chou, Intelligent Learning, applicant Attachments:  Planning Commission Minutes from the July 24, 2017 hearing  Application to the Planning Commission  Commercial Application, including current tenant list, date stamped 2018  Variance Application, date stamped 2018  Staff Comments  Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)  Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 29, 2018  Address Map PROJECT LOCATION 209 Channing Road Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 209 Channing Road Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Request: Application for Design review and Special Permit for height for first and second-story addition to an existing single-family residence Applicant and Designer: Jerry Winges, Winges Architects, Inc. APN: 029-262-110 Property Owner: Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners Lot Area: 5,757 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached garage is located on the second-lot from the corner on Channing Way and Howard Avenue. The house contains two bedrooms, family, living and dining rooms, and has a flat roof. The applicant proposes to expand the existing bedroom on the first-floor and add a new second-story to create a master suite. The new house would contain living, dining, family rooms, and two (2) bedrooms on the first-floor and two (2) bedrooms on the second-floor. With the proposed project the floor area of the project would increase to 3,012 SF, whereas 3,269 SF is the maximum allowed per code. The project would be 257 SF below the maximum allowed floor area. The proposed lot coverage of the project would be 2,126 SF which is 177 SF below the maximum allowed as per code. All other zoning requirements such as setbacks comply. The new house would include a hip roof on the second-floor and a small portion of the first-floor would have flat roof towards the rear. A new bay window with standing seam metal roof in also proposed at the front of the house. The roof on the second-floor would have a steep pitch of 8:12, and therefore, the applicant requests for a Special Permit for height beyond the 30 foot limit (CS 25.26.060 (a) (1)). The total number of bedrooms would increase from two (2) to four (4) bedrooms. For four (4) bedrooms one covered (9’-0” x 18’-0” for existing), and one uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 10’-0”) is required. The project would retain its existing one (1) car non-conforming garage (17’-0” x 17’-0”) and there is space for one (1) uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 18’-0”) in the driveway. As the project doesn’t involve any construction in the garage, the project complies with the off-street parking requirements by retaining its existing non-conforming garage. The project has met all other zoning code requirements and the applicant requests for the following: Design Review for a new second-story (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); Special Permit for height greater than 30’-0” (CS 25.26.060 (a) (1)). 209 Channing Road Lot Size: 5,757 SF Plans date stamped: May 4, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 18’-11” NA 18’-4” 20’-1” 17’-10” (block average) 20'-0" or block average Side (left): (right): 18’-0 ¼” 4’-4” 10’-9 1/4” 4’-4” (no change) 4’-0" 4’-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr) 31’-2 ¼ ” NA 31’-2 ¼ ” (no change) 61’-0 ½” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 1,945 33.7% 2,126 SF 36% 2,303 SF 40% FAR: Item No. 9b Design Review Study Design Review and Special Permit 209 Channing Road 2 1,945 0.33 FAR 3,012 SF 0.52 FAR 3,269 SF 0.56 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (17’-0” X 17’-0”) (non-conforming) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X20’-0”) 1 covered (10’-0” X20’-0”) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X20’- 0”) 1 covered (9’x18’ for existing) 1 uncovered (9'x20') Height: 14’- 10 ¾” 30’- 10 ¼” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.40 X 5,757 SF) = 2,303 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 5,757 SF) + 1100 SF + 327 SF (detached garage) = 3,269 SF (0.56 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, and Stormwater Divisions. 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. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Jerry Winges, applicant and designer Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners Attachments:  Application to the Planning Commission  Special Permit Application  Staff Comments  Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 18, 2018  Aerial Photo Project Address: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-110 Description: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Building Height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence and detached garage: a. Provide a 1-inch water meter or size to accommodate sprinkler system flow demand. b. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly – A schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building permit plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. c. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. d. Fire flow shall meet requirements of California Fire Code Appendix B. Contact Burlingame Engineering Department for fire flow information. 2. Electronic gate shall be equipped with a Knox key switch for emergency access by the Fire Dept. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 1/30/18 650-558-7600 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-110 Description: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Building Height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. . From: Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: April 16, 2018 650 558-7270 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-110 Description: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Building Height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project does not create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface or use architectural copper. Nothing further needed at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city’s stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2’x 3’ or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critz@veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: February 1, 2018 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-110 Description: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Building Height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. No comments at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a “Type I” project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of- way). 2. Any work in the City right-of -way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 3. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for all activities (including hauling). Please update “construction hours” on sheet T-1. 4. Replace damaged and displaced curb, gutter and/or sidewalk fronting site. 5. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 6. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 7. The sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per ordinance code chapter 15.12. Testing information is available at the Building department counter. A Sewer Lateral Test encroachment permit is required. 8. Insert the ‘Best Management Practices’, updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/sites/default/files/Countywide%20Program%20BMP%20Plan%20Sheet- June%202014%20Update.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click “construction bmp plan sheet” Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 1/3/18 650-558-7245 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-110 Description: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Building Height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No further comments The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. One 24 in single stem maple added Reviewed By: BD Date: 4.18.18 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments – Planning Application PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DIRECTORY T-1TITLE SHEET, VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA & DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DIRECTORYDRAWING INDEXCODE COMPLIANCE INDEX OF DRAWINGS FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONS SHEET NO. DETAIL NO. DETAIL NO. SHEET NO. SECTION REFERENCE DETAIL REFERENCE DETAIL NO. SHEET NO. DETAIL/ELEV. REFERENCEA-1 1 A-1 A-1 1 1 REFERENCE POINT DIMENSION TO FACE OF FINISH OR ARE CLEAR DIMENSION SYMBOL LEGEND THE SITE 209 CHANNING RD BURLINGAME, CA 209 CHANNING ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 LOCATION PLAN PROJECT DATA GENERAL NOTES T-1 TITLE SHEET, PROJECT DESCRIPTION & DATA DRAWING INDEX, PROJECT DIRECTORY VICINITY MAP, SYMBOL LEGEND SITE SURVEY BY L. WADE HAMMOND A1.1 SITE PLAN A2.0 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN A2.1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN A2.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.3 ROOF PLAN A2.4 FLOOR AREA SUMMARY DIAGRAMS A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF FRONT AND REAR A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF LEFT SIDE A3.3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF RIGHT SIDE A4.1 BUILDING SECTIONS WONG RESIDENCE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONSWONG RESIDENCE NOTES BUILDING CODE NOTES A1.1SITE PLAN ANDLANDSCAPE PLANSITE PLAN FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONSWONG RESIDENCE PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A3.1FRONT AND REAREXTERIOR ELEVATIONSNEW REAR ELEVATION FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONSWONG RESIDENCENEW FRONT ELEVATION EXISTING REAR ELEVATION EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION A3.2LEFT SIDEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONLEFT SIDE ELEVATION FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONSWONG RESIDENCEEXISTING LEFT SIDE ELEVATION A3.3RIGHT SIDEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSRIGHT SIDE ELEVATION FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONSWONG RESIDENCEEXISTING RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION PROJECT LOCATION 1697 Broadway Item No. 9c Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1697 Broadway Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc. APN: 026-162-270 Property Owner: Huan Wang Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The proposed project includes demolishing an existing one-story house located at the corner of Broadway and Cortez Avenue to build a new two-story house. The front of the house is located on Cortez Avenue and Broadway is the external side of the property. The site is surrounded by a gravel driveway on the rear and a two-story house on the right side of the property. The average front setback of this block is 16.4’ and the house would be built with a front setback of 20’-0” for the first-story, and 25’-0” for the second-story. The new house would contain one (1) bedroom, living, dining and family rooms on the first-floor and three (3) bedrooms on the second floor. With the proposed project, the floor area of the project would be 22 SF below the maximum allowed floor area of 3,170 SF (0.52 FAR) and 345 SF below its maximum permissible lot coverage. All other development standard requirements such as setbacks comply with the zoning code. The project includes construction of a new detached one car garage in the rear of the property, with its entrance would be from Broadway. This garage would be built in the same location as the previous garage. However, it would be smaller in size than the previous garage. For four (4) bedrooms, one (1) covered (10’-0” x 20’-0”) and one (1) uncovered space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) is required. The house would have space for one (1) covered parking space in the garage (15’-10” x 20’-4”) and one (1) uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) is provided on the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant requests the following: Design Review for a new two-story single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 1697 Broadway Lot Size: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: May 17, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr):NA 20’-0”15’-0” (or block average (16.4’) (2nd flr):NA 25’-0” 20'-0" (or block average (16.4’) Side (left): (right): NA 7’-6” 6’-6” 4-0" 4-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): NA 30’-0” 48’-0” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: NA 2,055 34.2% 2,400 SF1 40% FAR: NA 3,145 SF 0.52 3,170 SF2 0.52 Item No. 9c Design Review Study Design Review 1697 Broadway 2 1697 Broadway Lot Size: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: May 17, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: NA 4 --- Off-Street Parking: NA 1 covered (15’-10” X20’-4”) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X20’-0”) 1 covered (10’x20’ for new garage) 1 uncovered (9'x20') Height: NA 29’-11” 30'-0" DH Envelope: NA Complies3 CS 25.26.075 1 (0.40 X 6,000 SF) = 2,400 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 6000 SF) + 900 SF+ 350 SF = 3,170 SF (0.52 FAR) 3 The project complies with allowed daylight plane protrusion as per Code Section 25.26.075 (b) (2) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, and Stormwater Divisions. The applicant would need to submit a Protected Tree Removal Permit Application for the removal of 15” birch tree located on the left side of the property facing Broadway Avenue. This tree is not located in the proposed footprint of the house and could be removed. However, the Parks Division might require more trees to be planted on site as the result of this removal. Based on Park’s Division Comment the permit for the removal of this tree would be evaluated after Planning approves the 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. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c.James Chu, applicant and designer Huan Wang, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 18, 2018 Aerial Photo Project Address: 1697 Broadway Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-162-270 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. From: B Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Protected Private Tree Removal Permit required for removal of 15” birch tree on Broadway. Submit permit for review, permit will not be issued until Planning Division approves project. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. • Existing City Street Tree may not be cut, trimmed or removed without permit from Parks Division (558-7330) Landscape and Irrigation Plan approved. Reviewed By: BD Date: 5.10.18 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1697 Broadway Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-162-270 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. From: Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1) Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 2) Acknowledge that anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 3) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. (PWE letter dated 8-17-88) 4) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been final. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Note: that at the time of the building permit submittal, you will need to submit an erosion control plan and stipulate on the drawing the removal and replacement of sidewalk, curb, gutter, sewer lateral, and water line to the Public Works Department. 5) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: May 2, 2018 650 558-7270 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1697 Broadway Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-162-270 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. No comments at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 2. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit will be 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 or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city’s right-of-way. (Please show compliance on the site plan) 3. No storm waters, underground waters draining from any lot, building, or paved areas shall be allowed to drain to adjacent properties nor shall these waters be connected to the city’s sanitary sewer system. These waters shall all drain to either artificial or natural storm drainage facilities by gravity or pumping regardless of the slope of the property. No rain water from roofs or other rain water drainage shall discharge upon a public sidewalk (except in single family area) per Municipal code sections 18.08.010 (m) and (n). 4. Show the location of down spouts for the entire roof and that there is enough finish grade elevation around the perimeter of the property to demonstrate the direction of storm water runoff for the property. If the grade is not sufficient to prevent storm water runoff onto adjacent properties, show a drainage system design. 5. Please show how the post-construction will address the additional stormoff due to the remodel. Please be aware that no additional storm runoff is allowed from post-construction project site. 6. This project appears to be over 10,000sf. If this is the case, the developer must construct permeant stormwater treatment measures on-site. No additional storm runoff will be allowed from post construction site. More information can be found at: http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment 7. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer is required. The survey shall show how the property lines were determined and that the property corners were set with surveyors license numbers on durable monuments. This survey shall be attached to the construction plans. All corners need to be maintained or reinstalled before the building final. All property corners shall be maintained during construction or reestablished at the end of the project. 8. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 4/3/18 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1697 Broadway Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-162-270 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. From: Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project may create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface: 1. If the project will create and/or replace >2,500 ft2 to <10,000 square feet of impervious surface, then one or more site design measures listed on the Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects must be installed. Please complete, sign and return the Small Projects Checklist, which can be found at the link referenced http://flowstobay.org/newdevelopment - Checklist submitted via email. 2. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing architectural copper. Please read “Requirements for Architectural Copper.” A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/files/newdevelopment/flyersfactsheets/ArchitecturalcopperBMPs.pdf NO COPPER The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city’s stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2’x 3’ or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critz@veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: April 19, 2018 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 April 30, 2018 May 15, 2018 Project Comments – Planning Application PROJECT LOCATION 1104 Clovelly Lane Item No. 9d Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 1104 Clovelly Lane Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, two story single-family dwelling Applicant and Designer: Cornelia Haber APN: 025-232-450 Property Owner: Symagny LLC Lot Area: 5,533 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The proposed project includes demolishing an existing two-story house (1,965 SF) to build a new two-story house (2,846 SF) on Clovelly Lane. The existing house has non-conforming setbacks on the left and rear side of the property. The new home will be built in compliance with the current zoning code standards. The site is located on a cul-de-sac and there are one- and two-story houses within the vicinity. There is a block average setback of 19.37’ on Clovelly lane and the applicant proposes to build the new house with a front setback of 21’-2” for the first-story and 29’-0 ¼” for the second-story. The new house would contain one (1) bedroom, living, dining and family room on the first-floor and three (3) bedrooms on the second floor. With the proposed project, the floor area of the project would be 24 SF below the maximum allowed floor area of 2,870 SF (0.51 FAR) and 598 SF below its maximum permissible lot coverage. All other development standard requirements such as setbacks comply with the zoning code. The project includes a new attached garage with the front setback of 31’-6”, whereas 25’-0” is the minimum required per code. The applicant requests for a Special Permit for the attached garage as per CS 25.26.035 (a). For four (4) bedrooms, one (1) covered (10’-0” x 20’-0”) and one (1) uncovered space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) is required. The house would have space for one (1) covered parking space in the garage (10’-3” x 20’-0”) and one (1) uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) is provided on the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Design Review for a new two-story dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1)). Special Permit for a new attached garage (CS 25.26.035 (a) 1104 Clovelly Lane Lot Size: 5,533 SF Plans date stamped: May 16, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): Attached garage 21’- 5” 50’-1 ¼” 46’-0 ½” 21’-2” 29’-0 ¼” 31’-0 ¾” 15'-0" or 19.37’ (block average) 20’-0” 25’-0” Side (left): (right): 4’-6 ½” (non-conforming) 7’-2” 7’-6 ½” 7’-2 ¾” 7’-0" 7’-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr) 8’-3” (non-conforming) 21’11” 15’-1 ½” 20’-0” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 1.779 SF 32 % 1,715 SF 30.9 % 2,213 SF1 40% Item No. 9d Design Review Study Design Review and Special Permit 1104 Clovelly Lane 2 1104 Clovelly Lane Lot Size: 5,533 SF Plans date stamped: May 16, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D FAR: 1,965 SF 0.35 FAR 2,846 SF 0.51 FAR 2,870 SF 2 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (11’-6” X 24’-6”) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X20’-0”) 1 covered (10’-3” X20’-0”) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X20’-0”) 1 covered (10’x20’ for a new garage) 1 uncovered (9'x20') Height: 19’- 5 ½” 25’- 4” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.40 X 5,533 SF) = 2,213 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 5,533 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,870 SF (0.51 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, and Stormwater Divisions. 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. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Cornelia Haber, applicant and designer Symagny LLC, property owner Attachments:  Application to the Planning Commission  Special Permit Application  Staff Comments  Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 18, 2018  Aerial Photo Project Address: 1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 025-232-450 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence: 1. Provide a minimum 1-inch water meter or size accommodating total water demand. 2. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly – A schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building permit plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 2-1-18 650-558-7617 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 025-232-450 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: March 21, 2018 650 558-7270 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 025-232-450 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Bob Disco Parks Div Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No further comments The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Landscape to remain; no WELO required 2. Two 24” box Tristania’s added to landscape, meets minimum requiremens Reviewed By: BD Date: 3.28.18 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 025-232-450 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project does not create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface or use architectural copper. Nothing further needed at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city’s stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2’x 3’ or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critz@veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: February 1, 2018 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 025-232-450 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. What is above the garage level? The existing house appears to have a second floor over the garage? 2. On the site plan, please show the location of all proposed locations for utilities (PG&E, water, sewer, and sewer cleanout). 3. Based on the scope of work, this is new construction. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit will be 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 or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city’s right-of-way. (Please show compliance on the site plan) 4. No further comments at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a “Type I” project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of- way). 1. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. 2. Any work in the City right-of -way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 3. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for all activities (including hauling). 4. Insert the ‘Best Management Practices’, updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/sites/default/files/Countywide%20Program%20BMP%20Plan%20Sheet- June%202014%20Update.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click “construction bmp plan sheet” Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 4/13/18 650-558-7245 Project Comments – Planning Application A0CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.CHEUNG RESIDENCE NEW HOUSE CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010A112 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC. A51CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.234 A42CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.31DA6A6AAA6A6BBA6CA6CA6DA6 A512CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC. 1 2 A5.134CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC. A61234CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC. POLARIS SURVEYORS