Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - PC - 2018.02.12
Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, February 12, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft Planning Commission Minutes - January 8, 2018a. Draft Planning Commission Minutes - January 8, 2018Attachments: 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. 129 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for windows within 10 feet of property line in a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an accessory dwelling unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e). (Su-ling Slaton, SLC Design, applicant and designer; Jerry Zakatchenko, property owner ) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 129 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 129 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 129 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/9/2018 February 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1431 El Camino Real , zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Parking Variance for the use of mechanical parking lifts for a new 3-story, 6-unit condominium building (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon a. 1431 ECR - Staff Report 1431 ECR - Study minutes and response 1431 ECR - Application mtrls- parking lift details 1431 ECR - Resolutions 1431 ECR - Dept Comments, Notice, Aerial 1431 ECR - 02.12.18 - plans 1431 ECR - CEQA doc, Mitigated Neg Dec 1431 ECR - Comment letters 1431 ECR - CEQA - Response to Comments Attachments: 1455 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a major renovation for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Art Lierman, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. 1455 Cortez Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1455 Cortez Ave - plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, 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 and new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c. 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/9/2018 February 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 2683 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for building height and Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling .The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Samaneh Nili, TRG Architecture + Interior Design, applicant and designer; Sunil and Katherine Koshie, property owner) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal d. 2683 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2683 Summit Dr - Attachments 2683 Summit Dr - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: 50 Broderick Road, zoned RR - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for automobile storage for a car rental business. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines SEction 15303. (The Hertz Corporation, applicant; Thomas and Martina Murphy Trust, property owner) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit e. 50 Broderick Rd - Staff Report 50 Broderick Rd - Attachments 50 Broderick Rd - Plans - 02.12.08 Attachments: 740 El Camino Real, Unit D, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review to remove and replace/enlarge a second story deck of an existing condominium unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2). (Halle Hagenau, applicant and architect; Chris and Jordan Chavez, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi f. 740 El Camino Real - Staff Report 740 El Camino Real - Attachments 740 El Camino Real - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 846 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for a new detached garage in the rear 40% of the lot. (Robert Medan, applicant and designer; Sharyl Wong and Andrew Blanco, property owners) (70 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal a. 846 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 846 Paloma Ave - Attachment 846 Paloma Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/9/2018 February 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jack Backos Architects, applicant and designer; Miki and Spencer Behr, property owners) (65 noticed) staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal b. 1206 Lincoln Ave - Staff Report 1206 Lincoln Ave - Attachments 1206 Lincoln Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: 1402 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Lisa Ley, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal c. 1402 Grove Ave - Staff Report 1402 Grove Ave - Attachments 1402 Grove Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: 250 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for office use in a portion of the ground floor for construction of a new, 4-story mixed use office building (retail and office) (20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin d. 250 California Dr - Staff Report 250 California Dr - Attachments 250 California Drive - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting February 5, 2018 705 Walnut Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to an approved Design Review project.a. 705 Walnut Ave - MemorandumAttachments: 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 February 12, 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 February 22, 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 2/9/2018 February 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/9/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes - Draft Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 8, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, approve the minutes of November 27, 2017 with the following amendment: on page 9, under Commission Discussion; change second "design" to "designed". Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Abstain:Kelly1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Gum noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion of Agenda Item 8b (821 Maple Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.624 Lexington Way, zoned R- 1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2). (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Dave and Kelsey Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2018 January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Armstrong, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 624 Lexington Way - Staff Report 624 Lexington Way - Attachments 624 Lexington Revised Front Rendering 624 Lexington Way - revised plans - 01.08.18 Attachments: Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.2965 Trousdale Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for addition of an uncovered deck to the second story of an existing single-family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Bay Builders & Remodeling, Inc., applicant; JF Design & Engineering, Inc ., designer; John Iyanrick, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2965 Trousdale Dr - Staff Report & Attachments 2965 Trousdale Dr - Plans - 01.08.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had a meeting with the property owner. Chair Gum noted that he met with the neighbor at 2975 Trousdale Drive (neighbor to the right). Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ian Rickjohn represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Clarified that the deck is accessed from the master bedroom. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Noted that there don't appear to be any view issues; the adjacent neighbors are upslope. >The deck supplements the outdoor space that is not very useable. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2018 January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft >Didn't see any encroachment on the view plane from the neighbor's property. >There are many trees on the property and adjacent properties, is approvable. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. Discussion of Motion: >In this case the second floor deck is acceptable because the yard is larger, distances from neighbors is greater and there is a significant elevation difference. >Must also recognize existing precedents in the neighborhood; there are a lot of second floor decks in the hillside areas. Chair Gum asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - b.821 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Waldemar Stachniuk, KWS United Technoogy, Inc, designer; Craig Mercer and Gina Corsetti, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 821 Maple Ave - Staff Report 821 Maple Ave - Attachments 821 Maple Avenue - Plans - 01.08.18 Attachments: Chair Gum noted that he will recuse himself from the discussion of this item as he resides within 500-feet of the property; he left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Waldemar Stachniuk represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Clarified that the home at 1243 Cabrillo is finished with Hardie shingles. >The original design showed a stucco chimney, but has been changed. (Stachniuk: has been changed to Hardie shingles.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Commission Discussion: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2018 January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft >Surprised at how good the shingles look. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application . Vice-Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Recused:Gum1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.705 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design review for a new, two -story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; 705 Walnut Burlingame LLC, property owner) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 705 Walnut Ave - Staff Report & Attachments 705 Walnut Ave - Plans - 01.08.18 Attachments: Chair Gum returned the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she emailed the applicant to gain access to the property. Chair Gum noted that he had spoken to the neighbor to the left. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >What are the setbacks from the creek; requirements from top of grade? (Meeker: no.) >Isn't there a Fish and Game sign -off required when building near a creek? (Keylon: as long as the work is outside of the top of bank, then that agency is not involved.) >Is fill considered within the top of bank? (Keylon: only consider the existing top of bank.) >Confirmed that engineering will review the soils in the area; is a soils report required? (Keylon: the fire pit has been eliminated from the proposal. The engineering division will conduct further review.) >Looks like a protected size tree was removed from the site; was it done with a permit? (Keylon: believe that it received proper permits, separate from this application.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. An applicant's representative was not present. Public Comments: Resident of 707 Walnut Avenue: Concerned about the driveway entrance. Have nowhere to place their garbage cans due to the lack of a curb. Want the vegetation along the property line retained. Is also concerned with the location of the common property line. Request that no changes be made to the property line. Neighbor on the creek side of the property: concerned about any work near the creek; where are the changes being made in the vicinity of the top of the creek? City Attorney Kane noted that it is the Commission's discretion whether or not the project is discussed or continued. The Commission may make comments if it so chooses. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2018 January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft James Chu arrived late and provided comments and responses on behalf of the applicant. Are building with post and beam and will not be using fill. Doesn't believe that a 24-inch tree is being removed. Will try to work with the neighbor to accommodate the garbage cans. Confirmed that a Fish and Game permit is not needed since all work is outside the top of the bank. Commission Questions/Comments: >Massing is handled nicely. >What is the intent with the pallet of materials. (Chu: client saw a house in Hillsborough that has similar design and finishes. Is a mixture of Modern materials.) >The exterior finishing is a bit of a hodge -podge of materials. Revisit this and see if the finishing can be organized a bit better. >What is the plate height on the porch? (Chu: nine-feet, six-inches.) Revisit this as the scale should be brought down to give it more scale. (Chu: the house is set back quite some distance from the curb.) >Noted the concern about the 24-inch Cedar tree; what is the status of the tree? >Agreed with the comment regarding the need to simplify the exterior finishing. (Chu: suggested preparing a color rendering.) >Finds the exposed ends of stone fin-walls to be too thin. >There are drafting errors on the upper bay on the front elevation; the stone wall and the stucco don't hit the roof at the same place even though they are co -planar. On the left elevation, the stone fin -wall should be seen near the porch elevation. >What is the cap material on the fin-wall? (Chu: stone.) >What are the headers and sill pieces? (Chu: are wood.) >Are the guard rail and deck on the left side to be eliminated? (Chu: no, will be built on piers.) >Noted that Andersen 400-series windows are actually vinyl clad, not aluminum clad. >Noted an error in the labeling of the mechanical door. >How will the driveway between the project site and the neighbor to the right interface? (Chu: there are existing hedges that the neighbor wishes to retain. Are willing to retain these hedges. Will look at options for the driveway interface near the street and try to accommodate the garbage cans.) >Any though to adding more trees along the left side to assist in screening the area? (Chu: are trying to avoid doing anything near the creek to avoid the need for a Fish and Game permit. Can consider working with the neighbor to see if more plant materials may be placed on their property, or place boxed plants on the project site. The neighbor is set back some distance. Not many windows looking in the direction of the neighbors.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Comments: No additional comments. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Action Calendar. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - b.740 El Camino Real, Unit D, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review to remove and replace/enlarge a second story deck of an existing condominium unit. (Halle Hagenau, applicant and architect; Chris and Jordan Chavez, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2018 January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft 740 El Camino Real - Staff Report & Attachments 740 El Camino Real - Plans - 01.08.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-part communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Chirs Chavez represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has the architect done structural analysis to see if the deck can be supported as illustrated. (Chavez: has met with an engineer. The deck is tapered to be consistent with the setback.) >What is the area on the site that is all fenced in? (Chavez: common open space that is not used by anyone. Has been fenced for liability reasons.) >Why was the rail design selected? The rest of the building has wrought -iron elements with vertical elements; the new rail may clash with the fence and other features. (Chavez: will consider a design that is more consistent with the fence design. Chose the current design to protect privacy) >Perhaps consider some iron at the posts in order to make a connection with other materials. >What kind of wood is to be used? (Chavez: are considering engineered wood that is durable. Look at Trex or similar material for the floor that will need minimal maintenance.) >Will the deck be stained or painted? (Chavez: the goal is to match the fence on the property. Will speak to the neighbors to see if the blue from the building should also be incorporated.) Public Comment: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The deck design needs to tie in better with the design of the building and its surrounding fence. >Believes the deck will improve the appearance of the space. Will look nice from the street. >The deck will not intrude on any of the neighboring properties. >The deck is in a prominent position and near the school. Is concerned about what it will appear line in a few years if not maintained. Have issues with large decks on second floors or residences - neighbors or the school could be disturbed by activities on the deck. >Have approvals from the neighbors; this helps to make it easier to consider. Come back with examples of the materials to be used, or spell it out better on the plans. The deck will be a nice feature. >Senses that the size of the deck is related to the functionality of getting a vehicle in and out of the garage below. Feels the design is overly fussy and needs a lot of work. Would hate to see it constructed of a Trex-like material. >Would ordinarily oppose a second floor deck, but given the location it works in this instance. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on Action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote and the motion carried by the following vote: Discussoin of Motion: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2018 January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft >Wonders if the HOA has a role in maintaining the deck. Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners' Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director's Reports. a.1548 Balboa Way - FYI for changes to the front porch of a previously approved Design Review project 1548 Balboa Way - FYIAttachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on January 8, 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 January 18, 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 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2018 City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit for Window Location in Accessory Structure Address: 129 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: February 12, 2018 Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for windows within 10’-0” of property line in a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Applicant and Property Owner: Jerry Zakatchenko APN: 029-272-080 Designer: Su-ling Slaton, SLC Design Lot Area: 7,500 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e), which states that construction or conversion of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is exempt from environmental review. Project Description: The subject property contains an existing single family dwelling (1,993 SF, includes covered porches), a detached storage building (653 SF) in poor condition and a small metal storage shed. Currently, there is no covered parking on site. This application includes replacing the existing detached storage building with one new accessory structure, which will contain a 365 SF detached garage and a 638 SF accessory dwelling unit (ADU) located in the rear, left corner of the property. Per State law, review of the ADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has reviewed the design of the ADU and has determined that it complies with the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance requirements (Chapter 25.59). The ordinance includes a number of performance standards, including the requirement that the ADU shall incorporate the same or similar architectural features and building materials as the primary dwelling located on the property. Furthermore, an application which solely consists of a new accessory structure on a property is not subject to Design Review. Planning Staff would further note an applicant can choose the option of an ADU design that may require one or more Conditional Use Permits listed in Chapter 25.60. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for windows located within 10’-0” of property line (Code Section 25.60.010 (i)). There are three windows proposed along the rear wall of the ADU, located 4’-7” from the rear property line fence. In addition to the existing rear property line fence, the applicant is proposing to plant a Pittosporum hedge between the ADU and the rear property line fence to help screen the accessory structure and windows. There are no proposed changes to the existing four-bedroom house. Two off-street parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site for the main dwelling. The existing off-street parking is nonconforming since there is no covered parking provided on site. With this application, a code-compliant covered parking space (10’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions) will be provided in the new detached garage; one uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. No additional off-street parking is required for the ADU since it is located within one-half mile of the Burlingame Caltrain Station. The applicant is requesting the following application: Conditional Use Permit for windows within 10’-0” of property line in a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (C.S. 25.60.010 (i)). Item No. 7a Consent Calendar Conditional Use Permit 129 Bloomfield Road 2 129 Bloomfield Road Lot Area: 7,500 SF Plans date stamped: January 30, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D Proposed Use in Accessory Structure: storage one-car garage for main dwelling and 638 SF ADU garage and ADU (640 SF maximum) are permitted uses in an accessory structure Location of Accessory Structure: accessory structure is located in the rear 30% of the lot accessory structure is located in the rear 30% of the lot accessory structures in the rear 30% of the lot are exempt from setback requirements Windows in Accessory Structure: unknown three windows on rear wall of ADU will be located 4’-7” from rear property line ¹ glazed openings within 10' of property line requires a Conditional Use Permit Height of Accessory Structure: unknown 12’-7” to highest roof ridge 15'-0" to highest ridge Number of Structures & Size: 653 SF storage building and 80 SF storage shed in two buildings Total = 733 SF 365 SF garage and 638 SF ADU in one building Total = 1,003 SF two structures each having over 100 SF allowed if one structures is ADU Lot Coverage: 2646 SF 35.2% 2996 SF 39.9% 3000 SF 40% FAR: 2588 SF 0.35 FAR 2938 SF 0.39 FAR 3900 SF ¹ 0.52 FAR ¹ (0.32 x 7,500 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,900 SF (0.52 FAR) ² Conditional Use Permit is required for an accessory structure with a window within 10-feet of a property line (CS 25.60.010(i)). Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that because of the nature of the request, it was determined that this request could be brought forward directly as a Consent Calendar Item. If the Commission wishes to discuss this application further, it may pull it off the Consent Calendar. 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; Conditional Use Permit 129 Bloomfield Road 3 (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. Suggested Conditional Use Permit Findings: The proposed accessory structure, consisting of a one-car garage and accessory dwelling unit, will be a residential use that is consistent with the land use designation in the General Plan and not uncommon in this neighborhood; that the accessory structure will be finished with materials to match the existing house and is compatible with uses found in a single family residential area; and that the proposed windows along the rear wall of the accessory structure will be screened by an existing fence and a Pittosporum hedge to be planted between the accessory structure and rear property line fence; therefore for these reasons the use 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 the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s Conditional Use Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 30, 2018; including that there shall be a Pittosporum hedge planted between the accessory structure and rear property line as shown on the Site Plan; 2. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit shall be void or shall be amended to reflect the changes; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance 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; and 6. 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. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Jerry Zakatchenko, property owner and applicant Su-ling Slaton, SLC Design, designer Conditional Use Permit 129 Bloomfield Road 4 Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Application Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 2, 2018 Aerial Photo Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for a Conditional Use Permit for windows within 10 feet of property line in a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an accessory dwelling unit at 129 Bloomfield Road, Zoned R-1, Jerry Zakatchenko, property owners, APN: 029-272-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 12, 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: 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 15303 (e), which states that construction or conversion of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences, is hereby approved. 2. Said Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit. 129 Bloomfield Road Effective February 22, 2018 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 30, 2018; including that there shall be a Pittosporum hedge planted between the accessory structure and rear property line as shown on the Site Plan; 2. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit shall be void or shall be amended to reflect the changes; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance 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; and 6. 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. 129 Bloomfield Road, R-1 DRAFT 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Prepared for: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Contact: Catherine Keylon Prepared by: 465 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, California 94939 Contact: Darcey Rosenblatt DECEMBER 2017 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist i December 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... III 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description .................................................................................................. 2 1.2 References ............................................................................................................... 4 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................................................................5 Determination ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Agriculture Resources ............................................................................................. 8 2.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 9 2.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 20 2.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 22 2.6 Geology And Soils ................................................................................................ 25 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 28 2.8 Hazards And Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 34 2.9 Hydrology And Water Quality.............................................................................. 38 2.10 Land Use And Planning ........................................................................................ 42 2.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 43 2.12 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 44 2.13 Population And Housing ....................................................................................... 50 2.14 Public Services ...................................................................................................... 51 2.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 53 2.16 Transportation / Traffic ......................................................................................... 53 2.17 Utilities And Service Systems .............................................................................. 59 2.18 Mandatory Findings Of Significance .................................................................... 62 APPENDICES A CalEEMod Calculations B Historical Resources Compliance Report C Project Application to the Planning Commission D Klaus Multiparking Noise Specifications 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. ii December 2017 FIGURES 1 Regional Map .....................................................................................................................65 2 Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................67 TABLES 1 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................11 2 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions ........................................................14 3 Daily Operational Emissions .............................................................................................15 4 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..............................................32 5 Maximum Allowable Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ..................................48 6 Trip Generation Summary .................................................................................................56 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist iii December 2017 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym/Abbreviation Definition ACM asbestos-containing material BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMP best management practice C/CAG San Mateo City/County Association of Governments CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Caltrans California Department of Transportation CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane City City of Burlingame CMP Congestion Management Program CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent dBA A-weighted decibel GHG greenhouse gas LBP lead-based paint Leq equivalent noise level LOS level of service MM Mitigation Measure MT metric tons NOx oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places O3 ozone PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less ROG reactive organic gas SR State Route SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminant μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter VdB vibration decibels 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist iv December 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 1 December 2017 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1. Project Title: 1431 El Camino Real 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner City of Burlingame 650.558-7250 4. Report Preparers: Dudek 5. Project Location: 1431 El Camino Real Burlingame, California 6. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 026-013-110 7. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: GGH Investment LLC 110 Robler Avenue Hillsborough, California 94010 8. General Plan Designation: Medium-High Density Residential (R-3 Base District) 9. Zoning: R-3 10. Description of Project: The 7,722-square-foot proposed project site is located at 1431 El Camino Real in the City of Burlingame, and consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number 026-013-110. The project site is located in an R-3 zoning district and is surrounded by either R-1 or R-3 zoning districts. The proposed 1431 El Camino Real project (project) would include demolition of an existing two-story apartment building with a detached five-car garage structure at the rear, and construction of a 3,858-square-foot, three-story (35 feet tall) residential building in its place. 11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by a variety of residential and public service uses, including a school and library to the south, a school to the west, a Caltrain station to the east, and State Route (SR) 82 to the north. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 2 December 2017 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The proposed project would require Planning Commission approval for condominium permit and a parking variance. A building permit would be required from the City of Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. Since building demolition is involved, a demolition permit would be required from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1.1 Project Description The 7,722-square-foot project site is located at 1431 El Camino Real in the City of Burlingame (City) and consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number 026-013-110 (Figure 1, Regional Map ; Figure 2, Vicinity Map). According to the City’s General Plan, the project site is zoned R-3 Medium- High Density Residential (City of Burlingame 2006–2015). The project would include demolition of an existing two-story apartment building and detached five-car garage structure at the rear. The building currently holds four residential units. The project would involve construction of a new three-story (six-unit) residential building totaling 3,858 square feet and a proposed height of 35 feet. Each unit would be two bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, ranging in size from 1,004 square feet to 1,195 square feet. The total proposed floor area would be 9,224 square feet. All entrances to the units would be located on the north-facing (driveway) side of the project site. The property at 1431 El Camino Real was constructed in 1947, according to San Mateo County Assessor records (County of San Mateo 2017). Therefore, the property would require evaluation to determine if the proposed project has the potential to impact historical resources, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project would have approximately 600 square feet of common open space in the rear yard and a minimum of 75 square feet of private open space per unit in the form of private balconies. Exterior lighting would include wall sconces at unit entries and possibly some soft lighting at front yard landscaping areas, the mail area, and the rear-yard trash enclosure. The closest highways to the project site are U.S. Route 101 and Interstate 280. The closest schools are Our Lady of Angels School, approximately 0.3 miles from the project site; Lincoln Elementary School, approximately 0.4 miles from the project site; Roosevelt Elementary School, approximately 0.8 miles from the project site; and Mercy High School, approximately 1 mile from the project site. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 3 December 2017 Parking and Circulation An existing driveway runs along the southeastern edge of the project site and opens up into a paved vehicle parking lot. The project would shift the driveway to the northwestern edge of the site. Each unit would have two on-site parking spaces (for a total of 12 spaces) under each unit that would be provided in the form of mechanical, stacked-vehicle lifts. The vehicle lift would store one vehicle at ground level and one vehicle below ground. The project site is not located within the boundaries of the plan area for the Downtown Specific Plan (City of Burlingame 2010), where parking options, such as lifts, are allowed; a parking variance would be required for the parking lifts. There would also be two ground-level guest parking spaces located at the far end of the driveway, and a service/delivery vehicle space located in front of the rear landscaping. Landscaping and Fencing The project would contain landscaping along the front sidewalk and in the rear yard. The front yard would consist of 782.5 square feet of open space, 522 square feet of which would be landscaping and plants. The rear yard would include approximately 600 square feet of open space, with 391 square feet of landscaping. Each unit would have a deck or balcony with approximately 75 square feet of private open space. At least 75% of the plant material would be specified as drought tolerant. The project would include an irrigation system that would use automatic controllers, evapotranspiration or soil moisture sensor data, and a rain sensor. The project also proposes to relocate one of the young elms adjacent to the sidewalk within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way. Because this tree is a contributor to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P- 41-002191), which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the elm would be replanted directly south of its current location to avoid any adverse effects to this resource. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North – Multi-Family Residential/ Mills Creek and Easton Creek/SR-82 Northwest – Village Park Northeast – Laguna Park South – Multi-Family Residential and Single-Family Residential/ Our Lady of Angels School/Burlingame Library Easton Branch East – Multi-Family Residential/Caltrain Station (Broadway Station) West – Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential/Ray Park/Lincoln Elementary School 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 4 December 2017 Background Documents and Plans The proposed project falls under the influence of the following City planning documents and policies: The City of Burlingame General Plan The City of Burlingame Municipal Code Entitlements and Required Approvals Design review and Condominium Permit for construction of a new three-story, six-unit townhouse building Parking variance for use of mechanical parking lifts to provide the required parking spaces Encroachment permit from Caltrans due to the shifting of curb cuts within a state right- of-way and added landscaping Bay Area Air Quality Management District demolition permit Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan applied for prior to start of construction 1.2 References City of Burlingame. 2006–2015. City of Burlingame General Plan, Zoning. June 2016. Accessed August 18, 2017. https://www.burlingame.org/modules/showdocument.aspx? documentid=13356. City of Burlingame. 2010. Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Adopted October 4, 2010, as amended through May 2, 2016. http://www.burlingame.org/modules/show document.aspx?documentid=13840. County of San Mateo. 2017. Property Details. Search conducted by Dudek in 2017 for APN 026- 013-110. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 5 December 2017 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this project involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklists under each issue area, below. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 6 December 2017 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 7 December 2017 2.1 Aesthetics Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion a) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located along El Camino Real, also known as State Route 82, which is parallel to Highway 101. The Scenic Roads and Highways Element of the City of Burlingame General Plan notes that portions of SR-82 are designated as County Scenic Road, and some portions (directly adjacent to the project site) are designated as a Local Scenic Route (City of Burlingame 1975). The General Plan emphasizes the importance of the heritage elm and eucalyptus trees that form a tunnel of foliage and give Burlingame a distinctive image. The project proposes to relocate one of the young elms adjacent to the sidewalk within the Caltrans right-of-way. Because this tree is a contributor to the NRHP-listed Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191), it will be replanted directly south of its current location to avoid any adverse effects to this resource. The project would be constructed on a developed site surrounded by existing buildings, and would not involve construction of any structures that would impact scenic vistas; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. b) No Impact. The proposed project is located along El Camino Real, which is not designated as a State Scenic Highway. The closest State Scenic Highway is Interstate 280 (Caltrans 2017), and the project site is not visible from this roadway. Therefore, there would be no impact to scenic resources within a Scenic Highway. c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would alter the visual character of the project site but would not degrade it. The additional story would increase the height of the building to 35 feet. The extended building and added landscaping would replace the existing paved parking area, which would improve the general aesthetic. The vehicle lifts would also remove vehicles from view. The proposed project is similar in mass, 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 8 December 2017 bulk, and character to existing adjacent buildings. Therefore, impacts to visual character would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The project site and surrounding urban environment are currently developed with existing sources of light and glare. The proposed project would include exterior lighting along portions of the building and within the parking and loading areas. The project would be required to comply with exterior lighting regulations of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 18.16.030, which requires that the cone of light be kept entirely on the property and requires use shielded light fixtures (City of Burlingame 2013). Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to light and glare. References Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2017. “California Scenic Highway Mapping System: San Mateo County.” Accessed August 17, 2017. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/ LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. City of Burlingame. 1975. City of Burlingame General Plan, Scenic Roads and Highways Element. September 15, 1975. City of Burlingame. 2013. City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Title 18 –Building Construction. 2.2 Agriculture Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 9 December 2017 Discussion a) No Impact. The proposed project site is located within a fully developed and urban area. As shown on the California Important Farmland Map, the site does not contain any prime or unique farmland or any farmland of statewide significance (DOC 2015). There would be no impacts to farmland. b) No Impact. The proposed project site is zoned R-3, Medium-High Density Residential, in the General Plan and does not allow for agricultural uses. The project site is designated “Urban and Built-Up Land” and is not within a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2006/2007). Therefore, there would be no impacts to zoning. c) No Impact. The project site does not contain any farmland and would not result in the conversion of farmland to other uses. No impact would occur. References DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2006/2007. “San Mateo County Williamson Act FY 2006/2007. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/SanMateo_06_07_WA.pdf. DOC. 2015. “California Important Farmland: 1984–2016.” [map]. Accessed August 18, 2017. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries. 2.3 Air Quality Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 10 December 2017 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Analysis The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, including new thresholds of significance in June 2010, and revised them in May 2011. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines advise lead agencies on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, including establishing quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance. The BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the significance thresholds in 2011 were set aside by a judicial writ of mandate on March 5, 2012. In May 2012, BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to continue to provide direction on recommended analysis methodologies, but without recommended quantitative significance thresholds (BAAQMD 2012). On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were recently re-released in May 2017 and include the same thresholds as in the 2010 and 2011 Guidelines for criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs) (BAAQMD 2017a). The Air Quality Guidelines also address the December 2015 Supreme Court’s opinion (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369). The BAAQMD significance thresholds are summarized in Table 1. In general, the BAAQMD significance thresholds for reactive organic gases (ROGs), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and carbon monoxide (CO) address the first three air quality significance criteria. According to the BAAQMD, these thresholds are intended to maintain ambient air quality concentrations of these criteria air pollutants below state and federal standards and to prevent a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional nonattainment with ambient air quality standards. The TAC thresholds (cancer and noncancer risks) and local CO thresholds address the fourth significance criterion, and the BAAQMD odors threshold addresses the fifth significance criterion. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 11 December 2017 Table 1 Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year) ROG 54 54 10 NOx 54 54 10 PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15 PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10 PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best Management Practices None Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average, 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Risks and Hazards (Individual Project) Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan or Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in a million Increased noncancer risk of >1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) Ambient PM2.5 increase >0.3 μg/m3 annual average Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor Risks and Hazards (Cumulative) Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan or Cancer risk of >100 in a million (from all local sources) Noncancer risk of >10.0 Hazard Index (chronic, from all local sources) Ambient PM2.5 >0.8 μg/m3 annual average (from all local sources) Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor Accidental Release of Acutely Hazardous Air Pollutants None Storage or use of acutely hazardous material located near receptors or new receptors located near stored or used acutely hazardous materials considered significant Odors None Five confirmed complaints to BAAQMD per year averaged over 3 years Source: BAAQMD 2017 (see Footnote 9) lbs/day = pounds per day; tons/year = tons per year; ppm = parts per million; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; CO = carbon monoxide a) Less than Significant Impact. An area is designated as “in attainment” when it is in compliance with the federal and/or state standards. These standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or public welfare, with a margin of safety. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is designated as non-attainment for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated as non-attainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour PM10, annual PM10, and annual PM2.5 (BAAQMD 2017b). 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 12 December 2017 On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the Spare the Air: Cool The Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017b). The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and the climate. The BAAQMD 2017 Guidelines identify a three-step methodology for determining a project’s consistency with the current Clean Air Plan. If the responses to these three questions (see below) can be concluded in the affirmative, and those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, then the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the Bay Area. The first question to be assessed in this methodology is, “Does the project support the goals of the Air Quality Plan” (currently the 2017 Clean Air Plan)? The BAAQMD- recommended measure for determining project support for these goals is consistency with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. If a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As indicated in the following discussion with regard to air quality impact questions b) and c), the project would result in less-than-significant construction emissions and would not result in long- term adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, the project would be considered to support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and, therefore, consistent with the current Clean Air Plan. The second question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is, “Does the project include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan?” The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Projects that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The control strategies of the 2017 Clean Air Plan include measures in the categories of stationary sources, the transportation sector, the buildings sector, the energy sector, the agriculture sector, natural and working lands, the waste sector, the water sector, and super-GHG pollutant measures. Depending on the control measure, the tools for implementation include leveraging the BAAQMD rules and permitting authority; regional coordination and funding; and working with local governments to facilitate best policies in building codes, outreach and education, and advocacy strategies. Since the proposed project is required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and would incorporate energy-efficiency and green building measures in compliance with state standards and/or local building codes, the project would include applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The third question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is, “Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan?” Examples of how a project may cause the disruption or delay of control measures include 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 13 December 2017 a project that precludes an extension of a transit line or bike path, or proposes excessive parking beyond parking requirements. Since development of the townhomes for the project would not include physical changes that could create any barriers or impediments to planned or future improvements to transit or bicycle facilities in the area, the proposed project would not hinder implementation of Clean Air Plan control measures. In summary, the responses to all three of the questions with regard to Clean Air Plan show that the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current Clean Air Plan. The impact would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.1 was used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project. CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the construction and operational activities from a variety of land use projects, such as residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. CalEEMod input parameters, including the proposed project land use type and size and construction schedule, were based on information provided by the project applicant or model defaults when project-specific information was not available. Construction. The project would include demolition of a 4,102-square-foot two-story apartment building and detached five-car garage structure at the rear and the construction of a new 3,858-square-foot three-story residential building on the 7,722-square-foot lot. Construction is anticipated to begin in April 2018 and end in July 2019. Standard construction methods would be employed for building construction. Sources of emissions would include off-road construction equipment exhaust, on-road vehicle exhaust (i.e., material delivery trucks, demolition haul trucks, and worker vehicles), entrained road dust, fugitive dust associated with site preparation and grading activities, and paving and architectural coating. Detailed assumptions associated with project construction are included in Appendix A. Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of active construction days, which were then compared to the BAAQMD construction thresholds of significance. Table 2 shows average daily construction emissions of O3 precursors (ROG and NOx), PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during project construction.1 1 Fuel combustion during construction and operations would also result in the generation of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and CO. These values are included in Appendix A. However, since the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is in attainment of these pollutants and the BAAQMD has not established a quantitative mass-significance threshold 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 14 December 2017 Table 2 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions Year ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust Pounds per Day 2018–2019 Construction 1.5 11.8 0.7 0.7 BAAQMD Construction Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Notes: The values shown are average daily emissions based on total overall construction emissions in tons, converted to pounds, and divided by 326 active work days. This calculation is included in Appendix A. ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District As shown in Table 2, construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions during construction would be less than significant. Although the BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for fugitive dust, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines recommend that projects determine the significance for fugitive dust through application of best management practices (BMPs). The project contractor would be required as conditions of approval to implement the following BMPs from BAAQMD: 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. 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. for comparison, these are not included in the project-generated emissions tables in this document. The BAAQMD does have screening criteria for operational localized CO, which are discussed in more detail below. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 15 December 2017 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Implementation of the required BMPs would ensure air quality and fugitive-dust-related impacts associated with construction would remain less than significant. Operations. The project would involve demolition of four existing apartments and construction of six new townhomes. Operation of the project would generate criteria pollutant (including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic), area sources (consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment), and energy sources (natural gas appliances, space and water heating). CalEEMod was used to estimate daily emissions from the operational sources for the existing uses to be demolished and for the project uses to be developed. Table 3 summarizes the daily mobile, energy, and area emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated by project development, as well as emissions of existing land uses to be demolished, and compares the net increase in emissions to BAAQMD operational thresholds. Table 3 Daily Operational Emissions Source ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Pounds per Day Project Emissions Area 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 Total Project Emissions 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 Existing Use Emissions Area 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Existing Use Emissions 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 Net Increase (Project Minus Existing) 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 BAAQMD Operational Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Notes: The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod, included in Appendix A. Total emissions may not sum exactly due to rounding. Project emissions are based on the “Mitigated” CalEEMod outputs in order to incorporate indoor/outdoor 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 16 December 2017 water use reduction per CALGreen and exceeding 2013 Title 24 by 28% for residences to approximate 2016 Title 24 compliance, even though compliance with standards would not be considered actual mitigation. No fireplaces or woodstoves were assumed for existing us es, and only gas fireplaces were assumed for the project. ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District As indicated in Table 3, project-related operational emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations, and, thus, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions. For localized CO concentrations, according to the BAAQMD thresholds (BAAQMD 2017a), a project would result in a less-than-significant impact if the following screening criteria are met: 1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management progra m established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The change in project uses would generate minimal new traffic trips and would comply with the BAAQMD screening criteria. Accordingly, project-related traffic would not exceed CO standards and, therefore, no further analysis was conducted for CO impacts. This CO emissions impact would be less than significant on a project level and cumulative basis. c) Less than Significant Impact. Past, present, and future development projects may contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. Per BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a), by its 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. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emissions levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be considered cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, if the proposed project’s emissions are below the 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 17 December 2017 BAAQMD thresholds or screening criteria, then the proposed project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant. As described in criterion b), above, criteria pollutant emissions generated by short-term construction and long-term operations of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. Thus, the project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact in relation to regional emissions. In addition, project-related traffic would not exceed the BAAQMD CO screening criteria and would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact for localized CO. d) Less than Significant Impact. The BAAQMD has adopted project and cumulative thresholds for three risk-related air quality indicators for sensitive receptors: cancer risks, noncancer health effects, and increases in ambient air concentrations of PM2.5. These impacts are addressed on a localized rather than regional basis, and are specific to the sensitive receptors identified for the project. Sensitive receptors are groups of individuals, including children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, who may be more susceptible to health risks due to chemical exposure. Sensitive-receptor population groups are likely to be located at hospitals, medical clinics, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, residences, and retirement homes (BAAQMD 2017a). The proposed project site is adjacent to El Camino Real and proximate to existing residential development in each direction. “Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period would contract cancer based on the standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment risk-assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015). In addition, some TACs have non-carcinogenic effects. A TAC that would potentially be emitted during construction activities would be diesel particulate matter, emitted from heavy-duty construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks. Heavy-duty construction equipment and diesel trucks are subject to California Air Resources Board air toxic control measures to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period for the maximally exposed individual resident; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project) (OEHHA 2015). Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (approximately 14 months) would only constitute a small percentage of the total 30-year exposure period. Regarding long-term operations, the proposed project would not result in non-permitted stationary sources that would emit air pollutants or TACs. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 18 December 2017 For demolition activities, structures to be demolished sometimes contain asbestos- containing materials (ACMs). Demolition of existing buildings and structures would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance of ACM generated or handled during these activities (BAAQMD 1998). All ACMs found on site must be removed prior to demolition or renovation activity in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of ACMs. The project is required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, ensuring that ACMs, if present, would be removed and disposed of appropriately and safely. Complying with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 would minimize the release of airborne asbestos emissions; therefore, demolition activity would result in a less-than-significant impact to nearby sensitive receptors. Notably, in the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District case, decided in 2015, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider how existing environmental conditions might impact a project’s occupants, except where the project would significantly exacerbate an existing environmental condition. Since the project would not introduce TAC sources that would exacerbate existing environmental conditions, it is not required to assess the impact of the environment on the residents at the proposed townhomes. However, for disclosure purposes, El Camino Real is not considered a high- volume roadway for an urban setting (i.e., less than 100,000 annual average daily trips). Based on the BAAQMD Highway Screening Analysis Tool (BAAQMD 2011), the maximum cancer risk, chronic hazard index, acute hazard index, and PM2.5 concentrations at 10 feet from El Camino Real would be 10.5 in 1 million for maximum cancer risk, 0.0 for chronic hazard index, 0.0 for acute hazard index, and 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) for PM2.5 concentrations. These values would be less than the BAAQMD threshold of 100 in 1 million for cumulative cancer risk, the non-cancer hazard indices of 10, and a PM2.5 concentration threshold of 0.8 μg/m3. In summary, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or health risk during construction or operations, and this impact would be less than significant on a project level and cumulative basis. e) No Impact. BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a), a few examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. Sources that generate objectionable odors must comply with air 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 19 December 2017 quality regulations, but the public’s sensitivity to locally produced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds. The proposed project would not include uses that have been identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors. There would be no impact related to potential odors. References BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1998. Regulation 11, Hazardous Pollutants, Rule 2, Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. Site aAccessed August 15, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/rules-and-regs/reg-11/rg1102.pdf.BAAQMD. 2011. Highway Screening Analysis Tool. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental- quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. BAAQMD. 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/ BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en. BAAQMD. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_ may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. BAAQMD. 2017b. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate - Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air- plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spot Program – Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015. http://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/ 2015guidancemanual.pdf. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 20 December 2017 2.4 Biological Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion a) No Impact. The project site is fully developed as an existing four-unit (two-story) apartment building and detached five-car garage structure in an urban area. The site is not expected to support any candidate or special-status species, or species identified for protection in local, regional, or national wildlife plans or policies or associated habitat for such species; thus, there would be no impacts to these species. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 21 December 2017 b) No Impact. The project site does not support any riparian habitat or any sensitive communities identified in local regional, state, or national plans or policies; thus, there would be no impacts to these resources. c) No Impact. The proposed project site is fully developed and does not support any wetlands eligible for state or federal protection; thus, there would be no impacts to these resources. d) No Impact. The proposed project site is located in a fully urbanized area and is surrounded by fully developed properties with commercial and industrial uses. The project site and vicinity are not expected to support wildlife migratory corridors or nursery sites. Construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to inhibit movement of any native wildlife species; thus, there would be no impacts to these species. e) No Impact. As described in response a), above, the project would not involve any impacts to biological resources due to the developed nature of the site and surrounding areas. The proposed project would include on-site landscaping; low-water-use plants would be installed for at least 75% of the plant area, and plants would be grouped by hydrozones. The proposed project would include “soft” landscaping for common open space. The project also proposes to relocate one of the young elms adjacent to the sidewalk within the Caltrans right-of-way. Because this tree is a contributor to the NRHP-listed Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191), however, it would be replanted directly south of its current location to avoid any adverse effects to this resource. No impacts due to conflicts with local policies for protection of biological resources would occur. f) No Impact. The project site is not located in any area subject to a local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. The nearest habitat conservation plan area to the project site is the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, approximately 11 miles away (CDFW 2017). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the conservation goals and objectives of any such plans. Reference CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. California Regional Conservation Plans, June 2017. Accessed August 25, 2017. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=68626&inline. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 22 December 2017 2.5 Cultural Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion a) No Impact. The proposed project site is occupied by a four-unit residential building with a detached five-car garage structure at the rear. These two structures would be demolished and replaced with a six-unit, three-story residential building. The property was constructed in 1947. As described in the Historical Resources Compliance Report (see Appendix B), the property was evaluated for historical significance in consideration of the NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources, and City designation criteria and integrity requirements. No important historical associations were identified for the project site, and it does not appear to be significant for its architecture due to a lack of requisite integrity. However, one NRHP-listed resource is located within the project site: two young elm trees that contribute to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, a 1.76-mile-long landscaping effort dating from 1873 to 1876 that consists of a row of trees lining each side of the historic El Camino Real in Burlingame. The project proposes to relocate one tree from this historic tree row so it is not adversely affected during widening of the driveway. The project has an action plan to ensure that relocation of the tree does not impact this resource. Therefore, the project would not cause any substantial change to a historic resource, and no impact would occur. b, c, d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would involve demolition of existing buildings and construction of a new building within a fully developed and previously disturbed site. No archaeological resources were identified 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 23 December 2017 within the project site or immediate vicinity as a result of the California Historical Resources Information System records search and Native American correspondence. However, it is always possible that intact archaeological deposits are present at subsurface levels. Based on geomorphological evidence and known buried cultural deposits in the Bay Area, the project site would be treated as potentially sensitive for archaeological resources. The project site is situated within Quaternary Alluvial deposits (generally less than 11,000 years old), which are generally considered to have formed too recently to support the presence of paleontological deposits. Therefore, the area is considered to be of low sensitivity for encountering significant paleontological deposits (Appendix B). However, Mitigation Measure (MM) CU-1, MM-CU-2, and MM-CU-3 would ensure potential impacts to unanticipated archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains would be less than significant. MM-CU-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. All construction crew members shall be alerted to the potential to encounter sensitive archaeological material. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether additional study is warranted. Prehistoric archaeological deposits may be indicated by the presence of discolored or dark soil, fire-affected material, concentrations of fragmented or whole marine shell, burned or complete bone, non-local lithic materials, or a characteristic observed to be atypical of the surrounding area. Common prehistoric artifacts may include modified or battered lithic materials; lithic or bone tools that appeared to have been used for chopping, drilling, or grinding; projectile points; fired clay ceramics or non-functional items; and other items. Historic-age deposits are often indicated by the presence of glass bottles and shards, ceramic material, building or domestic refuse, ferrous metal, or old features such as concrete foundations or privies. Depending on the significance of the find under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5[f]; Public Resources Code Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 24 December 2017 MM-CU-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the county coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the county coroner has determined, within 2 working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant shall complete his/her inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. MM-CU-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources. Paleontological resources are limited, nonrenewable resources of scientific, cultural, or educational value and are afforded protection under state laws and regulations (CEQA). Paleontological resources are explicitly afforded protection by CEQA, specifically in Section V(c) of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the Environmental Checklist Form, which addresses the potential for adverse impacts to “unique paleontological resource[s] or site[s] or … unique geological feature[s]” (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). Further, CEQA provides that, generally, a resource shall be considered “historically significant” if it has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory (14 CCR 15064.5[a][3][D]). In the event that paleontological resources (silicified shell, bone, or other features) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find. This analysis shall comply with guidelines and significance criteria specified by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 25 December 2017 2.6 Geology And Soils Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion a) i) No Impact. No active or potentially active faults have been identified on or near the project site. In addition, the project site is not located within an Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active earthquake fault zone (i.e., evidence of displacement within the past 11,000 years) is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 2 miles southwest of the site. In addition, the active Hayward Fault is located approximately 15 miles to the east of Burlingame, at the base of the East Bay Hills. The closest potentially active fault (i.e., evidence of displacement within the past 1.6 million years) is the Serra Fault, which is associated with the San Andreas Fault and located approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the project site (CDMG 1982; CGS 2010; 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 26 December 2017 City of Burlingame 1975). Therefore, no impacts related to fault rupture would occur in association with construction of the project. a) ii) iii) c) Less than Significant Impact. Based on the proximity of the San Andreas and Hayward Faults, moderate to strong seismically induced ground shaking may occur at the project site. To address these seismic concerns, a geotechnical/soils report would be completed prior to final project design, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code, Title 18 – Building Construction, Chapters 18.08 – Building Code, and 18.20 – Grading, Excavation, Fills. Chapter 18.08 pertains to adoption of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC), Part 2, Volume 1 as the City Building Code. The geotechnical/soils report would develop seismic design parameters for the project site using the online U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Calculator, which is based on 2016 CBC Seismic Parameters. The structural design of the proposed structure would be based on these seismic design parameters, such that direct seismically induced ground shaking impacts would be less than significant. Potential secondary seismic hazards that could affect the project include liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced settlement, and differential compaction. Based on the City General Plan, Seismic Safety Element, the industrial area and waterfront commercial district of Burlingame, which is located on fill and Bay Mud within the historic marshland area, is especially prone to differential settlement, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and increased seismically induced ground accelerations. The project site is not located within this area of fill. However, the project site is located on alluvium, consisting primarily of gravel, sand, and clay. Localized lenses of water-bearing sands and gravels within the alluvium could potentially result in liquefaction at the site (City of Burlingame 1975). Similar to direct seismically induced ground shaking, the City-mandated geotechnical/soils report would address these potential secondary seismic hazards. Final design of the project would comply with the 2016 CBC, which includes specific provisions for structural seismic safety. Therefore, compliance with CBC regulations and recommendations by the project-specific geotechnical report would result in less-than-significant secondary seismic impacts associated with construction of the project. a) iv) No Impact. The topography of the project site slopes gently to the northeast. Based on site observations completed for the project, the ground surface elevation varies from 15 feet along the street, to 19 feet at the rear of the property. Similarly, the surrounding area is gently sloping. Based on the City General Plan, Seismic Safety Element, the site is not located in a landslide risk area (City of Burlingame 1975). Therefore, no landslides are anticipated in the vicinity of the site. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 27 December 2017 As discussed for a) ii) iii) c), above, a geotechnical/soils report would be completed prior to final project design. Depending on the results of the soils report, excavation of incompetent soils may be required in the area of the proposed structural footprint. Project excavations would likely be limited to shallow (i.e., generally 2 to 4 feet or less) soil excavation. In the event that such excavation is necessary, this area would be backfilled with compacted soil prior to excavations for structural footings. Based on the Project Application to the Planning Commission, dated September 30, 2016, grading would involve less than 500 cubic yards of material, indicating that substantial excavation of soils is not anticipated (see Appendix C). As a result, potential slope instability associated with on-site excavations would not occur. The project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects related to landslides and no impacts would occur. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project would include demolition of an existing apartment building and construction of six new townhomes (as one building). Removal of existing paved areas and project grading/excavations would potentially result in short-term erosion-induced siltation in off-site drainages and waterways. However, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be implemented during construction. BMPs included in the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 2015) and Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (San Francisco Bay Region RWQCB 2015) would be implemented during construction. These BMPs would include temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas until permanent erosion controls are established. Construction-related BMPs would include use of sediment traps such as silt fences, check dams, and earthen dikes or berms; diversion of runoff around exposed areas; protection of adjacent properties using sediment barriers or filters; and stabilization of the designated access point. The SWPPP would include appropriate erosion-control and water-quality-control measures during site demolition, grading, and construction. Implementation of the SWPPP for the project would minimize short-term erosion impacts. Long-term impacts of the project would not result in erosion, since the soils would be covered by the proposed building, pavement, vegetation, and landscaping. Therefore, construction impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are those that possess “shrink/swell” characteristics, and are usually fine-grained clay sediments that expand and contract due to moisture and desiccation. In the absence of proper structural engineering, expansive soils can crack and damage structural foundations. As discussed for a) ii) iii) c), above, a geotechnical/soils report would be completed prior to final project design. Consistent with 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 28 December 2017 the Burlingame Municipal Code and the 2016 CBC, in the event that soil testing indicates that expansive soils are present, the upper few feet of expansive soil would be excavated and replaced with non-expansive soils. Alternatively, the building foundation could be engineered to accommodate expansive soils without resulting in distress to the foundation. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts related to expansive soils would result from construction of the project. e) No Impact. The project would not include installation of septic tanks, since proposed project facilities would connect to City sewer services. Therefore, the capability of the soils to support the operation of such tanks was not evaluated. No impact would occur in association with construction of the project. References CDMG (California Division of Mines and Geology). 1982. Special Studies Zones, Montara Mountain Revised Official Map. January 1, 1982. CGS (California Geological Survey). 2010. Fault Activity Map of California. City of Burlingame. 1975. General Plan, Seismic Safety Element, adopted July 21, 1975. Accessed August 11, 2017. http://www.burlingame.org/Modules/Show Document.aspx? documentid=173. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2015. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Accessed August 14, 2017. http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures. San Francisco Bay Region RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, November 19, 2015. Accessed August 14, 2017. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/Municipal/R2-2015-0049.pdf. 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 29 December 2017 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Analysis Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process: (1) short-wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth, (2) the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave radiation, and (3) GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit it into space and back toward the Earth. This trapping of the long-wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. Principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide, O3, and water vapor. Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil-fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results mostly from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat- absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride, which are associated with certain industrial products and processes (CAT 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed the global warming potential concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The global warming potential of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, emissions weighted for global warming potential are measured in metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2E). Regarding impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (BAAQMD 2017; CAPCOA 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 30 December 2017 the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The quantitative approach is used to address the first significance criterion: “Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?” This analysis considers that, because the quantifiable thresholds developed by BAAQMD were formulated based on Assembly Bill 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets for which a set of strategies were developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (CARB 2017). Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. Separate thresholds of significance are established for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and nonstationary sources (such as on-road vehicles). The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 MT CO2E per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). For nonstationary sources, the following three separate thresholds have been established (BAAQMD 2017): Compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (i.e., if a project is found to be out of compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, its GHG emissions may be considered significant). 1,100 MT CO2E per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). 4.6 MT CO2E per service population per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). (Service population is the sum of residents plus employees expected for a development project.) The quantitative threshold of 1,100 MT CO2E per year adopted by the BAAQMD was applied to this analysis. If the project operational GHG emissions would exceed this threshold, then, consistent with BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change. a, b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. Since the BAAQMD has not established construction-phase GHG thresholds, construction GHG emissions were amortized assuming a 30-year development life after completion of construction and added to operational emissions to compare to the 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 31 December 2017 BAAQMD operational GHG threshold. CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions associated with project construction. Amortized GHG emissions associated with project construction would result in annualized generation of 7 MT CO2E (Appendix A). Operations. Long-term operational emissions would occur over the life of the project. CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and water/wastewater conveyance) for the existing uses to be demolished and for the proposed project. CalEEMod default mobile source data, including temperature, trip characteristics, variable start information, emission factors, and trip distances, were conservatively used for the model inputs. Project-related traffic was assumed to be composed of a mixture of vehicles in accordance with the model defaults for the specified land uses. It is assumed that the first full year of operations would be in 2020. The estimation of operational energy emissions was based on CalEEMod land use defaults and total area (i.e., square footage) of the existing use to be demolished and for the proposed project. For the existing use, no fireplaces or woodstoves were assumed, and natural gas and electricity emissions were estimated in CalEEMod using the emissions factors for Pacific Gas & Electric and adjusted to account for 25% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2016. Historical (pre-2005 buildings) energy use standards were incorporated for the existing apartments to be demolished. For the proposed townhomes, only gas fireplaces were assumed, and annual natural gas (non-hearth) and electricity emissions were estimated in CalEEMod using the emissions factors for Pacific Gas & Electric and adjusted to account for the 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020. The most recent amendments to Title 24, Part 6, the California Energy Code, became effective on January 1, 2017. Residential buildings constructed in accordance with the updated Title 24 standards are anticipated to use 28% less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating than the 2013 standards. Although these standards would be required for the project, they were accounted for in the “Mitigation” options of CalEEMod, and are, thus, part of the mitigated scenario. Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the project would require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the proposed project would require the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, along with GHG emissions generated during wastewater treatment. Water consumption estimates for indoor and outdoor water use and associated 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 32 December 2017 electricity consumption from water use and wastewater generation were estimated using CalEEMod default values. The proposed project would generate solid waste and would, therefore, result in CO2E emissions associated with landfill off-gassing. CalEEMod default solid waste generation values for the specified land uses were used. The estimated operational GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles, solid waste generation, water supply, and wastewater treatment for the existing uses to be demolished and the proposed project are shown in Table 4 (see also Appendix A). Table 4 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source CO2E (Metric Tons per Year) Project Emissions Area 0.8 Energy 14.6 Mobile 31.4 Solid Waste 1.4 Water Supply and Wastewater 1.0 Total Project Emissions 49.2 Existing Use Emissions Area 0.0 Energy 9.0 Mobile 25.0 Solid Waste 0.9 Water Supply and Wastewater 0.9 Total Existing Use Emissions 35.8 Operational Emission Net Increase (Project Minus Existing) 13.4 Amortized Construction Emissions 7.1 Operational Emission Net Increase + Amortized Construction Total 20.5 BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Threshold 1,100 Significant (Yes or No)? No Source: Appendix A Notes: CO2E = carbon dioxide-equivalent; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District Project GHG emissions are based on the annual CalEEMod outputs, included in Appendix A. Total emissions may not sum exactly due to rounding. Project emissions are based on the “Mitigated” CalEEMod outputs in order to incorporate indoor/outdoor water use reduction per CALGreen and exceeding 2013 Title 24 by 28% for residences to approximate 2016 Title 24 compliance, even though compliance with standards would not be considered actual mitigation. No fireplaces or woodstoves were assumed for existing uses, and only gas fireplaces were assumed for the project. Table 4 (see also Appendix A) indicates that the net increase in GHG emissions associated with the project would be less than BAAQMD’s GHG threshold of 1,100 MT CO2E per year. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 33 December 2017 or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and this would represent a less-than-significant cumulative GHG impact. The City of Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium- term solutions to reduce the City’s GHG emissions. The five major focus areas are energy efficiency/green building, transportation/land use, waste reduction/recycling, education/outreach, and municipal operations. Energy efficiency and green building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce emissions (City of Burlingame 2009). The proposed project is required to comply with the City of Burlingame’s Green Building Ordinance, which implements the CALGreen Building Standards. Since the project would comply with applicable statewide and local requirements, the project would not conflict with the Climate Action Plan. Regarding consistency with Senate Bill 32 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030) and Executive Order S-3-05 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050), there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future-year analysis. However, the California Air Resources Board forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan puts the state on a trajectory of meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance is unknown (CARB 2014). As discussed previously, the project would result in minimal GHG emissions, and would not conflict with the state’s trajectory toward future GHG reductions. With respect to future GHG targets under Senate Bill 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, the California Air Resources Board has also made clear its legal interpretation that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the Assembly Bill 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet the reduction targets for 2030 and 2050; this legal interpretation provides evidence that future regulations will be adopted to continue the state on its trajectory toward meeting future GHG targets. Based on the preceding considerations, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and no mitigation is required. This impact would be less than significant. References BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/ ~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 34 December 2017 CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. May 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/ document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm. CARB. 2017. Draft 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, the Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. October 27, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/ revised2017spu.pdf. CAT (California Climate Action Team). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to the Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Sacramento, California. March 2006. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF. City of Burlingame. 2009. City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan. June 2009. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. 2.8 Hazards And Hazardous Materials Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 35 December 2017 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion a) Less than Significant Impact. The project would result in a slight increase in the routine use of hazardous materials. The project would include use of heavy equipment for demolition, grading, excavations, and construction. Fueling and maintenance of such equipment could result in incidental spills of petroleum products and hazardous materials to soils exposed after demolition. However, such incidental spills would likely be minor and would be minimized through implementation of standard BMPs included in a SWPPP during construction. The BMPs would be consistent with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program and Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 2015; RWQCB 2015). Relevant BMPs would typically include creation of a designated fueling and maintenance area equipped with temporary spill containment booms, absorbent pads, and petroleum waste disposal containers. Therefore, impacts associated with routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant as a result of project construction. b) Less than Significant Impact. The closest gas transmission pipeline is located approximately 2,200 feet northeast of the project site, along Rollins Road (PHMSA 2017). This pipeline would have no impact on the project. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 36 December 2017 The project would include demolition of the existing structure, which was constructed in 1947, according to San Mateo County Assessor records (County of San Mateo 2017). Based on the age of the structure, lead-based paint (LBP) and ACM may be present in the building. The federal government banned consumer use of LBP in 1978, and ACMs were banned in construction products in 1989. Layers of LBP may be present beneath layers of non-LBP. ACMs may be present in floor and ceiling tiles, exterior wall and roofing shingles, pipe insulation, plaster, and stucco finishes. As a result, LBP and ACMs may be encountered during demolition activities, which could result in adverse health and safety impacts to demolition personnel. In California, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 states that individuals must permanently remove LBP hazards in accordance with federal standards. Only certified lead testers may be used for this process. Under CCR Section 1532.1, workers must assess the level of lead exposure on any given job site, and regularly gauge lead levels as the project progresses. Similarly, the removal of potential ACMs would be subject to asbestos regulations administered by the BAAQMD, which protects the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos through enforcement of the Federal Asbestos Standard (BAAQMD 1998). The ACM regulations include survey and notification requirements prior to beginning a project, as well as work practice standards and disposal requirements, in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Hazardous Pollutants, Rule 2, Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. With implementation of these regulations, the project would not 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. Impacts related to the removal of potential LBP and ACMs during project demolition would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The closest school is Our Lady of Angels School, located approximately 700 feet southeast of the project site. In addition, Lincoln Elementary School is located approximately 1,200 feet west of the site. However, as discussed in a) and b), above, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste that could potentially impact these schools. Therefore, no impacts would occur. d) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 (Cortese List), which requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop, at least annually, an 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 37 December 2017 updated list (DTSC 2017). However, it is possible that the project site or adjacent properties may be listed on other environmental databases pertaining to prior releases of petroleum products and/or hazardous substances. With the exception of the Cortese List, an environmental database search was not completed for the project. However, it is unlikely that soil contamination is present beneath the site, since the project site is located in a residential neighborhood that extends back to at least the 1940s, where releases of petroleum waste or hazardous waste into the subsurface is unlikely. As a result, less-than- significant impacts would occur with respect to potential prior releases of hazardous materials at the site. e, f, g) No Impact. The project is located approximately 1.5 miles south of San Francisco International Airport, within an airport influence area. However, the project site is not located within a designated airport safety zone (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 2012). Therefore, no aircraft-related safety impacts would occur in association with construction of the project. The City of Burlingame does not currently have a comprehensive emergency response plan. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impacts would occur. h) No Impact. The proposed project is located within a fully urbanized area that is not adjacent to wildlands. Vegetation on site is limited to landscaping that is irrigated and maintained by the property owner. Based on review of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazards Severity Zones Map for San Mateo County, the nearest area of moderate wildland fire risk is approximately 1.5 miles away (CalFIRE 2007). No impact would occur related to exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. References BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 1998. Regulation 11, Hazardous Pollutants, Rule 2, Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. Accessed August 15, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/rules-and- regs/reg-11/rg1102.pdf. CalFIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2007. “San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map.” November 7, 2007. Accessed August 18, 2017. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_mateo/fhszs_map.41.pdf. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 38 December 2017 July. Accessed August 15, 2017. http://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_ References/2012_0701_CCAG.pdf. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2015. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Accessed August 14, 2017. http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures. County of San Mateo. 2017. Property Details. Search conducted by Dudek in 2017 for APN 026-013-110. DTSC (Department of Toxics Substances Control). 2017. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Accessed August 15, 2017. PHMSA (U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration). 2017. National Pipeline Mapping System. Accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/. RWQCB (San Francisco Bay Region, California Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, November 19, 2015. Accessed August 14, 2017. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/ Municipal/R2-2015-0049.pdf. 2.9 Hydrology And Water Quality Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 39 December 2017 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No 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 would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion a, f) Less than Significant Impact. Completion of the proposed project would not substantially alter the amount or type of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Land use would not change, since the existing four-unit residential development would be replaced with a six-unit residential development. Similar to existing conditions, stormwater runoff would occur as sheetflow, which would be transmitted into two 6-inch-diameter subdrains that would drain into an upgraded curb and gutter. The project would include 572 square feet of landscaping in the front setback and 391 square feet of landscaping in the rear common open space area. Such landscaping would result in an increase in permeable surfaces capable of capturing and infiltrating surface runoff such that potentially polluted runoff would be less compared to existing conditions. This increase in permeable surfaces would result in beneficial long-term water-quality impacts. The closest creek is Mills Creek, located approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the project site. Mills Creek is not listed in the 2012 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments, or Impaired Water Bodies (CalEPA SWRCB 2017). Therefore, runoff 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 40 December 2017 from the project site would not contribute to a water body that contains pollutants at levels that currently exceed protective water quality criteria and standards. Demolition and construction of the project would result in short-term soil-disturbing activities that could lead to increased erosion and sedimentation of nearby drainages and Mills Creek. However, a Construction SWPPP would be implemented during demolition and construction. BMPs included in the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program and Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit would be implemented (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 2015; RWQCB 2015). These BMPs would include temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas until permanent erosion controls are established. Demolition and construction-related BMPs would include use of sediment traps such as silt fences, check dams, and earthen dikes or berms; diversion of runoff around exposed areas; protection of adjacent properties using sediment barriers or filters; stabilization of the designated access point; and proper storage, handling, and disposal of construction wastes to prevent contact with stormwater. Implementation of the SWPPP for the project would minimize erosion and related impacts on water quality, such that short-term demolition- and construction-related impacts would be less than significant. b) No Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect groundwater. Water demand is anticipated to be approximately 792 gallons per day, which would be an increase over existing conditions due to the additional two residential units. The City of Burlingame Water Division would supply water to the project, and the source of water within the City water system is metered connections off the San Francisco Water Department’s Crystal Springs and Sunset Aqueducts (City of Burlingame 2015). On-site groundwater would not be used; therefore, no impacts would occur with respect to groundwater withdrawals. In addition, the project would result in an increase in permeable surfaces, which would result in an increase in groundwater recharge. This increase would result in beneficial groundwater impacts. See section Utilities and Service Systems, below, for additional information related to water service for the project. c, d, e) Less than Significant Impact. Runoff at the site would be similar to existing conditions. The drainage pattern would not be substantially altered. The project would include approximately 6,568 square feet of impervious area, including the building roof, driveway, pathways, and trash enclosure. Similar to existing conditions, paved area stormwater runoff would occur as sheetflow. Proposed runoff would be diverted to two 6- 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 41 December 2017 inch-diameter subdrains that would discharge surface flows to the street curb and gutter. New curb and gutter would be constructed as part of the project. As previously discussed for a) f), above, the project would include 572 square feet of landscaping in the front setback and 391 square feet of landscaping in the rear common open space. Such landscaping would result in an increase in permeable surfaces capable of capturing and infiltrating surface runoff, such that runoff volumes would be less in comparison to existing conditions. This increase in permeable surfaces would result in beneficial drainage impacts. As previously discussed, construction of the project would result in short-term soil-disturbing activities that could lead to increased erosion and sedimentation of nearby drainages and Mills Creek. However, the project would comply with the SWPPP requirements for construction site stormwater discharges, including appropriate erosion-control and water- quality-control measures during demolition and construction activities. Implementation of the SWPPP for the project would minimize erosion and related impacts on water quality such that construction-related impacts would be less than significant. g, h, i, j) No Impact. The City of Burlingame Seismic Safety Element indicates that the project site is located within a 100-year flood zone (City of Burlingame 1975). However, updated flood maps completed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency indicate that the site is not located within a 100-year flood zone (FEMA 2012). The project site is not located in an area that would be inundated in the event of a dam failure, since no reservoirs are located upslope of the site. The project site is located at an elevation of 15 to 19 feet above sea level and is not located within a designated tsunami inundation area (California Emergency Management Agency et al. 2009; City of Burlingame 1975). In addition, the project would not be subject to inundation as a result of seiche or mudflow. Therefore, no flood-related impacts would occur in association with construction of the project. References CalEPA SWRCB (California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board). 2017. Impaired Water Bodies. Accessed August 14, 2017. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2012.shtml. California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California – County of San Mateo, San Mateo Quadrangle, Scale 1:24,000. June 15, 2009. Accessed August 14, 2017. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/ Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/SanMateo/Documents/Tsunami_Inundation_SanMateo_ Quad_SanMateo.pdf. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 42 December 2017 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2015. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Accessed August 14, 2017. http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures. City of Burlingame. 1975. Burlingame General Plan, Seismic Safety Element, adopted July 21, 1975. Accessed August 11, 2017. http://www.burlingame.org/Modules/ ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=173. City of Burlingame. 2015. City Water System. Accessed August 15, 2017. https://www.burlingame.org/index.aspx?page=668. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2012. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address, effective October 16, 2012. Accessed August 14, 2017. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor. RWQCB (San Francisco Bay Region, California Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, November 19, 2015. Accessed August 14, 2017. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/ Municipal/R2-2015-0049.pdf. 2.10 Land Use And Planning Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion a) No Impact. The proposed project would not include construction of a physical barrier that would physically divide the existing area surrounding the proposed project site. No 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 43 December 2017 freeways, railroad tracks, or any kind of physical obstruction is included as part of the proposed project. Construction associated with the project would not result in major changes to any public roadways. The proposed use as a residential development would be compatible with the existing residential uses in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community and would have no impacts related to this topic . b) No Impact. The project would be located on El Camino Real and is designated as medium-high density residential (R-3) land use in the City of Burlingame’s General Plan. The general plan land use designation is for uses with 21 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The project complies with the dwelling unit density allowed per the General Plan Land Use Map (City of Burlingame 2016). This Zoning District designates land uses as predominately multi-family residential, including some lower-intensity residential uses such as single-family homes, duplexes, apartment homes, multi-family homes, and accessory buildings. The proposed project is in compliance with Burlingame’s General Plan and would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations; there would be no impact. c) No Impact. The nearest habitat conservation plan to the project site is the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, approximately 11 miles from the site (CDFW 2017). The project site is not located within the jurisdiction of any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and would not conflict with any applicable plans or policies; therefore, there would be no impact. References CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. California Regional Conservation Plans. June 2017. Accessed August 17, 2017. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=68626&inline. City of Burlingame. 2016. City of Burlingame General Plan, Zoning. June 2016. Accessed August 18, 2017. https://www.burlingame.org/modules/show document.aspx? documentid=13356. 2.11 Mineral Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 44 December 2017 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion a, b) No Impact. The City of Burlingame General Plan does not identify any areas of significant mineral value on the project site or in the project vicinity (City of Burlingame 2010). The State of California Department of Mines and Geology, Mineral Land Classification Map designates the project site as a Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1. The MRZ-1 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” (California Department of Conservation 1982). Implementation of the project would, therefore, not impact mineral resources. References California Department of Conservation. 1982. “California Department of Mines and Geology, Mineral Land Classification Map 146, Plate 2.43.” ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/ pubs/sr/SR_146-2/SR-146_Plate_2.43.pdf. City of Burlingame. 2010. The City of Burlingame General Plan, as amended. 2.12 Noise Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels? 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 45 December 2017 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City’s General Plan Noise Element includes noise and land use compatibility recommendations for evaluating the compatibility of new uses with the on-site noise environment. The Noise Element establishes a 60 A-weighted decibel (dBA) community noise equivalent level (CNEL) criterion as the maximum suggested outdoor noise level for land uses that include “public, quasi-public, and residential” (CNEL is a 24-hour average noise level, with “penalties” added to noise during the night and evening hours (7 p.m.–7 a.m.) (City of Burlingame 1975). The interior noise level standard is 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room, with windows closed. The primary source of noise in the area is roadway noise along El Camino Real. Exterior private open spaces that are provided for the proposed future residences would face the neighboring lots and be shielded from traffic noise produced by El Camino Real. No planned open spaces face El Camino Real. The building setback would be approximately 20 feet from the road. Based on the referenced measurement of traffic noise along El Camino Real (1509 El Camino Real Mitigated Negative Declaration) it is expected that traffic noise levels at the building façade would be approximately 63 dBA equivalent noise level (Leq) (City of Burlingame 2012). Conservatively assuming that shielding from building components would provide 5 dBA of noise reduction, the approximate Leq for the balconies of the project building closest to the El Camino Real frontage would be 58 dBA. This expected level meets the 60 dBA CNEL requirement for exterior living spaces 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 46 December 2017 (City of Burlingame 1975). To ensure interior noise levels meet the 45 dBA CNEL requirement (City of Burlingame 1975), MM-NOI-1 is required for the building façade facing El Camino Real. MM-NOI-1 The project sponsor shall retain a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare an acoustical study in accordance with State Title 24 requirements. The acoustical study shall identify methods of design and construction to comply with the applicable portions of the California Building Code Title 24 to achieve an indoor noise level of 45 A-weighted decibel community noise equivalent level or less from traffic noise sources. b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not expected to generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise during operation. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan lists roadway bus and truck traffic, railway operations, and construction activities as the common sources of groundborne vibration in the area (City of Burlingame 2004). In residential areas, ambient vibration levels are usually approximately 50 vibration decibels (VdB). Instantaneous vibration levels may reach 63 VdB when buses or trucks pass within 50 feet of a receptor, and 72 VdB when these vehicles hit a bump in the road (City of Burlingame 2004). Project construction would generate short-term groundborne vibration within the project site and the surrounding areas. Construction equipment, such as dozers and trucks, can be sources of excessive groundborne vibration. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project would be the residences located adjacent to the project site. The nearest residence is approximately 15 feet from the proposed building outline and approximately 30 feet from the center of the project site. Neither the City of Burlingame’s General Plan nor the City’s Municipal Code contain provisions specifically regarding groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The following analysis is based on the guidance from the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual. Vibration levels in the 70 to 75 VdB range are often noticeable but generally deemed acceptable, and levels in excess of 80 VdB are often considered unacceptable. The threshold for human perception is approximately 65 VdB (FTA 2006). The primary source of vibration during project construction and/or demolition would likely be from a small bulldozer or tractor. Expected vibration levels from such equipment would be approximately 58 VdB at 25 feet. A bulldozer would temporarily operate at the property line, approximately 15 feet from an existing residential building. On average during construction, the bulldozer would typically be approximately 30 feet 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 47 December 2017 from the residential receptors. Thus, average vibration levels are expected to be less than 58 VdB and below the perceptible range for humans (FTA 2006). Demolition of the existing on-site building would not require the use of blasting, a wrecking ball, or other groundborne-vibration-generating equipment. Therefore, impacts associated with the vibration from construction equipment would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. Residential developments do not typically result in significant levels of ambient noise. The existing building on the project site is a residential building. The proposed building would not add a substantial amount of residences compared to the existing use. For traffic noise, a doubling of traffic volume is generally required to produce a perceptible increase in ambient sound levels. The current average daily traffic along El Camino Real is approximately 30,000 (City of Burlingame 2012); thus, another 30,000 average daily trips would need to be added for a perceptible change in traffic noise to occur. The project is not expected to substantially increase the average daily traffic, and, therefore, would not noticeably change the ambient sound levels associated with traffic noise from El Camino Real. Dudek reviewed sound level data for the vehicle lift to be used in the garages. Documented levels during operation are approximately 59 dBA during vehicle raising. Levels are lower during the lowering of vehicles and when the door is opening (see Appendix D). Sound levels due to lift operations are not expected to be excessive at neighboring residential properties. The anticipated intermittent use of the proposed car lift equipment further reduces the likelihood of noise impacts from car lifts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is surrounded by residential uses. Construction of the proposed project would expose these sensitive receptors to increased ambient exterior noise levels. During project construction, heavy equipment would be used for demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving, which would increase ambient noise levels. Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how it is operated, and how well it is maintained. Standard construction equipment, such as graders, backhoes, loaders, backhoes, and saws, would be used for this work. Regarding construction activity, the City of Burlingame General Plan Noise Element provides Table 5, Maximum Allowable Noise Levels from Construction Equipment (page N-33 of the General Plan Noise Element, City of Burlingame 1975). 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 48 December 2017 Table 5 Maximum Allowable Noise Levels from Construction Equipment Equipment Peak Noise Level in dBA at 50 Feet Earthmoving Front Loader 75 Backhoes 75 Dozers 75 Tractors 75 Scrapers 80 Graders 75 Truck 75 Paver 80 Materials Handling Concrete mixer 75 Concrete pump 75 Crane 75 Derrick 75 Stationary Pumps 75 Generators 75 Compressors 75 Impact Pile Drivers 95 Jackhammers 75 Rock Drills 80 Pneumatic tools 80 Other Saws 75 Vibrator 75 Source: City of Burlingame 1975 Implementation of the proposed project would result in intermittent short-term noise impacts resulting from construction-related activities. There would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential resulting in potential short-term intermittent annoyances. However, the effect on long-term ambient noise levels would be small when averaged over longer time periods, such as 24 hours for CNEL. Section 18.07.110 of the City’s Municipal Code limits the hours of construction to between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays. With compliance with the City of Burlingame General Plan Noise Element and incorporation of MM-NOI-2 through MM-NOI-4 below, impacts from construction noise would be less than significant. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 49 December 2017 MM-NOI-2 All construction equipment shall use available noise-suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment shall be maintained in a good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by a faulty or poorly maintained engine, drive train, or other component. MM-NOI-3 During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and as far as possible from the boundary of sensitive receptors. MM-NOI-4 Pursuant to the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, the applicant shall limit construction activities to between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, and Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. e) Less than Significant Impact. The site is included on maps addressing San Francisco International Airport noise contours in the Noise Exposure Map Report (SFO 2015a). The 2019 noise contour maps show that the project site location is outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for San Francisco International Airport (SFO 2015b). According to the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, in Aircraft Noise Exposure Areas, this aircraft noise exposure level is acceptable for all land uses, including residential (SFO 2015b). The project site is in an area that is exposed to noise levels less than 65 dBA from San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. f) No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts related to a private airstrip would occur as a result of the proposed project. References City of Burlingame. 1975. Burlingame General Plan Noise Element. Adopted September 15, 1975. https://www.burlingame.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=170. City of Burlingame. 2004. North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, Chapter 7, Development Framework. http://www.burlingame.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=103. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 50 December 2017 City of Burlingame. 2012. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Residential Condominiums at 1509 El Camino Real. January 23, 2012. https://www.burlingame.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=12742. FTA (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. https://www.transit.dot.gov/ sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. SFO (San Francisco International Airport). 2015a. Noise Exposure Map Report. August 2015. http://www.flysfo.com/community/noise-abatement/sfo-part-150-study/noise-exposure- map-report. SFO. 2015b. Noise Exposure Map Report. Chapter 5, Noise Exposure Maps and Effects on Land Use. August 2015. http://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/noise- abatement/sfo_p150_nem_ch5_ nems_ada.pdf. 2.13 Population And Housing Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve demolition of the current four-unit building and construction of a six-unit building within a residential district. According to the 2010 Census for the City of Burlingame, the average household size was 2.29 people (American Community Survey 2006–2010). Therefore, this two- unit increase would represent an increase of approximately five people. This does not represent a substantial growth in population, and is well within the expected population increase noted in the City’s General Plan (City of Burlingame 2015). Therefore, the 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 51 December 2017 proposed project would not cause a substantial growth in population either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant. b, c) Less than Significant Impact. The project would add two residential units and would not necessitate the need for construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project would temporarily displace the tenants of four residential units, but would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, the project would have a less-than- significant impact on the displacement of housing and people. Reference American Community Survey. 2006–2010. Bay Area Census. City of Burlingame, San Mateo County. Accessed August 28, 2017. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/ Burlingame.htm. City of Burlingame. 2015. City of Burlingame General Plan 2015–2023 Housing Element. Adopted January 5, 2015. https://www.burlingame.org/modules/showdocument.aspx? documentid=11658. 2.14 Public Services Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Discussion The proposed project would involve incidental or no impacts on government services, and would not involve substantial population growth; any such growth would occur within the framework 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 52 December 2017 of the adopted Burlingame General Plan. The project would be located in a residential area where there are established public facilities. Therefore, as discussed below, the project would not involve new or increased impacts to public services, and would not require mitigation measures to avoid significant environmental effects. a) i) Less than Significant Impact. The Central County Fire Department provides fire protection services to the City of Burlingame. There are three fire stations located within the City: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road (Central County Fire Department 2017). The proposed project would include demolition of an existing two-story apartment building and a detached five-car garage, and construction of a three-story building with a proposed height of 35 feet. Operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in increased demand for fire or emergency services, or a need for modified facilities due to the minimal increase of two residential units. The Central County Fire Department would review project plans prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building safety codes. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. a) ii) Less than Significant Impact. The Burlingame Police Department, located at 1111 Trousdale Drive, provides police services to the City. Operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in increased demand for police services or a need for modified facilities due to the minimal increase of two residential units. Therefore, impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. a) iii) Less than Significant Impact. Our Lady of Angels School is the closest school to the project site at 0.3 miles away. Operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in increased demand for school services or result in the requirement of alterations to any school facilities due to the minimal population increase. Therefore, impacts to school services would be less than significant. a)iv)v) No Impact. The proposed project would involve demolition an existing two-story apartment building and construction of townhouse units. The site is surrounded by residential uses. The proposed project would not impact any existing parks or other public facilities and would not increase demand for parks or other public facilities due to the minimal increase of two residential units. Therefore, there would be no impacts to parks or other public facilities. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 53 December 2017 Reference Central County Fire Department. 2017. ”Fire Stations.” Accessed August 21, 2017 . http://www.ccfdonline.org/about-ccfd/fire-stations/. 2.15 Recreation Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion a, b) No Impact. The proposed project would demolish a two-story residential building and construct a new three-story residential building. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase demand for existing recreational facilities due to the minimal increase in population from the addition of two units. The project would not require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in no impact to existing recreational facilities. 2.16 Transportation / Traffic Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 54 December 2017 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? This analysis is based on Dudek’s assessment of the existing vicinity roadway network capacity and current traffic conditions, and the project’s net new trip generation to determine the proposed project’s impact on vicinity transportation systems. The proposed project site is located at 1431 El Camino Real in the City of Burlingame. The proposed project would include demolition of an existing four-unit (two-story) apartment complex and construction of new six-unit (three-story) residential townhouse development. The proposed project would have six townhouse units that would be two bedrooms each, built side- by-side with a ground-level parking garage that would accommodate two parking spaces provided in the form of mechanical auto lifts (parking lifts). The entrance to each of the six townhouse units would be on the north-facing (driveway) side of the project site. Access to the project site (a driveway to be located along the north-facing side of the building) would be via El Camino Real (SR-82). The project site is located just southwest of the one-way- stop-controlled intersection of El Camino Real/ Mills Avenue. El Camino Real (SR-82) is a north/south arterial roadway in the City and a part of the California State Highway System. El Camino Real, south of Ray Drive near the project site, is a four-lane undivided roadway with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. On-street parking is not permitted along El Camino Real. There is a raised sidewalk along the roadway, and there is no bike route or lane along the roadway. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 55 December 2017 The City of Burlingame does not have an adopted level of service (LOS) standard; however, a standard of LOS D or better typically has been applied in traffic studies performed within the City. As the Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo County, the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is responsible for establishing applicable operational standards and for maintaining performance of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway network. The LOS standards established for San Mateo County vary by roadway segment, as C/CAG intends to use the CMP process to prevent future congestion levels from getting worse than currently anticipated. El Camino Real is an arterial roadway in the City and is included in the San Mateo C/CAG CMP network. On El Camino Real (SR-82), the LOS standard is LOS E. For intersections along El Camino Real, the standard is LOS E, consistent with the roadway segment standards (C/CAG 2015). Based on the City of Burlingame Draft General Plan Outline, Existing Conditions Report, the average daily traffic volumes along the roadway segment of El Camino Real between Millbrae Avenue and Broadway is approximately 20,900 (City of Burlingame 2016). This roadway segment of El Camino Real carries a relatively low volume of daily traffic in the City when compared to other segments in San Mateo County. Per the San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Program, the roadway segment of El Camino Real in the vicinity of the project site (from Trousdale Drive to 3rd Avenue) operates at LOS A during both AM and PM peak hours (C/CAG 2015). Discussion a) No Impact. As shown in Table 6, the proposed project would generate a very low volume of net new daily and peak-hour trips. Therefore, a level of service analysis of roadway segments and intersections is not warranted. Based on expected trip generation rates for the project, there would be no impact associated with an increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Project Trip Generation Table 6 provides a summary of trip generation for the project based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (ITE 2012). The trip generation for the project was estimated by calculating the difference in trips generated by the existing four apartment units and the proposed six townhouse units. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ trip generation rates, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately eight net new daily trips, with one new trip in the AM peak hour and one new trip in the PM peak hour. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 56 December 2017 Table 6 Trip Generation Summary Trip Generation Rates Land Use Daily Trip Rate Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Percent In Percent Out Total Percent In Percent Out Residential Condominium/Townhouse 5.81 DU 8% 17% 83% 9.0% 67% 33% Apartment 6.65 DU 8% 20% 80% 9.0% 65% 35% Trip Generation Land Use Total No. of Units Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Residential Condominium/Townhouse (Proposed) 6 DU 35 3 1 2 3 2 1 Apartment (Existing) 4 DU 27 2 0 2 2 1 1 Net Increase = (Proposed – Existing) 8 1 1 0 1 1 0 Source: ITE 2012 DU = dwelling unit b) No Impact. The passage of Proposition 111 in June 1990 established a process for each metropolitan county in California that has an urbanized area with a population of more than 50,000 to prepare a CMP. As the Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo County, C/CAG is responsible for maintaining the performance and standards of the CMP roadway network. The CMP legislation stipulates that the CMP’s LOS standards can be set at any level of service: A through F. However, only roadway segments or intersections currently operating at LOS F may have an LOS F standard set for them. On El Camino Real (SR-82) in the project area, the standard for roadway segments and intersections is LOS E. For large development projects, local jurisdictions would need to notify C/CAG at the beginning of the CEQA process of all development applications or land use policy changes that are expected to generate a net (i.e., project trip generation after subtracting existing on-site uses that are currently active) 100 or more peak-period trips on the CMP network within 10 days of completion of the initial study prepared under CEQA. Since the proposed project would generate only one trip during the AM peak hour and one trip during the PM peak hour, it is not subject to a CMP analysis, per criteria established by C/CAG (C/CAG 2015). For smaller or cumulative projects, local jurisdictions need to inform C/CAG of all development proposals or land use changes that would replace or add to current or projected 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 57 December 2017 levels of development. This process updates the land use database used by the Travel Forecasting Model every 2 years, and its results are reported to C/CAG and local jurisdictions in San Mateo County. This cumulative analysis may be used to determine existing LOS on the CMP network or to project future LOS. The results of the analysis alert local jurisdictions about where the amount of congestion is approaching the LOS standard. Since the proposed project would not generate a significant number of peak-hour trips, it would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, an LOS standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. No impact would occur. c) No Impact. The San Francisco International Airport is located just outside the City limits within unincorporated San Mateo County. The project site is located in the influence area of the San Francisco International Airport (San Mateo County 2015). The maximum height proposed by the project is 35 feet, and it would not emit light, glare, or smoke that would disrupt aviation. Further, the project is not anticipated to result in any change in, or impact to, air traffic patterns. No impact would occur. d) No Impact. Access to the proposed project would be via El Camino Real (SR-82). The project’s existing driveway would be removed from the south-facing side of the site and would be constructed along the north-facing side of the project site to provide access to all the units. This would involve curb cuts and require an encroachment permit from Caltrans, since the project would be accessed via a state highway facility. Appropriate traffic control and pedestrian safety requirements would be included as standard conditions in the Caltrans encroachment permit to ensure that safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular movement along El Camino Real is maintained during construction. The project would not increase hazards due to design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses. No impact would occur. e) No Impact. Per standard City practice, the Central County Fire Department would review the project plans prior to the issuance of permits to ensure compliance with the applicable fire and building code regulations regarding emergency access. This would ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are incorporated into the project. No impact would occur. f) No Impact. The City’s Municipal Code, Zoning (Section 25.70.032), requires two off- street parking spaces for each dwelling unit containing two bedrooms or two potential bedrooms (City of Burlingame 2015). Eighty percent of the total required parking spaces need to be covered or within a garage or carport. The project proposes to build six two- 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 58 December 2017 bedroom townhouse units, and, therefore, would be required to provide 12 on-site parking spaces. The proposed project would provide 12 on-site parking spaces in the form of mechanical, stacked auto lifts (parking lifts). Each unit would be provided with one stacker with a two-car capacity. A parking variance would be required for the use of mechanical parking lifts to provide the required parking spaces. Buildings that contain five to 15 units require two on-site guest parking spaces. These guest parking spots would be located in the right rear corner of the property. Additionally, one space for delivery vehicles/on-site service vehicles would be provided for the proposed project site in the rear yard, adjacent to the two guest parking spots. The quantity of proposed on-site parking supply would comply with zoning ordinance requirements; therefore, the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. No impact would occur. g) No Impact. The project access would be via El Camino Real (SR-82), which is a four- lane undivided arterial roadway in the City of Burlingame and part of the California State Highway System. The City of Burlingame Draft General Plan Outline states the Mobility Study-Area-Specific Policy for El Camino Real (SR-82): to coordinate with Caltrans and the Grand Boulevard Initiative partners to achieve multi-modal safety and mobility improvements (City of Burlingame 2016). Transit. Bus service by SamTrans (part of the San Mateo County Transit District) is available near the project site and provides service throughout San Mateo County. A northbound bus stop is located on the east side El Camino Real, approximately 350 feet south of the project site. A southbound bus stop is located on the west side of El Camino Real, approximately 530 feet south of the project site. Currently, Bus Route 397 and Bus Route ECR provide service along El Camino Real. The Millbrae Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)/Caltrain station and Broadway station are located on California Drive and provide rail transit access near the project site. Bicycle. El Camino Real, near the project site, does not have bicycle lanes. Per the City of Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan, El Camino Real is not designated as a bicycle route. The nearest bicycle lane to the project site is along California Drive, approximately 1,000 feet from the project site (City of Burlingame 2004). Pedestrian. A sidewalk is provided along the east of the project frontage along El Camino Real (SR-82). An encroachment permit from Caltrans would be required for work in the state highway right-of-way that would include the proposed relocation of a driveway, resulting in curb cut and sidewalk improvements. The Caltrans encroachment permit would include standard conditions requiring appropriate traffic control and 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 59 December 2017 pedestrian safety measures during project construction to maintain safe and adequate pedestrian movement along El Camino Real. The proposed project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation such as public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. No impact would occur. References C/CAG (San Mateo City/County Association of Governments). 2015. Final San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2015. November 2015. http://ccag.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2016/02/2015-CMP_Final_rev.pdf. City of Burlingame. 2004. City of Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan. As approved by Burlingame City Council Resolution No. 91-2004. October 18, 2004. https://www.burlingame.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=156. City of Burlingame. 2015. Municipal Code, Title 25 Zoning, Chapter 25.70, Off-Street Parking. Accessed August 2017. http://qcode.us/codes/burlingame/. City of Burlingame. 2016. Chapter 4, Mobility, in Draft General Plan Outline City of Burlingame Existing Conditions Report 2015. October 2016.Accessed August, 2017. http://www.envisionburlingame.org/files/managed/Document/242/Draft_GP_OUTLINE %20CAC%20Review%20Draft%20%2810-14-16%29.pdf. ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2012. Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition . November 16, 2012. San Mateo County. 2015. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, Final, November 2012. Accessed August, 2017. http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_ November-20121.pdf. 2.17 Utilities And Service Systems Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 60 December 2017 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion a, b, e) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is served by existing utility systems. Water and sanitary sewer would be controlled by the City. The proposed use would not result in a significant increase in demand for water or wastewater services above what is currently being used. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. The existing condition of the site is predominantly impervious surfaces. The reconstruction/replacement of impervious surfaces in the area would not result in a significant increase of stormwater runoff. The proposed project would not significantly increase the amount of impervious paved area on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly increase demand for stormwater drainage facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase on water demand over previous uses at the site. Water is provided to the site by the City water system, administered by the City of Burlingame Public Works 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 61 December 2017 Department. The City of Burlingame has water supplied by the San Francisco Regional Water System, which is owned and operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission supplied an average of 205 million gallons per day of water to serve 2.6 million people in the Bay Area in 2016 (City of Burlingame 2016). The proposed project’s water increase would be the addition of two townhouse units (from four to six units). This would not result in a significant increase in water usage for the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have significant impacts on water supplies based on existing resources and entitlements. The impact would be less than significant. f, g) Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste service is provided to the project site by Recology of San Mateo County (Recology 2017). Waste generated at the site would be transported by Recology to the Ox Mountain Landfill for disposal (Republic Services 2017). Demolition and construction waste would include typical materials such as plaster, drywall sheeting, scrap wood and metal, and concrete. Operational waste would be moderate in volume and consist of the typical waste associated with a six-unit residential building. Ox Mountain Landfill, the landfill used for final disposal of the material generated by the City of Burlingame, has several years of capacity left at current disposal rates, plus it is possible for the landfill to be expanded into adjacent areas to allow for further capacity (Recology 2017). Therefore, impacts on the City’s solid waste capacity due to implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. References City of Burlingame. 2016. Burlingame 2016 Water Quality Report. Accessed August 21, 2017. https://www.burlingame.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=14292. Recology. 2017. San Mateo County. Accessed August 21, 2017. https://www.recology.com/ recology-san-mateo-county/. Republic Services. 2017. Accessed August 21, 2017. https://www.republicservices.com/. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 62 December 2017 2.18 Mandatory Findings Of Significance Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a) No Impact. The project site is fully developed as an existing four-unit (two-story) apartment building a nd detached five-car garage structure in an urban area. The site is not expected to support any candidate or special-status species or species identified for protection in local, regional, or national wildlife plans or policies or associated habitat for such species; thus, the project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if any proje ct-specific effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. No project-specific significant effects specific to the project or its 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 63 December 2017 site were identified that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures proposed in this document would mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative impacts. All other impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts from noise. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 64 December 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Milpitas San Jose Mountain View Palo Alto Campbell San Ramon BlackhawkDanville Moraga Town AlamoOrinda Lafayette Walnut Creek Clayton Brentwood Pleasant Hill OakleyConcord Aptos Hills-Larkin Valley Interlaken Santa Cruz Soquel Aptos Corralitos Felton Day Valley Scotts Valley Ben Lomond Boulder Creek Morgan Hill Lexington Hills San Jose Los Gatos Saratoga Cupertino Los Altos Hills Los Altos Santa ClaraSunnyvale Portola Valley Woodside Atherton San CarlosHalf Moon Bay Menlo Park BelmontEl Granada Redwood City Montara Hillsborough San Mateo Foster City Burlingame San Bruno Pacifica South San Francisco San Francisco Newark Fremont Union City Hayward PleasantonFairview Livermore DublinSan Leandro Castro Valley Alameda Oakland Berkeley Antioch Vine Hill Richmond Martinez Pittsburg West Pittsburg Pinole Rodeo Hercules Mill Valley San Rafael Lagunitas-Forest Knolls Lucas Valley- Marinwood Inverness Novato Benicia Vallejo Fairfield American Canyon Petaluma Santa CruzCountySan MateoCounty San Francisco County MarinCounty Contra Costa C o u nty Marin County Sonoma Coun t y Sacramento County Santa Cl a r a C o u n t y Santa Cr u z C o u n t y Santa Clara County Santa CruzCounty San Mateo County Alameda County Alameda County P a c i f i c O c e a n ?35 ?82 ?24 ?131 ?85 ?29 ?113 ?123 ?13 ?61 ?185 ?152 ?237 ?37 ?116 ?160 ?17 ?130 ?121 ?9 ?12 ?84 ?92 ?4 ?1 £¤101 §¨¦80 §¨¦238 §¨¦680 §¨¦280 §¨¦580 §¨¦880 Regional Map 1431 El Camino Real Project SOURCE: Esri Basemaps Date: 7/17/2017 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1039001\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Figure1_Regional.mxd0 105Milesn FIGURE 1 Project Site !^ 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 66 December 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ?82 £¤101 §¨¦280 Vicinity Map 1431 El Camino Real Project SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series San Mateo QuadrangleTownship 4S; Range 5W; Section 14 Date: 7/17/2017 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1039001\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Figure2_Vicinity.mxd0 2,0001,000 Feetn Project Boundary FIGURE 2 Project Site 1431 El Camino Real Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 68 December 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX A CalEEMod Calculations Page 1 of 25CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1Date: 9/5/2017 4:00 PM1431 El Camino Real - Proposed Project - San Mateo County, Annual1431 El Camino Real - Proposed ProjectSan Mateo County, Annual1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand UsesSizeMetricLot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationCondo/Townhouse6.00Dwelling Unit0.116,584.0017Parking Lot3.021000sqft0.073,023.0001.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)70Climate Zone5Operational Year2020Utility CompanyPacific Gas & Electric CompanyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)499.66CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.029N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.006Architectural Coating - DefaultVehicle Trips - DefaultWoodstoves - Assumed all condo/townhomes would have a gas fireplaceArea Coating - Default1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - PG&E CO2 Intensity Adjusted based on 33% RPS by 2020Land Use - Proposed: 6 condo/townhomes and ~3 ksf of paved driveway/parkingConstruction Phase - Estimated construction durations provided by architectOff-road Equipment - DefaultTrips and VMT - DefaultEnergy Use - Default energy use Page 2 of 25Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mitigation: compliance with BAAQMD basic dust controlsTable NameColumn NameDefault ValueNew ValueEnergy Mitigation - Exceed 2013 Title 24 by 28% for residences to approximate 2016 Title 24 complianceWater Mitigation - 20% indoor/outdoor reduction in water assumed for CALGreen compliancetblConstDustMitigationWaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed4015tblConstructionPhaseNumDays10.0021.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays1.0023.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays2.0021.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays100.00261.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays5.0044.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays5.0066.00tblFireplacesNumberGas0.906.00tblFireplacesNumberNoFireplace0.240.00tblFireplacesNumberWood1.020.00tblLandUseBuildingSpaceSquareFeet6,000.006,584.00tblLandUseLandUseSquareFeet6,000.006,584.00tblLandUseLotAcreage0.380.11tblProjectCharacteristicsCO2IntensityFactor641.35499.66tblProjectCharacteristicsOperationalYear20182020tblWoodstovesNumberCatalytic0.120.00tblWoodstovesNumberNoncatalytic0.120.00Demolition - Debris tonnage based on CalEEMod factor of 0.046 tons/sf for buildings and CalRecycle factor of 2,400 lbs asphalt debris/yd3 Page 3 of 25Exhaust PM10PM10 Total2.0 Emissions Summary2.1 Overall ConstructionNBio- CO2 Total CO2Unmitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10CH4 N2O CO2eYeartons/yrMT/yrFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO22018 0.1051 1.0475 0.7407 1.1900e-0030.0223 0.0644 0.0867 6.9400e-0030.0597 0.0667 0.0000 108.0315 108.0315 0.0291 0.0000 108.75852019 0.1391 0.8815 0.7291 1.1600e-0036.8700e-0030.0534 0.0603 1.8400e-0030.0496 0.0514 0.0000 103.2641 103.2641 0.0280 0.0000 103.9652Maximum 0.1391 1.0475 0.7407 1.1900e-0030.0291 0.0000 108.75850.0223 0.0644 0.0867 6.9400e-0030.0597 0.0667SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 108.0315 108.0315PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated ConstructionROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eYeartons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.52018 0.1051 1.0475 0.7407 1.1900e-0030.0132 0.0644 0.0777 3.9800e-0030.0597 0.0637 0.0000 108.0314 108.0314 0.0291 0.0000 108.75842019 0.1391 0.8815 0.7291 1.1600e-0036.8700e-0030.0534 0.0603 1.8400e-0030.0496 0.0514 0.0000 103.2640 103.2640 0.0280 0.0000 103.9651Maximum 0.1391 1.0475 0.7407 1.1900e-0030.0132 0.0644 0.0777 3.9800e-0030.0597 0.0637 0.0000 108.0314 108.0314 0.0291 0.0000 108.7584ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.08 0.00 6.18 33.710.00 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00QuarterStart DateEnd Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)14-1-20186-30-20180.34740.347427-1-20189-30-20180.40370.4037310-1-2018 12-31-20180.40400.404041-1-20193-31-20190.35180.351854-1-20196-30-20190.66120.66120.0083Highest0.66120.661267-1-20199-30-20190.0083 Page 4 of 25SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO22.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.0321 1.1600e-0030.0450 1.0000e-0053.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0040.0000 0.8219 0.8219 9.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.8281Energy 9.1000e-0047.7600e-0033.3000e-0035.0000e-0056.3000e-0046.3000e-0046.3000e-0046.3000e-0040.0000 16.8531 16.8531 6.3000e-0042.6000e-00416.9460Mobile 0.0106 0.0344 0.1187 3.4000e-0040.0290 4.6000e-0040.0295 7.8000e-0034.3000e-0048.2400e-0030.0000 31.4012 31.4012 1.2600e-0030.0000 31.4328Waste0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.5603 0.0000 0.5603 0.0331 0.0000 1.3880Water0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.1240 0.6749 0.7989 0.0128 3.1000e-0041.2104Total 0.0435 0.0434 0.1670 4.0000e-0040.0479 5.8000e-00451.80540.0290 1.3900e-0030.0304 7.8000e-0031.3600e-0039.1700e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.6843 49.7511 50.4354PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.0321 1.1600e-0030.0450 1.0000e-0053.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0040.0000 0.8219 0.8219 9.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.8281Energy 6.8000e-0045.7900e-0032.4600e-0034.0000e-0054.7000e-0044.7000e-0044.7000e-0044.7000e-0040.0000 14.4834 14.4834 5.8000e-0042.2000e-00414.5624Mobile 0.0106 0.0344 0.1187 3.4000e-0040.0290 4.6000e-0040.0295 7.8000e-0034.3000e-0048.2400e-0030.0000 31.4012 31.4012 1.2600e-0030.0000 31.4328Waste0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.5603 0.0000 0.5603 0.0331 0.0000 1.3880Water0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0992 0.5399 0.6392 0.0102 2.5000e-0040.9683Total 0.0433 0.0414 0.1662 3.9000e-0040.0290 1.2300e-0030.0303 7.8000e-0031.2000e-0039.0100e-0030.6595 47.2464 47.9059 0.0453 4.8000e-00449.1796ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.53 4.54 0.50 2.50 0.00 11.51 0.53 0.0011.76 1.74 3.62 5.03 5.02 5.45 17.24 5.07 Page 5 of 253.0 Construction DetailConstruction PhasePhase NumberPhase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days WeekNum Days Phase Description1 Demolition Demolition 4/1/2018 4/30/2018 5 212 Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/1/2018 5/31/2018 5 233 Grading Grading 6/1/2018 6/30/2018 5 214 Building Construction Building Construction 7/1/2018 7/1/2019 5 2615 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/1/2019 7/1/2019 5 666 Paving Paving 5/1/2019 7/1/2019 5 44Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 11.5Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0Acres of Paving: 0.07Residential Indoor: 13,333; Residential Outdoor: 4,444; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: OffRoad EquipmentPhase NameOffroad Equipment TypeAmount Usage Hours Horse Power Load FactorArchitectural CoatingAir Compressors16.00780.48PavingCement and Mortar Mixers46.0090.56DemolitionConcrete/Industrial Saws18.00810.73GradingConcrete/Industrial Saws18.00810.73Building ConstructionCranes14.002310.29Building ConstructionForklifts26.00890.20Site PreparationGraders18.001870.41PavingPavers17.001300.42PavingRollers17.00800.38DemolitionRubber Tired Dozers11.002470.40GradingRubber Tired Dozers11.002470.40Building ConstructionTractors/Loaders/Backhoes28.00970.37 Page 6 of 25DemolitionTractors/Loaders/Backhoes26.00970.37GradingTractors/Loaders/Backhoes26.00970.37PavingTractors/Loaders/Backhoes17.00970.37Site PreparationTractors/Loaders/Backhoes18.00970.37Trips and VMTPhase Name Offroad Equipment CountWorker Trip NumberVendor Trip NumberHauling Trip NumberWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip LengthHauling Trip LengthWorker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassHauling Vehicle ClassArchitectural Coating1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction5 6.00 1.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTDemolition4 10.00 0.00 23.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTGrading4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTPaving7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTSite Preparation2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDT3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionWater Exposed AreaReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved RoadsClean Paved Roads3.2 Demolition - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrFugitive Dust2.4900e-0030.0000 2.4900e-0033.8000e-0040.0000 3.8000e-0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0112 0.0990 0.0817 1.3000e-0046.5400e-0036.5400e-0036.2400e-0036.2400e-0030.0000 11.1386 11.1386 2.1500e-0030.0000 11.1923Total 0.0112 0.0990 0.0817 1.3000e-0042.4900e-0036.5400e-0039.0300e-0033.8000e-0046.2400e-0036.6200e-0030.0000 11.1386 11.1386 2.1500e-0030.0000 11.1923 Page 7 of 25Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrHauling 1.2000e-0044.2400e-0031.5400e-0031.0000e-0051.9000e-0042.0000e-0052.1000e-0045.0000e-0052.0000e-0057.0000e-0050.0000 0.9885 0.9885 1.2000e-0040.0000 0.9914Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 3.4000e-0042.5000e-0042.5200e-0031.0000e-0058.3000e-0041.0000e-0058.3000e-0042.2000e-0040.0000 2.2000e-0040.0000 0.7337 0.7337 2.0000e-0050.0000 0.7342Total 4.6000e-0044.4900e-0034.0600e-0032.0000e-0051.4000e-0040.0000 1.72561.0200e-0033.0000e-0051.0400e-0032.7000e-0042.0000e-0052.9000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1.7222 1.7222PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust1.1200e-0030.0000 1.1200e-0031.7000e-0040.0000 1.7000e-0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0112 0.0990 0.0817 1.3000e-0046.5400e-0036.5400e-0036.2400e-0036.2400e-0030.0000 11.1386 11.1386 2.1500e-0030.0000 11.1922Total 0.0112 0.0990 0.0817 1.3000e-0042.1500e-0030.0000 11.19221.1200e-0036.5400e-0037.6600e-0031.7000e-0046.2400e-0036.4100e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 11.1386 11.1386PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5 Page 8 of 25Categorytons/yrMT/yrHauling 1.2000e-0044.2400e-0031.5400e-0031.0000e-0051.9000e-0042.0000e-0052.1000e-0045.0000e-0052.0000e-0057.0000e-0050.0000 0.9885 0.9885 1.2000e-0040.0000 0.9914Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 3.4000e-0042.5000e-0042.5200e-0031.0000e-0058.3000e-0041.0000e-0058.3000e-0042.2000e-0040.0000 2.2000e-0040.0000 0.7337 0.7337 2.0000e-0050.0000 0.7342Total 4.6000e-0044.4900e-0034.0600e-0032.0000e-0051.4000e-0040.0000 1.72561.0200e-0033.0000e-0051.0400e-0032.7000e-0042.0000e-0052.9000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1.7222 1.7222PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.3 Site Preparation - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust6.1000e-0030.0000 6.1000e-0036.6000e-0040.0000 6.6000e-0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 9.0400e-0030.1122 0.0489 1.1000e-0044.8100e-0034.8100e-0034.4200e-0034.4200e-0030.0000 10.2523 10.2523 3.1900e-0030.0000 10.3321Total 9.0400e-0030.1122 0.0489 1.1000e-0043.1900e-0030.0000 10.33216.1000e-0034.8100e-0030.0109 6.6000e-0044.4200e-0035.0800e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 10.2523 10.2523PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.9000e-0041.4000e-0041.3800e-0030.0000 4.5000e-0040.0000 4.6000e-0041.2000e-0040.0000 1.2000e-0040.0000 0.4018 0.4018 1.0000e-0050.0000 0.4020 Page 9 of 25Total 1.9000e-0041.4000e-0041.3800e-0030.00001.0000e-0050.0000 0.40204.5000e-0040.0000 4.6000e-0041.2000e-0040.0000 1.2000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.4018 0.4018PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust2.7400e-0030.0000 2.7400e-0033.0000e-0040.0000 3.0000e-0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 9.0400e-0030.1122 0.0489 1.1000e-0044.8100e-0034.8100e-0034.4200e-0034.4200e-0030.0000 10.2523 10.2523 3.1900e-0030.0000 10.3320Total 9.0400e-0030.1122 0.0489 1.1000e-0043.1900e-0030.0000 10.33202.7400e-0034.8100e-0037.5500e-0033.0000e-0044.4200e-0034.7200e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 10.2523 10.2523PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.9000e-0041.4000e-0041.3800e-0030.0000 4.5000e-0040.0000 4.6000e-0041.2000e-0040.0000 1.2000e-0040.0000 0.4018 0.4018 1.0000e-0050.0000 0.4020Total 1.9000e-0041.4000e-0041.3800e-0030.00001.0000e-0050.0000 0.40204.5000e-0040.0000 4.6000e-0041.2000e-0040.0000 1.2000e-0040.0000 0.4018 0.40183.4 Grading - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-Site Page 10 of 25SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust7.9000e-0030.0000 7.9000e-0034.3400e-0030.0000 4.3400e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0112 0.0990 0.0817 1.3000e-0046.5400e-0036.5400e-0036.2400e-0036.2400e-0030.0000 11.1386 11.1386 2.1500e-0030.0000 11.1923Total 0.0112 0.0990 0.0817 1.3000e-0042.1500e-0030.0000 11.19237.9000e-0036.5400e-0030.0144 4.3400e-0036.2400e-0030.0106SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 11.1386 11.1386PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 3.4000e-0042.5000e-0042.5200e-0031.0000e-0058.3000e-0041.0000e-0058.3000e-0042.2000e-0040.0000 2.2000e-0040.0000 0.7337 0.7337 2.0000e-0050.0000 0.7342Total 3.4000e-0042.5000e-0042.5200e-0031.0000e-0052.0000e-0050.0000 0.73428.3000e-0041.0000e-0058.3000e-0042.2000e-0040.0000 2.2000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.7337 0.7337PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust3.5600e-0030.0000 3.5600e-0031.9600e-0030.0000 1.9600e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0112 0.0990 0.0817 1.3000e-0046.5400e-0036.5400e-0036.2400e-0036.2400e-0030.0000 11.1386 11.1386 2.1500e-0030.0000 11.1922 Page 11 of 25Total 0.0112 0.0990 0.0817 1.3000e-0042.1500e-0030.0000 11.19223.5600e-0036.5400e-0030.0101 1.9600e-0036.2400e-0038.2000e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 11.1386 11.1386PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 3.4000e-0042.5000e-0042.5200e-0031.0000e-0058.3000e-0041.0000e-0058.3000e-0042.2000e-0040.0000 2.2000e-0040.0000 0.7337 0.7337 2.0000e-0050.0000 0.7342Total 3.4000e-0042.5000e-0042.5200e-0031.0000e-0052.0000e-0050.0000 0.73428.3000e-0041.0000e-0058.3000e-0042.2000e-0040.0000 2.2000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.7337 0.7337PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.5 Building Construction - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0711 0.7226 0.5077 7.5000e-0040.0464 0.04640.0427 0.0427 0.0000 68.1276 68.1276 0.0212 0.0000 68.6579Total 0.0711 0.7226 0.5077 7.5000e-0040.0212 0.0000 68.65790.0464 0.04640.0427 0.0427 0.0000 68.1276 68.1276Unmitigated Construction Off-Site Page 12 of 25SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 3.5000e-0048.9000e-0033.3900e-0032.0000e-0054.3000e-0047.0000e-0055.0000e-0041.2000e-0047.0000e-0051.9000e-0040.0000 1.7705 1.7705 1.6000e-0040.0000 1.7745Worker 1.2800e-0039.3000e-0049.4300e-0033.0000e-0053.0900e-0032.0000e-0053.1100e-0038.2000e-0042.0000e-0058.4000e-0040.0000 2.7462 2.7462 6.0000e-0050.0000 2.7479Total 1.6300e-0039.8300e-0030.0128 5.0000e-0052.2000e-0040.0000 4.52233.5200e-0039.0000e-0053.6100e-0039.4000e-0049.0000e-0051.0300e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 4.5168 4.5168PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0711 0.7226 0.5077 7.5000e-0040.0464 0.04640.0427 0.0427 0.0000 68.1276 68.1276 0.0212 0.0000 68.6578Total 0.0711 0.7226 0.5077 7.5000e-0040.0212 0.0000 68.65780.0464 0.04640.0427 0.0427SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 68.1276 68.1276PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 3.5000e-0048.9000e-0033.3900e-0032.0000e-0054.3000e-0047.0000e-0055.0000e-0041.2000e-0047.0000e-0051.9000e-0040.0000 1.7705 1.7705 1.6000e-0040.0000 1.7745 Page 13 of 25Worker 1.2800e-0039.3000e-0049.4300e-0033.0000e-0053.0900e-0032.0000e-0053.1100e-0038.2000e-0042.0000e-0058.4000e-0040.0000 2.7462 2.7462 6.0000e-0050.0000 2.7479Total 1.6300e-0039.8300e-0030.0128 5.0000e-0052.2000e-0040.0000 4.52233.5200e-0039.0000e-0053.6100e-0039.4000e-0049.0000e-0051.0300e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 4.5168 4.5168PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.5 Building Construction - 2019Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0622 0.6384 0.4903 7.4000e-0040.0394 0.03940.0362 0.0362 0.0000 66.4953 66.4953 0.0210 0.0000 67.0213Total 0.0622 0.6384 0.4903 7.4000e-0040.0210 0.0000 67.02130.0394 0.03940.0362 0.0362SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 66.4953 66.4953PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 3.1000e-0048.3000e-0033.1900e-0032.0000e-0054.2000e-0046.0000e-0054.8000e-0041.2000e-0045.0000e-0051.8000e-0040.0000 1.7388 1.7388 1.5000e-0040.0000 1.7426Worker 1.1500e-0038.1000e-0048.3700e-0033.0000e-0053.0700e-0032.0000e-0053.0900e-0038.2000e-0042.0000e-0058.4000e-0040.0000 2.6404 2.6404 6.0000e-0050.0000 2.6418Total 1.4600e-0039.1100e-0030.0116 5.0000e-0052.1000e-0040.0000 4.38453.4900e-0038.0000e-0053.5700e-0039.4000e-0047.0000e-0051.0200e-0030.0000 4.3792 4.3792Mitigated Construction On-Site Page 14 of 25SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0622 0.6383 0.4903 7.4000e-0040.0394 0.03940.0362 0.0362 0.0000 66.4952 66.4952 0.0210 0.0000 67.0212Total 0.0622 0.6383 0.4903 7.4000e-0040.0210 0.0000 67.02120.0394 0.03940.0362 0.0362SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 66.4952 66.4952PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 3.1000e-0048.3000e-0033.1900e-0032.0000e-0054.2000e-0046.0000e-0054.8000e-0041.2000e-0045.0000e-0051.8000e-0040.0000 1.7388 1.7388 1.5000e-0040.0000 1.7426Worker 1.1500e-0038.1000e-0048.3700e-0033.0000e-0053.0700e-0032.0000e-0053.0900e-0038.2000e-0042.0000e-0058.4000e-0040.0000 2.6404 2.6404 6.0000e-0050.0000 2.6418Total 1.4600e-0039.1100e-0030.0116 5.0000e-0052.1000e-0040.0000 4.38453.4900e-0038.0000e-0053.5700e-0039.4000e-0047.0000e-0051.0200e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 4.3792 4.3792PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.6 Architectural Coating - 2019Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 0.04700.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Page 15 of 25Off-Road 8.7900e-0030.0606 0.0608 1.0000e-0044.2500e-0034.2500e-0034.2500e-0034.2500e-0030.0000 8.4257 8.4257 7.1000e-0040.0000 8.4435Total 0.0558 0.0606 0.0608 1.0000e-0047.1000e-0040.0000 8.44354.2500e-0034.2500e-0034.2500e-0034.2500e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 8.4257 8.4257PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.0000e-0047.0000e-0057.1000e-0040.0000 2.6000e-0040.0000 2.6000e-0047.0000e-0050.0000 7.0000e-0050.0000 0.2234 0.2234 0.0000 0.0000 0.2235Total 1.0000e-0047.0000e-0057.1000e-0040.00000.0000 0.0000 0.22352.6000e-0040.0000 2.6000e-0047.0000e-0050.0000 7.0000e-005SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.2234 0.2234PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 0.04700.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 8.7900e-0030.0606 0.0608 1.0000e-0044.2500e-0034.2500e-0034.2500e-0034.2500e-0030.0000 8.4257 8.4257 7.1000e-0040.0000 8.4435Total 0.0558 0.0606 0.0608 1.0000e-0047.1000e-0040.0000 8.44354.2500e-0034.2500e-0034.2500e-0034.2500e-0030.0000 8.4257 8.4257Mitigated Construction Off-Site Page 16 of 25SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.0000e-0047.0000e-0057.1000e-0040.0000 2.6000e-0040.0000 2.6000e-0047.0000e-0050.0000 7.0000e-0050.0000 0.2234 0.2234 0.0000 0.0000 0.2235Total 1.0000e-0047.0000e-0057.1000e-0040.00000.0000 0.0000 0.22352.6000e-0040.0000 2.6000e-0047.0000e-0050.0000 7.0000e-005SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.2234 0.2234PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.7 Paving - 2019Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0183 0.1726 0.1573 2.5000e-0049.7400e-0039.7400e-0039.0300e-0039.0300e-0030.0000 21.0594 21.0594 6.0200e-0030.0000 21.2099Paving 9.0000e-0050.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0184 0.1726 0.1573 2.5000e-0046.0200e-0030.0000 21.20999.7400e-0039.7400e-0039.0300e-0039.0300e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 21.0594 21.0594PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Page 17 of 25Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.1700e-0038.2000e-0048.5000e-0033.0000e-0053.1200e-0032.0000e-0053.1400e-0038.3000e-0042.0000e-0058.5000e-0040.0000 2.6811 2.6811 6.0000e-0050.0000 2.6825Total 1.1700e-0038.2000e-0048.5000e-0033.0000e-0056.0000e-0050.0000 2.68253.1200e-0032.0000e-0053.1400e-0038.3000e-0042.0000e-0058.5000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 2.6811 2.6811PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0183 0.1726 0.1573 2.5000e-0049.7400e-0039.7400e-0039.0300e-0039.0300e-0030.0000 21.0594 21.0594 6.0200e-0030.0000 21.2099Paving 9.0000e-0050.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0184 0.1726 0.1573 2.5000e-0046.0200e-0030.0000 21.20999.7400e-0039.7400e-0039.0300e-0039.0300e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 21.0594 21.0594PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 1.1700e-0038.2000e-0048.5000e-0033.0000e-0053.1200e-0032.0000e-0053.1400e-0038.3000e-0042.0000e-0058.5000e-0040.0000 2.6811 2.6811 6.0000e-0050.0000 2.6825Total 1.1700e-0038.2000e-0048.5000e-0033.0000e-0056.0000e-0050.0000 2.68253.1200e-0032.0000e-0053.1400e-0038.3000e-0042.0000e-0058.5000e-0040.0000 2.6811 2.68114.0 Operational Detail - Mobile Page 18 of 25CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO24.1 Mitigation Measures MobileROG NOxNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.0106 0.0344 0.1187 3.4000e-0040.0290 4.6000e-0040.0295 7.8000e-0034.3000e-0048.2400e-0030.0000 31.4012 31.4012 1.2600e-0030.0000 31.4328Unmitigated 0.0106 0.0344 0.1187 3.4000e-0040.0290 4.6000e-0040.0295 7.8000e-0034.3000e-0048.2400e-0030.0000 31.4012 31.4012 1.2600e-0030.0000 31.43284.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip RateUnmitigatedMitigatedLand UseWeekday Saturday SundayAnnual VMTAnnual VMTCondo/Townhouse34.8634.02 29.0478,31578,315Parking Lot0.000.000.00Total34.8634.02 29.0478,31578,3154.3 Trip Type InformationMilesTrip %Trip Purpose %Land UseH-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-WH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byCondo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 04.4 Fleet MixLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHCondo/Townhouse 0.490452 0.049742 0.253638 0.136789 0.017926 0.006526 0.021436 0.006323 0.003943 0.003278 0.008771 0.000435 0.0007410.003278 0.008771Parking Lot0.490452 0.049742 0.253638 0.136789 0.0179260.000435 0.0007415.0 Energy Detail0.006526 0.021436 0.006323 0.003943 Page 19 of 25Historical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyExceed Title 24ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrElectricity Mitigated0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7795 7.7795 4.5000e-0049.0000e-0057.8186Electricity Unmitigated0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.8677 7.8677 4.6000e-0049.0000e-0057.9072NaturalGas Mitigated6.8000e-0045.7900e-0032.4600e-0034.0000e-0054.7000e-0044.7000e-0044.7000e-0044.7000e-0040.0000 6.7039 6.7039 1.3000e-0041.2000e-0046.7438NaturalGas Unmitigated9.1000e-0047.7600e-0033.3000e-0035.0000e-0051.7000e-0041.6000e-0049.03885.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas6.3000e-0046.3000e-0046.3000e-0046.3000e-0040.0000CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM108.9854 8.9854Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2UnmitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOxTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yrtons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Condo/Townhouse168380 9.1000e-0047.7600e-0033.3000e-0035.0000e-0056.3000e-0046.3000e-0046.3000e-0046.3000e-0040.0000 8.9854 8.9854 1.7000e-0041.6000e-0049.0388Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total9.1000e-0047.7600e-0033.3000e-0035.0000e-0056.3000e-0046.3000e-0046.3000e-0046.3000e-0040.0000 8.9854 8.9854 1.7000e-0041.6000e-0049.0388Mitigated Page 20 of 25NaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yrtons/yrMT/yrCondo/Townhouse125627 6.8000e-0045.7900e-0032.4600e-0034.0000e-0054.7000e-0044.7000e-0044.7000e-0044.7000e-0040.0000 6.7039 6.7039 1.3000e-0041.2000e-0046.7438Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total6.8000e-0045.7900e-0032.4600e-0034.0000e-0054.7000e-0044.7000e-0044.7000e-0044.7000e-0040.0000 6.7039 6.7039 1.3000e-0041.2000e-0046.74385.3 Energy by Land Use - ElectricityUnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kWh/yrtoMT/yrCondo/Townhouse32053.9 7.2648 4.2000e-0049.0000e-0057.3013Parking Lot 2660.24 0.6029 3.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.6060Total 7.8677 4.5000e-0041.0000e-0047.9072MitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kWh/yrtoMT/yrCondo/Townhouse31664.7 7.1766 4.2000e-0049.0000e-0057.2127Parking Lot 2660.24 0.6029 3.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.6060 Page 21 of 25NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Total 7.7795 4.5000e-0041.0000e-004Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO27.81866.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROGNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.0321 1.1600e-0030.0450 1.0000e-0053.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0040.0000 0.8219 0.8219 9.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.8281Unmitigated 0.0321 1.1600e-0030.0450 1.0000e-0059.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.82813.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.8219 0.8219PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO26.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating4.7000e-0030.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.02590.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hearth 8.0000e-0056.5000e-0042.8000e-0040.00005.0000e-0055.0000e-0055.0000e-0055.0000e-0050.0000 0.7490 0.7490 1.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.7535Landscaping 1.3600e-0035.2000e-0040.0447 0.00002.5000e-0042.5000e-0042.5000e-0042.5000e-0040.0000 0.0728 0.0728 7.0000e-0050.0000 0.0746Total 0.0321 1.1700e-0030.0450 0.00008.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.82813.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0040.0000 0.8219 0.8219 Page 22 of 25SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2MitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating4.7000e-0030.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.02590.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hearth 8.0000e-0056.5000e-0042.8000e-0040.00005.0000e-0055.0000e-0055.0000e-0055.0000e-0050.0000 0.7490 0.7490 1.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.7535Landscaping 1.3600e-0035.2000e-0040.0447 0.00002.5000e-0042.5000e-0042.5000e-0042.5000e-0040.0000 0.0728 0.0728 7.0000e-0050.0000 0.0746Total 0.0321 1.1700e-0030.0450 0.00003.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0043.0000e-0040.0000 0.8219 0.8219 8.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.82817.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterApply Water Conservation StrategyTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytoMT/yrMitigated 0.6392 0.0102 2.5000e-0040.9683Unmitigated 0.7989 0.0128 3.1000e-0041.21047.2 Water by Land Use Page 23 of 25UnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use MgaltoMT/yrCondo/Townhouse0.390924 / 0.2464520.7989 0.0128 3.1000e-0041.2104Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.7989 0.0128 3.1000e-0041.2104MitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use MgaltoMT/yrCondo/Townhouse0.312739 / 0.1971620.6392 0.0102 2.5000e-0040.9683Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.6392 0.0102 2.5000e-0040.96838.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/YearTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Page 24 of 25toMT/yr Mitigated 0.5603 0.0331 0.0000 1.3880 Unmitigated 0.5603 0.0331 0.0000 1.38808.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use tonstoMT/yrCondo/Townhouse2.76 0.5603 0.0331 0.0000 1.3880Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.5603 0.0331 0.0000 1.3880MitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use tonstoMT/yrCondo/Townhouse2.76 0.5603 0.0331 0.00000.0331 0.00001.3880Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.38809.0 Operational OffroadTotal0.5603 Page 25 of 25Equipment TypeNumberHours/DayDays/YearHorse Power Load Factor Fuel Type10.0 Stationary EquipmentFire Pumps and Emergency GeneratorsEquipment TypeNumberHours/DayHours/YearHorse Power Load Factor Fuel TypeBoilersEquipment TypeNumber Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeUser Defined EquipmentEquipment TypeNumber11.0 Vegetation Page 1 of 22CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1Date: 9/5/2017 4:01 PM1431 El Camino Real - Proposed Project - San Mateo County, Summer1431 El Camino Real - Proposed ProjectSan Mateo County, Summer1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand UsesSizeMetricLot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationCondo/Townhouse6.00Dwelling Unit0.116,584.0017Parking Lot3.021000sqft0.073,023.0001.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)70Climate Zone5Operational Year2020Utility CompanyPacific Gas & Electric CompanyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)499.66CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.029N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.0061.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - PG&E CO2 Intensity Adjusted based on 33% RPS by 2020Land Use - Proposed: 6 condo/townhomes and ~3 ksf of paved driveway/parkingConstruction Phase - Estimated construction durations provided by architectOff-road Equipment - DefaultTrips and VMT - DefaultArchitectural Coating - DefaultVehicle Trips - DefaultWoodstoves - Assumed all condo/townhomes would have a gas fireplaceArea Coating - DefaultEnergy Use - Default energy use Page 2 of 22Demolition - Debris tonnage based on CalEEMod factor of 0.046 tons/sf for buildings and CalRecycle factor of 2,400 lbs asphalt debris/yd3Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mitigation: compliance with BAAQMD basic dust controlsEnergy Mitigation - Exceed 2013 Title 24 by 28% for residences to approximate 2016 Title 24 complianceWater Mitigation - 20% indoor/outdoor reduction in water assumed for CALGreen complianceTable NameColumn NameDefault ValueNew ValuetblConstDustMitigationWaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed4015tblConstructionPhaseNumDays10.0021.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays1.0023.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays2.0021.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays100.00261.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays5.0044.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays5.0066.00tblFireplacesNumberGas0.906.00tblFireplacesNumberNoFireplace0.240.00tblFireplacesNumberWood1.020.00tblLandUseBuildingSpaceSquareFeet6,000.006,584.00tblLandUseLandUseSquareFeet6,000.006,584.00tblLandUseLotAcreage0.380.11tblProjectCharacteristicsCO2IntensityFactor641.35499.66tblProjectCharacteristicsOperationalYear20182020tblWoodstovesNumberCatalytic0.120.00tblWoodstovesNumberNoncatalytic0.120.00 Page 3 of 22Exhaust PM10PM10 Total2.0 Emissions Summary2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)NBio- CO2 Total CO2Unmitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10CH4 N2O CO2eYearlb/daylb/dayFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO22018 1.1098 11.1777 8.1738 0.0137 0.8349 0.7100 1.4582 0.4356 0.6533 1.0303 0.0000 1,355.34971,355.34970.3607 0.0000 1,361.33962019 3.5609 19.6722 17.1476 0.0279 0.2121 1.1788 1.3909 0.0564 1.0983 1.1547 0.0000 2,692.08092,692.08090.6890 0.0000 2,709.3047Maximum 3.5609 19.6722 17.1476 0.02790.6890 0.0000 2,709.30470.8349 1.1788 1.4582 0.4356 1.0983 1.1547SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 2,692.08092,692.0809PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated ConstructionROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eYearlb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.52018 1.1098 11.1777 8.1738 0.0137 0.4209 0.7100 1.0442 0.2080 0.6533 0.8028 0.0000 1,355.34971,355.34970.3607 0.0000 1,361.33962019 3.5609 19.6722 17.1476 0.0279 0.2121 1.1788 1.3909 0.0564 1.0983 1.1547 0.0000 2,692.08092,692.08090.6890 0.0000 2,709.3047Maximum 3.5609 19.6722 17.1476 0.0279 0.4209 1.1788 1.3909 0.2080 1.0983 1.1547 0.0000 2,692.08092,692.08090.6890 0.0000 2,709.3047ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.0039.54 0.00 14.53 46.26 0.00 10.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 4 of 22SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO22.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0040.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121 0.0000 149.1273 149.1273 3.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.0299Energy 4.9700e-0030.0425 0.0181 2.7000e-0043.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-00354.2724 54.2724 1.0400e-0039.9000e-00454.5949Mobile 0.0653 0.1845 0.6743 2.0400e-0030.1710 2.6000e-0030.1736 0.0458 2.4500e-0030.0483205.4915 205.4915 7.8800e-003205.6886Total 0.2667 0.3489 1.2388 3.0800e-0030.0126 3.7100e-003410.31340.1710 0.0182 0.1892 0.0458 0.0180 0.0638SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 408.8912 408.8912PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0040.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121 0.0000 149.1273 149.1273 3.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.0299Energy 3.7100e-0030.0317 0.0135 2.0000e-0042.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-00340.4921 40.4921 7.8000e-0047.4000e-00440.7328Mobile 0.0653 0.1845 0.6743 2.0400e-0030.1710 2.6000e-0030.1736 0.0458 2.4500e-0030.0483205.4915 205.4915 7.8800e-003205.6886Total 0.2654 0.3381 1.2342 3.0100e-0030.1710 0.0173 0.1883 0.0458 0.0171 0.0629 0.0000 395.1110 395.1110 0.0124 3.4600e-003396.4513ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.47 3.09 0.37 2.27 0.00 4.85 0.47 0.00 4.89 1.38 0.00 3.37 3.37 2.06 6.74 3.38 Page 5 of 223.0 Construction DetailConstruction PhasePhase NumberPhase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days WeekNum Days Phase Description1 Demolition Demolition 4/1/2018 4/30/2018 5 212 Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/1/2018 5/31/2018 5 233 Grading Grading 6/1/2018 6/30/2018 5 214 Building Construction Building Construction 7/1/2018 7/1/2019 5 2615 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/1/2019 7/1/2019 5 666 Paving Paving 5/1/2019 7/1/2019 5 44Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 11.5Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0Acres of Paving: 0.07Residential Indoor: 13,333; Residential Outdoor: 4,444; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: OffRoad EquipmentPhase NameOffroad Equipment TypeAmount Usage Hours Horse Power Load FactorArchitectural CoatingAir Compressors16.00780.48PavingCement and Mortar Mixers46.0090.56DemolitionConcrete/Industrial Saws18.00810.73GradingConcrete/Industrial Saws18.00810.73Building ConstructionCranes14.002310.29Building ConstructionForklifts26.00890.20Site PreparationGraders18.001870.41PavingPavers17.001300.42PavingRollers17.00800.38DemolitionRubber Tired Dozers11.002470.40GradingRubber Tired Dozers11.002470.40Building ConstructionTractors/Loaders/Backhoes28.00970.37DemolitionTractors/Loaders/Backhoes26.00970.37 Page 6 of 22GradingTractors/Loaders/Backhoes26.00970.37PavingTractors/Loaders/Backhoes17.00970.37Site PreparationTractors/Loaders/Backhoes18.00970.37Trips and VMTPhase Name Offroad Equipment CountWorker Trip NumberVendor Trip NumberHauling Trip NumberWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip LengthHauling Trip LengthWorker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassHauling Vehicle ClassArchitectural Coating1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction5 6.00 1.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTDemolition4 10.00 0.00 23.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTGrading4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTPaving7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTSite Preparation2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDT3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionWater Exposed AreaReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved RoadsClean Paved Roads3.2 Demolition - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayFugitive Dust0.2373 0.0000 0.2373 0.0359 0.0000 0.03590.00000.0000Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.6228 0.62280.5943 0.59431,169.35021,169.35020.22541,174.9857Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.0120 0.23730.6228 0.8601 0.0359 0.5943 0.63021,169.35021,169.35020.22541,174.9857 Page 7 of 22Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayHauling 0.0115 0.3943 0.1442 9.3000e-0040.0190 1.6500e-0030.0207 5.2000e-0031.5700e-0036.7800e-003104.2208 104.2208 0.0123104.5279Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0330 0.0209 0.2533 8.2000e-0040.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.022381.7786 81.7786 1.9000e-00381.8261Total 0.0445 0.4152 0.3975 1.7500e-0030.0142186.35400.1012 2.1600e-0030.1033 0.0270 2.0400e-0030.0290SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10185.9995 185.9995PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust0.1068 0.0000 0.1068 0.0162 0.0000 0.01620.00000.0000Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.6228 0.62280.5943 0.5943 0.0000 1,169.35021,169.35020.22541,174.9857Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.22541,174.98570.1068 0.6228 0.7296 0.0162 0.5943 0.6105SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1,169.35021,169.3502PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5 Page 8 of 22Categorylb/daylb/dayHauling 0.0115 0.3943 0.1442 9.3000e-0040.0190 1.6500e-0030.0207 5.2000e-0031.5700e-0036.7800e-003104.2208 104.2208 0.0123104.5279Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0330 0.0209 0.2533 8.2000e-0040.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.022381.7786 81.7786 1.9000e-00381.8261Total 0.0445 0.4152 0.3975 1.7500e-0030.0142186.35400.1012 2.1600e-0030.1033 0.0270 2.0400e-0030.0290SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10185.9995 185.9995PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.3 Site Preparation - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.05730.00000.0000Off-Road 0.7858 9.7572 4.2514 9.7600e-0030.4180 0.41800.3846 0.3846982.7113 982.7113 0.3059990.3596Total 0.7858 9.7572 4.2514 9.7600e-0030.3059990.35960.5303 0.4180 0.9483 0.0573 0.3846 0.4418SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10982.7113 982.7113PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0165 0.0105 0.1267 4.1000e-0040.0411 2.5000e-0040.0413 0.0109 2.3000e-0040.011140.8893 40.8893 9.5000e-00440.9130 Page 9 of 22Total 0.0165 0.0105 0.1267 4.1000e-0049.5000e-00440.91300.0411 2.5000e-0040.0413 0.0109 2.3000e-0040.0111SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1040.8893 40.8893PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.02580.00000.0000Off-Road 0.7858 9.7572 4.2514 9.7600e-0030.4180 0.41800.3846 0.3846 0.0000 982.7113 982.7113 0.3059990.3596Total 0.7858 9.7572 4.2514 9.7600e-0030.3059990.35960.2386 0.4180 0.6566 0.0258 0.3846 0.4103SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 982.7113 982.7113PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0165 0.0105 0.1267 4.1000e-0040.0411 2.5000e-0040.0413 0.0109 2.3000e-0040.011140.8893 40.8893 9.5000e-00440.9130Total 0.0165 0.0105 0.1267 4.1000e-0049.5000e-00440.91300.0411 2.5000e-0040.0413 0.0109 2.3000e-0040.011140.8893 40.88933.4 Grading - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-Site Page 10 of 22SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust0.7528 0.0000 0.7528 0.4138 0.0000 0.41380.00000.0000Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.6228 0.62280.5943 0.59431,169.35021,169.35020.22541,174.9857Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.22541,174.98570.7528 0.6228 1.3755 0.4138 0.5943 1.0081SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM101,169.35021,169.3502PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0330 0.0209 0.2533 8.2000e-0040.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.022381.7786 81.7786 1.9000e-00381.8261Total 0.0330 0.0209 0.2533 8.2000e-0041.9000e-00381.82610.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.0223SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1081.7786 81.7786PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust0.3387 0.0000 0.3387 0.1862 0.0000 0.18620.00000.0000Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.6228 0.62280.5943 0.5943 0.0000 1,169.35021,169.35020.22541,174.9857 Page 11 of 22Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.2254 1,174.98570.3387 0.6228 0.9615 0.1862 0.5943 0.7805SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1,169.35021,169.3502PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0330 0.0209 0.2533 8.2000e-0040.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.022381.7786 81.7786 1.9000e-00381.8261Total 0.0330 0.0209 0.2533 8.2000e-0041.9000e-00381.82610.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.0223SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1081.7786 81.7786PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.5 Building Construction - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.01140.7087 0.70870.6520 0.65201,146.53231,146.53230.35691,155.4555Total 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.01140.35691,155.45550.7087 0.70870.6520 0.65201,146.53231,146.5323Unmitigated Construction Off-Site Page 12 of 22SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 5.2200e-0030.1336 0.0495 2.7000e-0046.7500e-0031.0300e-0037.7800e-0031.9400e-0039.9000e-0042.9300e-00330.0111 30.0111 2.6200e-00330.0765Worker 0.0198 0.0125 0.1520 4.9000e-0040.0493 3.0000e-0040.0496 0.0131 2.8000e-0040.013449.0672 49.0672 1.1400e-00349.0956Total 0.0250 0.1461 0.2015 7.6000e-0043.7600e-00379.17210.0560 1.3300e-0030.0574 0.0150 1.2700e-0030.0163SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1079.0783 79.0783PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.01140.7087 0.70870.6520 0.6520 0.0000 1,146.53231,146.53230.35691,155.4555Total 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.01140.35691,155.45550.7087 0.70870.6520 0.6520SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1,146.53231,146.5323PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 5.2200e-0030.1336 0.0495 2.7000e-0046.7500e-0031.0300e-0037.7800e-0031.9400e-0039.9000e-0042.9300e-00330.0111 30.0111 2.6200e-00330.0765 Page 13 of 22Worker 0.0198 0.0125 0.1520 4.9000e-0040.0493 3.0000e-0040.0496 0.0131 2.8000e-0040.0134 49.0672 49.0672 1.1400e-00349.0956Total 0.0250 0.1461 0.2015 7.6000e-0043.7600e-00379.17210.0560 1.3300e-0030.0574 0.0150 1.2700e-0030.0163SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1079.0783 79.0783PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.5 Building Construction - 2019Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.01140.6054 0.60540.5569 0.55691,127.66961,127.66960.35681,136.5892Total 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.01140.35681,136.58920.6054 0.60540.5569 0.5569SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM101,127.66961,127.6696PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 4.6600e-0030.1256 0.0469 2.7000e-0046.7500e-0038.7000e-0047.6200e-0031.9400e-0038.4000e-0042.7800e-00329.7014 29.7014 2.5700e-00329.7657Worker 0.0179 0.0110 0.1364 4.8000e-0040.0493 3.0000e-0040.0496 0.0131 2.8000e-0040.013447.5391 47.5391 1.0100e-00347.5642Total 0.0226 0.1366 0.1834 7.5000e-0043.5800e-00377.33000.0560 1.1700e-0030.0572 0.0150 1.1200e-0030.016177.2405 77.2405Mitigated Construction On-Site Page 14 of 22SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.01140.6054 0.60540.5569 0.5569 0.0000 1,127.66961,127.66960.35681,136.5892Total 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.01140.35681,136.58920.6054 0.60540.5569 0.5569SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1,127.66961,127.6696PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 4.6600e-0030.1256 0.0469 2.7000e-0046.7500e-0038.7000e-0047.6200e-0031.9400e-0038.4000e-0042.7800e-00329.7014 29.7014 2.5700e-00329.7657Worker 0.0179 0.0110 0.1364 4.8000e-0040.0493 3.0000e-0040.0496 0.0131 2.8000e-0040.013447.5391 47.5391 1.0100e-00347.5642Total 0.0226 0.1366 0.1834 7.5000e-0043.5800e-00377.33000.0560 1.1700e-0030.0572 0.0150 1.1200e-0030.0161SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1077.2405 77.2405PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.6 Architectural Coating - 2019Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 1.42350.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000 Page 15 of 22Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-0030.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423Total 1.6900 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-0030.0238 282.04230.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10281.4481 281.4481PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 2.9800e-0031.8400e-0030.0227 8.0000e-0058.2100e-0035.0000e-0058.2700e-0032.1800e-0035.0000e-0052.2300e-0037.9232 7.9232 1.7000e-0047.9274Total 2.9800e-0031.8400e-0030.0227 8.0000e-0051.7000e-0047.92748.2100e-0035.0000e-0058.2700e-0032.1800e-0035.0000e-0052.2300e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM107.9232 7.9232PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 1.42350.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-0030.1288 0.12880.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238282.0423Total 1.6900 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-0030.0238282.04230.1288 0.12880.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481Mitigated Construction Off-Site Page 16 of 22SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 2.9800e-0031.8400e-0030.0227 8.0000e-0058.2100e-0035.0000e-0058.2700e-0032.1800e-0035.0000e-0052.2300e-0037.9232 7.9232 1.7000e-0047.9274Total 2.9800e-0031.8400e-0030.0227 8.0000e-0051.7000e-0047.92748.2100e-0035.0000e-0058.2700e-0032.1800e-0035.0000e-0052.2300e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM107.9232 7.9232PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.7 Paving - 2019Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.8300 7.8446 7.1478 0.01130.4425 0.44250.4106 0.41061,055.18231,055.18230.30161,062.7231Paving 4.1700e-0030.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Total 0.8341 7.8446 7.1478 0.01130.30161,062.72310.4425 0.44250.4106 0.4106SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM101,055.18231,055.1823PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 Page 17 of 22Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0537 0.0330 0.4093 1.4300e-0030.1479 9.1000e-0040.1488 0.0392 8.4000e-0040.0401142.6173 142.6173 3.0200e-003142.6927Total 0.0537 0.0330 0.4093 1.4300e-0033.0200e-003142.69270.1479 9.1000e-0040.1488 0.0392 8.4000e-0040.0401SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10142.6173 142.6173PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.8300 7.8446 7.1478 0.01130.4425 0.44250.4106 0.4106 0.0000 1,055.18231,055.18230.30161,062.7231Paving 4.1700e-0030.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Total 0.8341 7.8446 7.1478 0.01130.30161,062.72310.4425 0.44250.4106 0.4106SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1,055.18231,055.1823PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0537 0.0330 0.4093 1.4300e-0030.1479 9.1000e-0040.1488 0.0392 8.4000e-0040.0401142.6173 142.6173 3.0200e-003142.6927Total 0.0537 0.0330 0.4093 1.4300e-0033.0200e-003142.69270.1479 9.1000e-0040.1488 0.0392 8.4000e-0040.0401142.6173 142.61734.0 Operational Detail - Mobile Page 18 of 22CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO24.1 Mitigation Measures MobileROG NOxNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.0653 0.1845 0.6743 2.0400e-0030.1710 2.6000e-0030.1736 0.0458 2.4500e-0030.0483205.4915 205.4915 7.8800e-003205.6886Unmitigated 0.0653 0.1845 0.6743 2.0400e-0030.1710 2.6000e-0030.1736 0.0458 2.4500e-0030.0483205.4915 205.4915 7.8800e-003205.68864.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip RateUnmitigatedMitigatedLand UseWeekday Saturday SundayAnnual VMTAnnual VMTCondo/Townhouse34.8634.02 29.0478,31578,315Parking Lot0.000.000.00Total34.8634.02 29.0478,31578,3154.3 Trip Type InformationMilesTrip %Trip Purpose %Land UseH-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-WH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byCondo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 04.4 Fleet MixLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHCondo/Townhouse 0.490452 0.049742 0.253638 0.136789 0.017926 0.006526 0.021436 0.006323 0.003943 0.003278 0.008771 0.000435 0.0007410.003278 0.008771Parking Lot0.490452 0.049742 0.253638 0.136789 0.0179260.000435 0.0007415.0 Energy Detail0.006526 0.021436 0.006323 0.003943 Page 19 of 22Historical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyExceed Title 24ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayNaturalGas Mitigated3.7100e-0030.0317 0.0135 2.0000e-0042.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-00340.4921 40.4921 7.8000e-0047.4000e-00440.7328NaturalGas Unmitigated4.9700e-0030.0425 0.018154.2724 54.2724 1.0400e-0039.9000e-0042.7000e-0043.4400e-0033.4400e-003ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM103.4400e-0033.4400e-003PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO254.59495.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yrlb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10Condo/Townhouse461.315 4.9700e-0030.0425 0.0181 2.7000e-0043.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-00354.2724 54.2724 1.0400e-0039.9000e-00454.5949Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.00000.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total4.9700e-0030.0425 0.0181 2.7000e-00454.2724 1.0400e-0039.9000e-00454.59493.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-00354.2724Mitigated Page 20 of 22CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2NaturalGas UseROG NOxTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yrlb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Condo/Townhouse0.344183 3.7100e-0030.0317 0.0135 2.0000e-0042.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-00340.4921 40.4921 7.8000e-0047.4000e-00440.7328Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.00000.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total3.7100e-0030.0317 0.0135 2.0000e-0047.8000e-0047.4000e-00440.73282.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-003CO SO2 Fugitive PM1040.4921 40.4921Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO26.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOxNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0040.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121 0.0000 149.1273 149.1273 3.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.0299Unmitigated 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0043.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.02990.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 149.1273 149.1273PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO26.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5 Page 21 of 22SubCategorylb/daylb/dayArchitectural Coating0.02570.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Consumer Products0.14200.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Hearth 0.0136 0.1161 0.0494 7.4000e-0049.3900e-0039.3900e-0039.3900e-0039.3900e-0030.0000 148.2353 148.2353 2.8400e-0032.7200e-003149.1162Landscaping 0.0152 5.7500e-0030.4970 3.0000e-0052.7300e-0032.7300e-0032.7300e-0032.7300e-0030.8920 0.8920 8.7000e-0040.9138Total 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0043.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.02990.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 149.1273 149.1273PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2MitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating0.02570.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Consumer Products0.14200.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Hearth 0.0136 0.1161 0.0494 7.4000e-0049.3900e-0039.3900e-0039.3900e-0039.3900e-0030.0000 148.2353 148.2353 2.8400e-0032.7200e-003149.1162Landscaping 0.0152 5.7500e-0030.4970 3.0000e-0052.7300e-0032.7300e-0032.7300e-0032.7300e-0030.8920 0.8920 8.7000e-0040.9138Total 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0040.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121 0.0000 149.1273 149.1273 3.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.02997.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterApply Water Conservation Strategy8.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Page 22 of 229.0 Operational OffroadFuel TypeEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load FactorBoiler RatingFuel Type10.0 Stationary EquipmentFire Pumps and Emergency GeneratorsEquipment TypeNumberHours/DayHours/YearHorse Power Load FactorFuel TypeUser Defined EquipmentEquipment TypeNumber11.0 VegetationBoilersEquipment TypeNumber Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Page 1 of 22CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1Date: 9/5/2017 4:02 PM1431 El Camino Real - Proposed Project - San Mateo County, Winter1431 El Camino Real - Proposed ProjectSan Mateo County, Winter1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand UsesSizeMetricLot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationCondo/Townhouse6.00Dwelling Unit0.116,584.0017Parking Lot3.021000sqft0.073,023.0001.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)70Climate Zone5Operational Year2020Utility CompanyPacific Gas & Electric CompanyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)499.66CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.029N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.0061.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - PG&E CO2 Intensity Adjusted based on 33% RPS by 2020Land Use - Proposed: 6 condo/townhomes and ~3 ksf of paved driveway/parkingConstruction Phase - Estimated construction durations provided by architectOff-road Equipment - DefaultTrips and VMT - DefaultArchitectural Coating - DefaultVehicle Trips - DefaultWoodstoves - Assumed all condo/townhomes would have a gas fireplaceArea Coating - DefaultEnergy Use - Default energy use Page 2 of 22Demolition - Debris tonnage based on CalEEMod factor of 0.046 tons/sf for buildings and CalRecycle factor of 2,400 lbs asphalt debris/yd3Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mitigation: compliance with BAAQMD basic dust controlsEnergy Mitigation - Exceed 2013 Title 24 by 28% for residences to approximate 2016 Title 24 complianceWater Mitigation - 20% indoor/outdoor reduction in water assumed for CALGreen complianceTable NameColumn NameDefault ValueNew ValuetblConstDustMitigationWaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed4015tblConstructionPhaseNumDays10.0021.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays1.0023.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays2.0021.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays100.00261.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays5.0044.00tblConstructionPhaseNumDays5.0066.00tblFireplacesNumberGas0.906.00tblFireplacesNumberNoFireplace0.240.00tblFireplacesNumberWood1.020.00tblLandUseBuildingSpaceSquareFeet6,000.006,584.00tblLandUseLandUseSquareFeet6,000.006,584.00tblLandUseLotAcreage0.380.11tblProjectCharacteristicsCO2IntensityFactor641.35499.66tblProjectCharacteristicsOperationalYear20182020tblWoodstovesNumberCatalytic0.120.00tblWoodstovesNumberNoncatalytic0.120.00 Page 3 of 22Exhaust PM10PM10 Total2.0 Emissions Summary2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)NBio- CO2 Total CO2Unmitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10CH4 N2O CO2eYearlb/daylb/dayFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO22018 1.1127 11.1831 8.1738 0.0137 0.8349 0.7101 1.4582 0.4356 0.6533 1.0303 0.0000 1,349.23801,349.23800.3607 0.0000 1,355.22972019 3.5694 19.6851 17.1368 0.0277 0.2121 1.1788 1.3909 0.0564 1.0983 1.1547 0.0000 2,679.36032,679.36030.6888 0.0000 2,696.5816Maximum 3.5694 19.6851 17.1368 0.02770.6888 0.0000 2,696.58160.8349 1.1788 1.4582 0.4356 1.0983 1.1547SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 2,679.36032,679.3603PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated ConstructionROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eYearlb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.52018 1.1127 11.1831 8.1738 0.0137 0.4209 0.7101 1.0442 0.2080 0.6533 0.8028 0.0000 1,349.23801,349.23800.3607 0.0000 1,355.22972019 3.5694 19.6851 17.1368 0.0277 0.2121 1.1788 1.3909 0.0564 1.0983 1.1547 0.0000 2,679.36032,679.36030.6888 0.0000 2,696.5816Maximum 3.5694 19.6851 17.1368 0.0277 0.4209 1.1788 1.3909 0.2080 1.0983 1.1547 0.0000 2,679.36032,679.36030.6888 0.0000 2,696.5816ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.0039.54 0.00 14.53 46.26 0.00 10.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 4 of 22SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO22.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0040.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121 0.0000 149.1273 149.1273 3.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.0299Energy 4.9700e-0030.0425 0.0181 2.7000e-0043.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-00354.2724 54.2724 1.0400e-0039.9000e-00454.5949Mobile 0.0605 0.2007 0.7055 1.9400e-0030.1710 2.6100e-0030.1737 0.0458 2.4600e-0030.0483195.0153 195.0153 8.0400e-003195.2163Total 0.2619 0.3651 1.2700 2.9800e-0030.0128 3.7100e-003399.84110.1710 0.0182 0.1892 0.0458 0.0180 0.0638SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 398.4150 398.4150PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0040.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121 0.0000 149.1273 149.1273 3.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.0299Energy 3.7100e-0030.0317 0.0135 2.0000e-0042.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-00340.4921 40.4921 7.8000e-0047.4000e-00440.7328Mobile 0.0605 0.2007 0.7055 1.9400e-0030.1710 2.6100e-0030.1737 0.0458 2.4600e-0030.0483195.0153 195.0153 8.0400e-003195.2163Total 0.2607 0.3543 1.2654 2.9100e-0030.1710 0.0173 0.1883 0.0458 0.0171 0.0630 0.0000 384.6348 384.6348 0.0125 3.4600e-003385.9790ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.48 2.96 0.36 2.35 0.00 4.84 0.47 0.00 4.88 1.38 0.00 3.46 3.46 2.03 6.74 3.47 Page 5 of 223.0 Construction DetailConstruction PhasePhase NumberPhase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days WeekNum Days Phase Description1 Demolition Demolition 4/1/2018 4/30/2018 5 212 Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/1/2018 5/31/2018 5 233 Grading Grading 6/1/2018 6/30/2018 5 214 Building Construction Building Construction 7/1/2018 7/1/2019 5 2615 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/1/2019 7/1/2019 5 666 Paving Paving 5/1/2019 7/1/2019 5 44Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 11.5Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0Acres of Paving: 0.07Residential Indoor: 13,333; Residential Outdoor: 4,444; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: OffRoad EquipmentPhase NameOffroad Equipment TypeAmount Usage Hours Horse Power Load FactorArchitectural CoatingAir Compressors16.00780.48PavingCement and Mortar Mixers46.0090.56DemolitionConcrete/Industrial Saws18.00810.73GradingConcrete/Industrial Saws18.00810.73Building ConstructionCranes14.002310.29Building ConstructionForklifts26.00890.20Site PreparationGraders18.001870.41PavingPavers17.001300.42PavingRollers17.00800.38DemolitionRubber Tired Dozers11.002470.40GradingRubber Tired Dozers11.002470.40Building ConstructionTractors/Loaders/Backhoes28.00970.37DemolitionTractors/Loaders/Backhoes26.00970.37 Page 6 of 22GradingTractors/Loaders/Backhoes26.00970.37PavingTractors/Loaders/Backhoes17.00970.37Site PreparationTractors/Loaders/Backhoes18.00970.37Trips and VMTPhase Name Offroad Equipment CountWorker Trip NumberVendor Trip NumberHauling Trip NumberWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip LengthHauling Trip LengthWorker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassHauling Vehicle ClassArchitectural Coating1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction5 6.00 1.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTDemolition4 10.00 0.00 23.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTGrading4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTPaving7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDTSite Preparation2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_MixHDT_Mix HHDT3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionWater Exposed AreaReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved RoadsClean Paved Roads3.2 Demolition - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayFugitive Dust0.2373 0.0000 0.2373 0.0359 0.0000 0.03590.00000.0000Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.6228 0.62280.5943 0.59431,169.35021,169.35020.22541,174.9857Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.0120 0.23730.6228 0.8601 0.0359 0.5943 0.63021,169.35021,169.35020.22541,174.9857 Page 7 of 22Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayHauling 0.0119 0.4069 0.1495 9.2000e-0040.0190 1.6900e-0030.0207 5.2000e-0031.6200e-0036.8200e-003103.1516 103.1516 0.0124103.4622Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0366 0.0258 0.2481 7.7000e-0040.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.022376.7361 76.7361 1.8300e-00376.7818Total 0.0484 0.4327 0.3976 1.6900e-0030.0143180.24400.1012 2.2000e-0030.1034 0.0270 2.0900e-0030.0291SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10179.8878 179.8878PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust0.1068 0.0000 0.1068 0.0162 0.0000 0.01620.00000.0000Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.6228 0.62280.5943 0.5943 0.0000 1,169.35021,169.35020.22541,174.9857Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.22541,174.98570.1068 0.6228 0.7296 0.0162 0.5943 0.6105SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1,169.35021,169.3502PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5 Page 8 of 22Categorylb/daylb/dayHauling 0.0119 0.4069 0.1495 9.2000e-0040.0190 1.6900e-0030.0207 5.2000e-0031.6200e-0036.8200e-003103.1516 103.1516 0.0124103.4622Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0366 0.0258 0.2481 7.7000e-0040.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.022376.7361 76.7361 1.8300e-00376.7818Total 0.0484 0.4327 0.3976 1.6900e-0030.0143180.24400.1012 2.2000e-0030.1034 0.0270 2.0900e-0030.0291SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10179.8878 179.8878PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.3 Site Preparation - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.05730.00000.0000Off-Road 0.7858 9.7572 4.2514 9.7600e-0030.4180 0.41800.3846 0.3846982.7113 982.7113 0.3059990.3596Total 0.7858 9.7572 4.2514 9.7600e-0030.3059990.35960.5303 0.4180 0.9483 0.0573 0.3846 0.4418SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10982.7113 982.7113PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0183 0.0129 0.1240 3.8000e-0040.0411 2.5000e-0040.0413 0.0109 2.3000e-0040.011138.3681 38.3681 9.1000e-00438.3909 Page 9 of 22Total 0.0183 0.0129 0.1240 3.8000e-0049.1000e-00438.39090.0411 2.5000e-0040.0413 0.0109 2.3000e-0040.0111SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1038.3681 38.3681PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.02580.00000.0000Off-Road 0.7858 9.7572 4.2514 9.7600e-0030.4180 0.41800.3846 0.3846 0.0000 982.7113 982.7113 0.3059990.3596Total 0.7858 9.7572 4.2514 9.7600e-0030.3059990.35960.2386 0.4180 0.6566 0.0258 0.3846 0.4103SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 982.7113 982.7113PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0183 0.0129 0.1240 3.8000e-0040.0411 2.5000e-0040.0413 0.0109 2.3000e-0040.011138.3681 38.3681 9.1000e-00438.3909Total 0.0183 0.0129 0.1240 3.8000e-0049.1000e-00438.39090.0411 2.5000e-0040.0413 0.0109 2.3000e-0040.011138.3681 38.36813.4 Grading - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-Site Page 10 of 22SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust0.7528 0.0000 0.7528 0.4138 0.0000 0.41380.00000.0000Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.6228 0.62280.5943 0.59431,169.35021,169.35020.22541,174.9857Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.22541,174.98570.7528 0.6228 1.3755 0.4138 0.5943 1.0081SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM101,169.35021,169.3502PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0366 0.0258 0.2481 7.7000e-0040.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.022376.7361 76.7361 1.8300e-00376.7818Total 0.0366 0.0258 0.2481 7.7000e-0041.8300e-00376.78180.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.0223SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1076.7361 76.7361PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust0.3387 0.0000 0.3387 0.1862 0.0000 0.18620.00000.0000Off-Road 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.6228 0.62280.5943 0.5943 0.0000 1,169.35021,169.35020.22541,174.9857 Page 11 of 22Total 1.0643 9.4295 7.7762 0.01200.2254 1,174.98570.3387 0.6228 0.9615 0.1862 0.5943 0.7805SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1,169.35021,169.3502PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0366 0.0258 0.2481 7.7000e-0040.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.022376.7361 76.7361 1.8300e-00376.7818Total 0.0366 0.0258 0.2481 7.7000e-0041.8300e-00376.78180.0822 5.1000e-0040.0827 0.0218 4.7000e-0040.0223SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1076.7361 76.7361PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.5 Building Construction - 2018Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.01140.7087 0.70870.6520 0.65201,146.53231,146.53230.35691,155.4555Total 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.01140.35691,155.45550.7087 0.70870.6520 0.65201,146.53231,146.5323Unmitigated Construction Off-Site Page 12 of 22SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 5.4800e-0030.1360 0.0544 2.7000e-0046.7500e-0031.0600e-0037.8000e-0031.9400e-0031.0100e-0032.9500e-00329.5006 29.5006 2.7000e-00329.5680Worker 0.0219 0.0155 0.1489 4.6000e-0040.0493 3.0000e-0040.0496 0.0131 2.8000e-0040.013446.0417 46.0417 1.1000e-00346.0691Total 0.0274 0.1515 0.2032 7.3000e-0043.8000e-00375.63710.0560 1.3600e-0030.0574 0.0150 1.2900e-0030.0163SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1075.5423 75.5423PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.01140.7087 0.70870.6520 0.6520 0.0000 1,146.53231,146.53230.35691,155.4555Total 1.0848 11.0316 7.7512 0.01140.35691,155.45550.7087 0.70870.6520 0.6520SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1,146.53231,146.5323PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 5.4800e-0030.1360 0.0544 2.7000e-0046.7500e-0031.0600e-0037.8000e-0031.9400e-0031.0100e-0032.9500e-00329.5006 29.5006 2.7000e-00329.5680 Page 13 of 22Worker 0.0219 0.0155 0.1489 4.6000e-0040.0493 3.0000e-0040.0496 0.0131 2.8000e-0040.0134 46.0417 46.0417 1.1000e-00346.0691Total 0.0274 0.1515 0.2032 7.3000e-0043.8000e-00375.63710.0560 1.3600e-0030.0574 0.0150 1.2900e-0030.0163SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1075.5423 75.5423PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.5 Building Construction - 2019Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.01140.6054 0.60540.5569 0.55691,127.66961,127.66960.35681,136.5892Total 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.01140.35681,136.58920.6054 0.60540.5569 0.5569SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM101,127.66961,127.6696PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 4.8800e-0030.1278 0.0513 2.7000e-0046.7500e-0038.9000e-0047.6400e-0031.9400e-0038.5000e-0042.8000e-00329.1922 29.1922 2.6400e-00329.2582Worker 0.0199 0.0136 0.1328 4.5000e-0040.0493 3.0000e-0040.0496 0.0131 2.8000e-0040.013444.6084 44.6084 9.6000e-00444.6325Total 0.0248 0.1414 0.1841 7.2000e-0043.6000e-00373.89070.0560 1.1900e-0030.0572 0.0150 1.1300e-0030.016273.8005 73.8005Mitigated Construction On-Site Page 14 of 22SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.01140.6054 0.60540.5569 0.5569 0.0000 1,127.66961,127.66960.35681,136.5892Total 0.9576 9.8207 7.5432 0.01140.35681,136.58920.6054 0.60540.5569 0.5569SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1,127.66961,127.6696PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 4.8800e-0030.1278 0.0513 2.7000e-0046.7500e-0038.9000e-0047.6400e-0031.9400e-0038.5000e-0042.8000e-00329.1922 29.1922 2.6400e-00329.2582Worker 0.0199 0.0136 0.1328 4.5000e-0040.0493 3.0000e-0040.0496 0.0131 2.8000e-0040.013444.6084 44.6084 9.6000e-00444.6325Total 0.0248 0.1414 0.1841 7.2000e-0043.6000e-00373.89070.0560 1.1900e-0030.0572 0.0150 1.1300e-0030.0162SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1073.8005 73.8005PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.6 Architectural Coating - 2019Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 1.42350.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000 Page 15 of 22Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-0030.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423Total 1.6900 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-0030.0238 282.04230.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10281.4481 281.4481PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 3.3100e-0032.2700e-0030.0221 7.0000e-0058.2100e-0035.0000e-0058.2700e-0032.1800e-0035.0000e-0052.2300e-0037.4347 7.4347 1.6000e-0047.4388Total 3.3100e-0032.2700e-0030.0221 7.0000e-0051.6000e-0047.43888.2100e-0035.0000e-0058.2700e-0032.1800e-0035.0000e-0052.2300e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM107.4347 7.4347PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 1.42350.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-0030.1288 0.12880.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238282.0423Total 1.6900 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-0030.0238282.04230.1288 0.12880.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481Mitigated Construction Off-Site Page 16 of 22SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 3.3100e-0032.2700e-0030.0221 7.0000e-0058.2100e-0035.0000e-0058.2700e-0032.1800e-0035.0000e-0052.2300e-0037.4347 7.4347 1.6000e-0047.4388Total 3.3100e-0032.2700e-0030.0221 7.0000e-0051.6000e-0047.43888.2100e-0035.0000e-0058.2700e-0032.1800e-0035.0000e-0052.2300e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM107.4347 7.4347PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.7 Paving - 2019Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.8300 7.8446 7.1478 0.01130.4425 0.44250.4106 0.41061,055.18231,055.18230.30161,062.7231Paving 4.1700e-0030.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Total 0.8341 7.8446 7.1478 0.01130.30161,062.72310.4425 0.44250.4106 0.4106SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM101,055.18231,055.1823PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 Page 17 of 22Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0596 0.0408 0.3983 1.3400e-0030.1479 9.1000e-0040.1488 0.0392 8.4000e-0040.0401133.8251 133.8251 2.8900e-003133.8975Total 0.0596 0.0408 0.3983 1.3400e-0032.8900e-003133.89750.1479 9.1000e-0040.1488 0.0392 8.4000e-0040.0401SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10133.8251 133.8251PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.8300 7.8446 7.1478 0.01130.4425 0.44250.4106 0.4106 0.0000 1,055.18231,055.18230.30161,062.7231Paving 4.1700e-0030.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Total 0.8341 7.8446 7.1478 0.01130.30161,062.72310.4425 0.44250.4106 0.4106SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 1,055.18231,055.1823PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000Worker 0.0596 0.0408 0.3983 1.3400e-0030.1479 9.1000e-0040.1488 0.0392 8.4000e-0040.0401133.8251 133.8251 2.8900e-003133.8975Total 0.0596 0.0408 0.3983 1.3400e-0032.8900e-003133.89750.1479 9.1000e-0040.1488 0.0392 8.4000e-0040.0401133.8251 133.82514.0 Operational Detail - Mobile Page 18 of 22CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO24.1 Mitigation Measures MobileROG NOxNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.0605 0.2007 0.7055 1.9400e-0030.1710 2.6100e-0030.1737 0.0458 2.4600e-0030.0483195.0153 195.0153 8.0400e-003195.2163Unmitigated 0.0605 0.2007 0.7055 1.9400e-0030.1710 2.6100e-0030.1737 0.0458 2.4600e-0030.0483195.0153 195.0153 8.0400e-003195.21634.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip RateUnmitigatedMitigatedLand UseWeekday Saturday SundayAnnual VMTAnnual VMTCondo/Townhouse34.8634.02 29.0478,31578,315Parking Lot0.000.000.00Total34.8634.02 29.0478,31578,3154.3 Trip Type InformationMilesTrip %Trip Purpose %Land UseH-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-WH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byCondo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 04.4 Fleet MixLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHCondo/Townhouse 0.490452 0.049742 0.253638 0.136789 0.017926 0.006526 0.021436 0.006323 0.003943 0.003278 0.008771 0.000435 0.0007410.003278 0.008771Parking Lot0.490452 0.049742 0.253638 0.136789 0.0179260.000435 0.0007415.0 Energy Detail0.006526 0.021436 0.006323 0.003943 Page 19 of 22Historical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyExceed Title 24ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayNaturalGas Mitigated3.7100e-0030.0317 0.0135 2.0000e-0042.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-00340.4921 40.4921 7.8000e-0047.4000e-00440.7328NaturalGas Unmitigated4.9700e-0030.0425 0.018154.2724 54.2724 1.0400e-0039.9000e-0042.7000e-0043.4400e-0033.4400e-003ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM103.4400e-0033.4400e-003PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO254.59495.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yrlb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10Condo/Townhouse461.315 4.9700e-0030.0425 0.0181 2.7000e-0043.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-00354.2724 54.2724 1.0400e-0039.9000e-00454.5949Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.00000.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total4.9700e-0030.0425 0.0181 2.7000e-00454.2724 1.0400e-0039.9000e-00454.59493.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-0033.4400e-00354.2724Mitigated Page 20 of 22CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2NaturalGas UseROG NOxTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yrlb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Condo/Townhouse0.344183 3.7100e-0030.0317 0.0135 2.0000e-0042.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-00340.4921 40.4921 7.8000e-0047.4000e-00440.7328Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.00000.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total3.7100e-0030.0317 0.0135 2.0000e-0047.8000e-0047.4000e-00440.73282.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-0032.5600e-003CO SO2 Fugitive PM1040.4921 40.4921Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO26.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOxNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0040.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121 0.0000 149.1273 149.1273 3.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.0299Unmitigated 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0043.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.02990.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 149.1273 149.1273PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO26.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5 Page 21 of 22SubCategorylb/daylb/dayArchitectural Coating0.02570.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Consumer Products0.14200.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Hearth 0.0136 0.1161 0.0494 7.4000e-0049.3900e-0039.3900e-0039.3900e-0039.3900e-0030.0000 148.2353 148.2353 2.8400e-0032.7200e-003149.1162Landscaping 0.0152 5.7500e-0030.4970 3.0000e-0052.7300e-0032.7300e-0032.7300e-0032.7300e-0030.8920 0.8920 8.7000e-0040.9138Total 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0043.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.02990.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 149.1273 149.1273PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2MitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating0.02570.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Consumer Products0.14200.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Hearth 0.0136 0.1161 0.0494 7.4000e-0049.3900e-0039.3900e-0039.3900e-0039.3900e-0030.0000 148.2353 148.2353 2.8400e-0032.7200e-003149.1162Landscaping 0.0152 5.7500e-0030.4970 3.0000e-0052.7300e-0032.7300e-0032.7300e-0032.7300e-0030.8920 0.8920 8.7000e-0040.9138Total 0.1965 0.1219 0.5464 7.7000e-0040.0121 0.01210.0121 0.0121 0.0000 149.1273 149.1273 3.7100e-0032.7200e-003150.02997.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterApply Water Conservation Strategy8.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Page 22 of 229.0 Operational OffroadFuel TypeEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load FactorBoiler RatingFuel Type10.0 Stationary EquipmentFire Pumps and Emergency GeneratorsEquipment TypeNumberHours/DayHours/YearHorse Power Load FactorFuel TypeUser Defined EquipmentEquipment TypeNumber11.0 VegetationBoilersEquipment TypeNumber Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Page 1 of 8CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1Date: 9/5/2017 4:03 PM1431 El Camino Real - Proposed ProjectSan Mateo County, Mitigation ReportConstruction Mitigation SummaryPhaseROG NOx CO SO2Exhaust PM10Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePercent ReductionArchitectural Coating0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Building Construction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Demolition0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Grading0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Site Preparation0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Number Mitigated Total Number of Equipment DPFOxidation Catalyst0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00No Change01 No Change0.00 0.00OFFROAD Equipment MitigationEquipment TypeFuel TypeTier0.00Cement and Mortar Mixers DieselNo Change04 No Change0.00Air CompressorsDieselNo Change0.00Concrete/Industrial Saws DieselNo Change02 No ChangeNo Change02 No Change0.00CranesDieselNo Change010.00GradersDieselNo Change01 No Change0.00ForkliftsDieselPaversDieselNo Change01 No Change0.00 Page 2 of 8No Change0.00No Change02 No ChangeRollersDieselNo Change010.00Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes DieselNo Change08 No Change0.00Rubber Tired DozersDieselEquipment Type ROGNOxCOSO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4N2OCO2eUnmitigated tons/yrUnmitigated mt/yrAir Compressors 8.79000E-003 6.05700E-002 6.07600E-002 1.00000E-004 4.25000E-003 4.25000E-003 0.00000E+000 8.42574E+000 8.42574E+000 7.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 8.44353E+000Cement and Mortar Mixers3.88000E-003 2.43000E-002 2.03500E-002 5.00000E-005 9.50000E-004 9.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.02462E+000 3.02462E+000 3.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.03247E+000Concrete/Industrial Saws1.09100E-002 8.22100E-002 7.82100E-002 1.30000E-004 5.61000E-003 5.61000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.12908E+001 1.12908E+001 8.70000E-004 0.00000E+000 1.13126E+001Cranes 3.50700E-002 4.18610E-001 1.57110E-001 3.80000E-004 1.79400E-002 1.65100E-002 0.00000E+000 3.40910E+001 3.40910E+001 1.07000E-002 0.00000E+000 3.43585E+001Forklifts 3.31000E-002 2.93950E-001 2.35440E-001 3.00000E-004 2.31300E-002 2.12800E-002 0.00000E+000 2.70916E+001 2.70916E+001 8.50000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.73041E+001Graders 5.98000E-003 8.19700E-002 2.20200E-002 8.00000E-005 2.66000E-003 2.45000E-003 0.00000E+000 6.98918E+000 6.98918E+000 2.18000E-003 0.00000E+000 7.04358E+000Pavers 5.54000E-003 6.01500E-002 5.58600E-002 9.00000E-005 2.95000E-003 2.71000E-003 0.00000E+000 8.12914E+000 8.12914E+000 2.57000E-003 0.00000E+000 8.19344E+000Rollers 4.36000E-003 4.31400E-002 3.67200E-002 5.00000E-005 2.84000E-003 2.61000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.53494E+000 4.53494E+000 1.43000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.57081E+000Rubber Tired Dozers3.06000E-003 3.29700E-002 1.14900E-002 2.00000E-005 1.60000E-003 1.47000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.04838E+000 2.04838E+000 6.40000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.06432E+000Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes8.10500E-002 8.06420E-001 7.50260E-001 1.00000E-003 5.57100E-002 5.12500E-002 0.00000E+000 9.10121E+001 9.10121E+001 2.85400E-002 0.00000E+000 9.17257E+001Equipment Type ROGNOxCOSO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4N2OCO2eMitigated tons/yrMitigated mt/yrAir Compressors 8.79000E-003 6.05700E-002 6.07600E-002 1.00000E-004 4.25000E-003 4.25000E-003 0.00000E+000 8.42573E+000 8.42573E+000 7.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 8.44352E+000Cement and Mortar Mixers3.88000E-003 2.43000E-002 2.03500E-002 5.00000E-005 9.50000E-004 9.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.02462E+000 3.02462E+000 3.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.03247E+000Concrete/Industrial Saws1.09100E-002 8.22100E-002 7.82100E-002 1.30000E-004 5.61000E-003 5.61000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.12908E+001 1.12908E+001 8.70000E-004 0.00000E+000 1.13126E+001Cranes 3.50700E-002 4.18610E-001 1.57110E-001 3.80000E-004 1.79400E-002 1.65100E-002 0.00000E+000 3.40910E+001 3.40910E+001 1.07000E-002 0.00000E+000 3.43585E+001Forklifts 3.31000E-002 2.93950E-001 2.35440E-001 3.00000E-004 2.31300E-002 2.12800E-002 0.00000E+000 2.70916E+001 2.70916E+001 8.50000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.73041E+001Graders 5.98000E-003 8.19700E-002 2.20200E-002 8.00000E-005 2.66000E-003 2.45000E-003 0.00000E+000 6.98918E+000 6.98918E+000 2.18000E-003 0.00000E+000 7.04357E+000Pavers 5.54000E-003 6.01500E-002 5.58600E-002 9.00000E-005 2.95000E-003 2.71000E-003 0.00000E+000 8.12913E+000 8.12913E+000 2.57000E-003 0.00000E+000 8.19343E+000Rollers 4.36000E-003 4.31400E-002 3.67200E-002 5.00000E-005 2.84000E-003 2.61000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.53493E+000 4.53493E+000 1.43000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.57080E+000 Page 3 of 8Rubber Tired Dozers 3.06000E-003 3.29700E-002 1.14900E-002 2.00000E-005 1.60000E-003 1.47000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.04838E+000 2.04838E+0006.40000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.06432E+000Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes8.10500E-002 8.06420E-001 7.50260E-001 1.00000E-003 5.57100E-002 5.12500E-002 0.00000E+000 9.10120E+001 9.10120E+001 2.85400E-002 0.00000E+000 9.17256E+001Equipment Type ROGNOxCOSO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4N2OCO2ePercent ReductionAir Compressors 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.18684E-006 1.18684E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.18434E-006Cement and Mortar Mixers0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000Concrete/Industrial Saws0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 8.85678E-007 8.85678E-007 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.76793E-006Cranes 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.17333E-006 1.17333E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.16420E-006Forklifts 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.10735E-006 1.10735E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.09873E-006Graders 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.41973E-006Pavers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.23014E-006 1.23014E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.22049E-006Rollers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 2.20510E-006 2.20510E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 2.18780E-006Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+0000.00000E+000 0.00000E+000Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+0000.00000E+000 1.09876E-006 1.09876E-006 0.00000E+0000.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+0000.00000E+000 1.19923E-006Fugitive Dust MitigationMitigation InputYes/No Mitigation Measure Mitigation InputMitigation Input0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000No Soil Stabilizer for unpaved Roads PM10 Reduction0.00 PM2.5 Reduction0.00No Replace Ground Cover of Area DisturbedPM10 Reduction0.00 PM2.5 Reduction0.0015.00Yes Water Exposed AreaPM10 Reduction55.00 PM2.5 Reduction55.000.00Frequency (per day)2.00No Unpaved Road Mitigation Moisture Content %0.00 Vehicle Speed (mph)Yes Clean Paved Road% PM Reduction Page 4 of 8UnmitigatedMitigatedPercent ReductionPhaseSourcePM10PM2.5PM10PM2.5PM10PM2.5Architectural CoatingFugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.00Architectural CoatingRoads0.000.000.000.000.000.00Building ConstructionFugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.00Building ConstructionRoads0.010.000.010.000.000.00DemolitionFugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.550.55DemolitionRoads0.000.000.000.000.000.00GradingFugitive Dust0.010.000.000.000.550.55GradingRoads0.000.000.000.000.000.00PavingFugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.00PavingRoads0.000.000.000.000.000.00Site PreparationFugitive Dust0.010.000.000.000.550.55Site PreparationRoads0.000.000.000.000.000.00Operational Percent Reduction SummaryCategoryROG NOx CO SO2Exhaust PM10Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePercent ReductionArchitectural Coating0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Consumer Products0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Electricity0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 1.12Hearth0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Landscaping0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mobile0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Natural Gas25.27 25.39 25.45 20.00 25.40 25.40 0.00 25.39 25.39 23.53 25.00 25.39Water Indoor0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.03 19.35 20.00Water Outdoor0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 5 of 8Operational Mobile MitigationProject Setting:Mitigation Sl tdCategoryMeasure% Reduction Input Value 1 Input Value 2Increase Diversity0.070.27Input Value 3No Land UseIncrease Density0.00No Land UseImprove Walkability Design0.00No Land UseNo Land UseImprove Destination Accessibility0.00Integrate Below Market Rate Housing0.00No Land UseIncrease Transit Accessibility0.25Land UseLand Use SubTotal0.00No Land UseNo Neighborhood Enhancements Improve Pedestrian NetworkImplement NEV Network0.00No Neighborhood Enhancements Provide Traffic Calming MeasuresNeighborhood Enhancements Neighborhood Enhancements Subtotal0.00No Neighborhood EnhancementsNo Parking Policy PricingLimit Parking Supply0.00On-street Market Pricing0.00No Parking Policy PricingUnbundle Parking Costs0.00Parking Policy PricingParking Policy Pricing Subtotal0.00No Parking Policy PricingNo Transit ImprovementsProvide BRT System0.00Increase Transit Frequency0.00No Transit ImprovementsExpand Transit Network0.00Transit ImprovementsTransit Improvements Subtotal0.00No Transit ImprovementsLand Use and Site Enhancement Subtotal0.00No CommuteImplement Trip Reduction Program Page 6 of 8Transit SubsidyNo Commute Implement Employee Parking "Cash Out"No CommuteNo Commute Workplace Parking ChargeMarket Commute Trip Reduction Option 0.00No Commute Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules0.00No Commute Employee Vanpool/Shuttle 0.00 2.00No CommuteNo Commute Provide Ride Sharing ProgramImplement School Bus Program 0.00Commute Commute Subtotal 0.00Total VMT Reduction 0.00No School TripArea MitigationMeasure Implemented Mitigation MeasureInput ValueNoOnly Natural Gas HearthNoNo HearthNoUse Low VOC Cleaning SuppliesNoUse Low VOC Paint (Residential Interior)100.00NoUse Low VOC Paint (Residential Exterior)150.00NoUse Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Interior)100.00NoUse Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Exterior)150.00NoUse Low VOC Paint (Parking)150.00No% Electric LawnmowerNo% Electric LeafblowerNo% Electric ChainsawEnergy Mitigation Measures Page 7 of 8Measure Implemented Mitigation MeasureInput Value 1 Input Value 2YesExceed Title 2428.00NoInstall High Efficiency Lighting0.00NoOn-site Renewable0.000.00Appliance TypeLand Use Subtype% ImprovementClothWasher30.00DishWasher15.00Fan50.00Refrigerator15.00Water Mitigation MeasuresMeasure Implemented Mitigation MeasureInput Value 1 Input Value 2YesApply Water Conservation on Strategy20.0020.00NoUse Reclaimed Water0.000.00NoUse Grey Water0.00NoInstall low-flow bathroom faucet32.00NoInstall low-flow Kitchen faucet18.00NoInstall low-flow Toilet20.00Water Efficient Landscape0.000.00NoInstall low-flow Shower20.00NoTurf Reduction0.00Solid Waste MitigationMitigation MeasuresInput ValueNoUse Water Efficient Irrigation Systems6.10No Page 8 of 8Institute Recycling and Composting ServicesPercent Reduction in Waste Disposed Page 1 of 11CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1Date: 9/5/2017 3:08 PM1431 El Camino Real - Existing Uses - San Mateo County, Annual1431 El Camino Real - Existing UsesSan Mateo County, Annual1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand UsesSizeMetricLot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationApartments Low Rise4.00Dwelling Unit0.254,102.00111.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)0.00670Climate Zone5Operational Year2017Utility CompanyPacific Gas & Electric Company1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)559.32CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.029N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)Table Name Column Name Default Value New ValueVehicle Trips - Default Weekday Trip Rates adjusted to match traffic information. Saturday and Sunday rates adjusted based on ratio to eekdaWoodstoves - No woodstoves or fireplaces assumed for the existing apartmentsArea Coating - DefaulttblArchitecturalCoatingConstArea_Residential_Exterior2,769.000.00tblArchitecturalCoatingConstArea_Residential_Interior8,307.000.00Project Characteristics - Operational year of 2017 for existing uses. PG&E CO2 Intensity Adjusted based on 25% RPS by 2016Land Use - Existing apartments to be demolishedConstruction Phase - No construction modeledEnergy Use - Historical (pre-2005 construction) data assumed for existing uses Page 2 of 11tblArchitecturalCoatingEF_Parking150.000.00tblFireplacesNumberGas0.600.00tblFireplacesNumberNoFireplace0.160.00tblFireplacesNumberWood0.680.00tblLandUseBuildingSpaceSquareFeet4,000.004,102.00tblLandUseLandUseSquareFeet4,000.004,102.00tblOffRoadEquipmentUsageHours6.000.00tblProjectCharacteristicsCO2IntensityFactor641.35559.32tblProjectCharacteristicsOperationalYear20182017tblTripsAndVMTWorkerTripNumber1.000.00tblVehicleTripsST_TR7.167.23tblVehicleTripsSU_TR6.076.13tblVehicleTripsWD_TR6.596.65tblWoodstovesNumberCatalytic0.080.00tblWoodstovesNumberNoncatalytic0.080.00 Page 3 of 112.0 Emissions SummarySO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO22.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.0198 3.5000e-0040.0300 0.00001.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0040.0000 0.0485 0.0485 5.0000e-0050.0000 0.0497Energy 5.4000e-0044.6000e-0031.9600e-0033.0000e-0053.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-0040.0000 8.9662 8.9662 2.9000e-0041.4000e-0049.0143Mobile 8.9700e-0030.0287 0.1017 2.7000e-0040.0228 3.9000e-0040.0232 6.1300e-0033.7000e-0046.5000e-0030.0000 24.9631 24.9631 1.0400e-0030.0000 24.9892Waste0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.3735 0.0000 0.3735 0.0221 0.0000 0.9253Water0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0827 0.5037 0.5864 8.5200e-0032.1000e-0040.8607Total 0.0294 0.0337 0.1337 3.0000e-0040.0320 3.5000e-00435.83920.0228 9.2000e-0040.0237 6.1300e-0039.0000e-0047.0300e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.4562 34.4816 34.9378PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.0198 3.5000e-0040.0300 0.00001.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0040.0000 0.0485 0.0485 5.0000e-0050.0000 0.0497Energy 5.4000e-0044.6000e-0031.9600e-0033.0000e-0053.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-0040.0000 8.9662 8.9662 2.9000e-0041.4000e-0049.0143Mobile 8.9700e-0030.0287 0.1017 2.7000e-0040.0228 3.9000e-0040.0232 6.1300e-0033.7000e-0046.5000e-0030.0000 24.9631 24.9631 1.0400e-0030.0000 24.9892Waste0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.3735 0.0000 0.3735 0.0221 0.0000 0.9253Water0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0827 0.5037 0.5864 8.5200e-0032.1000e-0040.8607Total 0.0294 0.0337 0.1337 3.0000e-0040.0228 9.2000e-0040.0237 6.1300e-0039.0000e-0047.0300e-0030.4562 34.4816 34.9378 0.0320 3.5000e-00435.8392ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 4 of 11CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO24.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures MobileROG NOxNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 8.9700e-0030.0287 0.1017 2.7000e-0040.0228 3.9000e-0040.0232 6.1300e-0033.7000e-0046.5000e-0030.0000 24.9631 24.9631 1.0400e-0030.0000 24.9892Unmitigated 8.9700e-0030.0287 0.1017 2.7000e-0040.0228 3.9000e-0040.0232 6.1300e-0033.7000e-0046.5000e-0030.0000 24.9631 24.9631 1.0400e-0030.0000 24.98924.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip RateUnmitigatedMitigatedLand UseWeekday Saturday SundayAnnual VMTAnnual VMTApartments Low Rise26.6028.92 24.5261,51561,515Total26.6028.92 24.5261,51561,5154.3 Trip Type InformationMilesTrip %Trip Purpose %Land UseH-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-WH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byApartments Low Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 34.4 Fleet MixHHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD10.130359 0.018842 0.005865 0.019139LHD2 MHD0.003526 0.008051 0.000385 0.000682SBUS MH0.006107 0.003579Apartments Low Rise 0.519116 0.049029 0.2353215.0 Energy Detail Page 5 of 11NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2Historical Energy Use: Y5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyROGNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 TotalElectricity Mitigated0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6377 3.6377 1.9000e-0044.0000e-0053.6540Electricity Unmitigated0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6377 3.6377 1.9000e-0044.0000e-0053.6540NaturalGas Mitigated5.4000e-0044.6000e-0031.9600e-0033.0000e-0053.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-0040.0000 5.3285 5.3285 1.0000e-0041.0000e-0045.3602NaturalGas Unmitigated5.4000e-0044.6000e-0031.9600e-0033.0000e-0055.3285 5.3285 1.0000e-0041.0000e-0045.36023.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-004ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM100.00003.7000e-004PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO25.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yrtons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10Apartments Low Rise99853.1 5.4000e-0044.6000e-0031.9600e-0031.0000e-0041.0000e-0043.0000e-0053.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-0040.0000 5.3285 5.32850.0000 5.32855.3602Total5.4000e-0044.6000e-0031.9600e-0033.0000e-0055.3285 1.0000e-0041.0000e-0045.3602Mitigated3.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-004 Page 6 of 11NaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yrtons/yrMT/yrApartments Low Rise99853.1 5.4000e-0044.6000e-0035.3285 1.0000e-0041.9600e-0033.0000e-0053.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.0000e-0053.7000e-0043.7000e-0040.0000 5.32853.7000e-0040.00001.0000e-0045.3602Total5.4000e-0044.6000e-0031.9600e-0035.3285 5.3285 1.0000e-0041.0000e-0045.36025.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity3.7000e-0043.7000e-0043.7000e-004UnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kWh/yrtoMT/yrApartments Low Rise14338.4 3.6377 1.9000e-0044.0000e-0053.6540Total 3.6377 1.9000e-0044.0000e-0053.65404.0000e-005MitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kWh/yrtoMT/yrApartments Low Rise14338.4 3.6377 1.9000e-0043.6540 Page 7 of 113.6540CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Total 3.6377 1.9000e-0044.0000e-005Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO26.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOxNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.0198 3.5000e-0040.0300 0.00001.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0040.0000 0.0485 0.0485 5.0000e-0050.0000 0.0497Unmitigated 0.0198 3.5000e-0040.0300 0.00005.0000e-0050.0000 0.04971.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0485 0.0485PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO26.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating2.8900e-0030.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.01600.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping 9.3000e-0043.5000e-0040.0300 0.00001.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0040.0000 0.0485 0.0485 5.0000e-0050.0000 0.0497 Page 8 of 11Total 0.0198 3.5000e-0040.0300 0.00005.0000e-0050.0000 0.04971.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0485 0.0485PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2MitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategorytons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating2.8900e-0030.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.01600.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping 9.3000e-0043.5000e-0040.0300 0.00001.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0040.0000 0.0485 0.0485 5.0000e-0050.0000 0.0497Total 0.0198 3.5000e-0040.0300 0.00001.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0041.6000e-0040.0000 0.0485 0.0485 5.0000e-0050.0000 0.04977.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytoMT/yrMitigated 0.5864 8.5200e-0032.1000e-0040.8607Unmitigated 0.5864 8.5200e-0032.1000e-0040.8607 Page 9 of 117.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use MgaltoMT/yrApartments Low Rise0.260616 / 0.1643010.5864 8.5200e-0032.1000e-0040.8607Total 0.5864 8.5200e-0032.1000e-0040.8607MitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use MgaltoMT/yrApartments Low Rise0.260616 / 0.1643010.5864 8.5200e-0032.1000e-0040.8607Total 0.5864 8.5200e-0032.1000e-0040.86078.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/Year Page 10 of 11Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2etoMT/yr Mitigated 0.3735 0.0221 0.0000 0.9253 Unmitigated 0.3735 0.0221 0.0000 0.92538.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use tonstoMT/yrApartments Low Rise1.84 0.3735 0.0221 0.0000 0.9253Total0.3735 0.0221 0.0000 0.9253MitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use tonstoMT/yrApartments Low Rise1.84 0.3735 0.0221 0.0000 0.9253Total 0.3735 0.0221 0.0000 0.9253 Page 11 of 11Horse Power Load Factor9.0 Operational OffroadEquipment TypeNumberHours/DayDays/YearHorse PowerBoiler Rating Fuel TypeLoad Factor Fuel Type10.0 Stationary EquipmentFire Pumps and Emergency GeneratorsEquipment TypeNumberHours/DayHours/Year11.0 VegetationFuel TypeBoilersEquipment TypeUser Defined EquipmentEquipment TypeNumberNumber Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Page 1 of 8CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1Date: 9/5/2017 3:10 PM1431 El Camino Real - Existing Uses - San Mateo County, Summer1431 El Camino Real - Existing UsesSan Mateo County, Summer1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand UsesSizeMetricLot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationApartments Low Rise4.00Dwelling Unit0.254,102.00111.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)70Climate Zone5Operational Year2017Utility CompanyPacific Gas & Electric CompanyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)559.32CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.029N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.0061.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Operational year of 2017 for existing uses. PG&E CO2 Intensity Adjusted based on 25% RPS by 2016Land Use - Existing apartments to be demolishedConstruction Phase - No construction modeledVehicle Trips - Default Weekday Trip Rates adjusted to match traffic information. Saturday and Sunday rates adjusted based on ratio to weekdayWoodstoves - No woodstoves or fireplaces assumed for the existing apartmentsArea Coating - DefaultEnergy Use - Historical (pre-2005 construction) data assumed for existing usesTable NameColumn NameDefault ValueNew ValuetblArchitecturalCoatingConstArea_Residential_Exterior2,769.000.00tblArchitecturalCoatingConstArea_Residential_Interior8,307.000.00 Page 2 of 8tblArchitecturalCoatingEF_Parking150.000.00tblFireplacesNumberGas0.600.00tblFireplacesNumberNoFireplace0.160.00tblFireplacesNumberWood0.680.00tblLandUseBuildingSpaceSquareFeet4,000.004,102.00tblLandUseLandUseSquareFeet4,000.004,102.00tblOffRoadEquipmentUsageHours6.000.00tblProjectCharacteristicsCO2IntensityFactor641.35559.32tblProjectCharacteristicsOperationalYear20182017tblTripsAndVMTWorkerTripNumber1.000.00tblVehicleTripsST_TR7.167.23tblVehicleTripsSU_TR6.076.13tblVehicleTripsWD_TR6.596.65tblWoodstovesNumberCatalytic0.080.00tblWoodstovesNumberNoncatalytic0.080.00 Page 3 of 82.0 Emissions SummarySO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO22.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0051.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0030.0000 0.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.0000 0.6091Energy 2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-0042.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-00332.1847 32.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.3760Mobile 0.0586 0.1621 0.6095 1.7200e-0030.1419 2.3300e-0030.1442 0.0380 2.2000e-0030.0402172.6325 172.6325 6.8700e-003172.8043Total 0.1755 0.1912 0.9535 1.9000e-0038.0900e-0035.9000e-004205.78940.1419 6.1800e-0030.1481 0.0380 6.0500e-0030.0440SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 205.4114 205.4114PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0051.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0030.0000 0.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.0000 0.6091Energy 2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-0042.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-00332.1847 32.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.3760Mobile 0.0586 0.1621 0.6095 1.7200e-0030.1419 2.3300e-0030.1442 0.0380 2.2000e-0030.0402172.6325 172.6325 6.8700e-003172.8043Total 0.1755 0.1912 0.9535 1.9000e-0030.1419 6.1800e-0030.1481 0.0380 6.0500e-0030.0440 0.0000 205.4114 205.4114 8.0900e-0035.9000e-004205.7894ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 4 of 8CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO24.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures MobileROG NOxNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.0586 0.1621 0.6095 1.7200e-0030.1419 2.3300e-0030.1442 0.0380 2.2000e-0030.0402172.6325 172.6325 6.8700e-003172.8043Unmitigated 0.0586 0.1621 0.6095 1.7200e-0030.1419 2.3300e-0030.1442 0.0380 2.2000e-0030.0402172.6325 172.6325 6.8700e-003172.80434.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip RateUnmitigatedMitigatedLand UseWeekday Saturday SundayAnnual VMTAnnual VMTApartments Low Rise26.6028.92 24.5261,51561,515Total26.6028.92 24.5261,51561,5154.3 Trip Type InformationMilesTrip %Trip Purpose %Land UseH-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-WH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byApartments Low Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 34.4 Fleet MixHHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD10.130359 0.018842 0.005865 0.019139LHD2 MHD0.003526 0.008051 0.000385 0.000682SBUS MH0.006107 0.003579Apartments Low Rise 0.519116 0.049029 0.2353215.0 Energy DetailHistorical Energy Use: Y Page 5 of 8NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO25.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyROGNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10PM10 TotalNaturalGas Mitigated2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-0042.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-00332.1847 32.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.3760NaturalGas Unmitigated2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-00432.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1032.1847Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO25.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOxTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yrlb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Apartments Low Rise273.57 2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-0042.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-00332.1847 32.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.3760Total2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-00432.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1032.1847Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOxTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5 Page 6 of 8Land Use kBTU/yrlb/daylb/dayApartments Low Rise0.27357 2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-0042.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-00332.1847 32.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.3760Total2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-0046.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003CO SO2 Fugitive PM1032.1847 32.1847Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO26.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOxNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0051.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0030.0000 0.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.0000 0.6091Unmitigated 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0056.0000e-0040.0000 0.60911.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.5942 0.5942PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO26.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating0.01580.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Consumer Products0.08780.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000 Page 7 of 8Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping 0.0104 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0051.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0030.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.6091Total 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0056.0000e-0040.0000 0.60911.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.5942 0.5942PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2MitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating0.01580.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Consumer Products0.08780.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.00000.0000Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping 0.0104 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0051.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0030.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.6091Total 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0051.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0030.0000 0.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.0000 0.60917.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures Water8.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste9.0 Operational OffroadEquipment TypeNumberHours/DayDays/YearHorse Power Load Factor Fuel Type10.0 Stationary Equipment Page 8 of 8Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeFire Pumps and Emergency GeneratorsEquipment TypeNumberHours/DayHours/YearHorse PowerUser Defined EquipmentEquipment TypeNumber11.0 VegetationLoad Factor Fuel TypeBoilersEquipment TypeNumber Heat Input/Day Page 1 of 9tblArchitecturalCoatingEF_Parking150.000.00tblArchitecturalCoatingConstArea_Residential_Exterior2,769.000.00tblArchitecturalCoatingConstArea_Residential_Interior8,307.000.00Table NameColumn NameDefault ValueNew ValueVehicle Trips - Default Weekday Trip Rates adjusted to match traffic information. Saturday and Sunday rates adjusted based on ratio to weekdayWoodstoves - No woodstoves or fireplaces assumed for the existing apartmentsArea Coating - DefaultEnergy Use - Historical (pre-2005 construction) data assumed for existing uses1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Operational year of 2017 for existing uses. PG&E CO2 Intensity Adjusted based on 25% RPS by 2016Land Use - Existing apartments to be demolishedConstruction Phase - No construction modeledCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)559.32CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.029N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.00670Climate Zone5Operational Year2017Utility CompanyPacific Gas & Electric Company1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)Floor Surface Area PopulationApartments Low Rise 4.00 Dwelling Unit 0.25 4,102.00 111.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand UsesSizeMetricLot AcreageCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1Date: 9/5/2017 3:10 PM1431 El Camino Real - Existing Uses - San Mateo County, Winter1431 El Camino Real - Existing UsesSan Mateo County, Winter Page 2 of 9tblWoodstovesNumberNoncatalytic0.080.00tblVehicleTripsWD_TR6.596.65tblWoodstovesNumberCatalytic0.080.00tblVehicleTripsST_TR7.167.23tblVehicleTripsSU_TR6.076.13tblProjectCharacteristicsOperationalYear20182017tblTripsAndVMTWorkerTripNumber1.000.00tblOffRoadEquipmentUsageHours6.000.00tblProjectCharacteristicsCO2IntensityFactor641.35559.32tblLandUseBuildingSpaceSquareFeet4,000.004,102.00tblLandUseLandUseSquareFeet4,000.004,102.00tblFireplacesNumberNoFireplace0.160.00tblFireplacesNumberWood0.680.00tblFireplacesNumberGas0.600.00 Page 3 of 92.0 Emissions Summary Page 4 of 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NBio-CO2 Total CO2CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM100.0000 196.5238 196.5238 8.2300e-0035.9000e-004196.90520.1419 6.1900e-0030.1481 0.0380 6.0600e-0030.0441Total 0.1714 0.2061 0.9830 1.8100e-003163.7449 163.7449 7.0100e-003163.92010.1419 2.3400e-0030.1442 0.0380 2.2100e-0030.0402Mobile 0.0545 0.1770 0.6389 1.6300e-00332.1847 32.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003Energy 2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-0040.0000 0.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.0000 0.60911.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-003Area 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-005Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Mitigated OperationalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 196.5238 196.5238PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO28.2300e-0035.9000e-004196.90520.1419 6.1900e-0030.1481 0.0380 6.0600e-0030.0441Total 0.1714 0.2061 0.9830 1.8100e-003163.7449 163.7449 7.0100e-003163.92010.1419 2.3400e-0030.1442 0.0380 2.2100e-0030.0402Mobile 0.0545 0.1770 0.6389 1.6300e-00332.1847 32.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003Energy 2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-0040.0000 0.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.0000 0.60911.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-003Area 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-005Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Unmitigated OperationalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO22.2 Overall Operational Page 5 of 95.0 Energy DetailHistorical Energy Use: Y0.006107 0.003579Apartments Low Rise 0.519116 0.049029 0.235321 0.003526 0.008051 0.000385 0.000682SBUS MH0.130359 0.018842 0.005865 0.019139LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD115.00 54.00861134.4 Fleet MixH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byApartments Low Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.004.3 Trip Type InformationMilesTrip %Trip Purpose %Land UseH-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-WTotal26.6028.92 24.5261,51561,515Annual VMTApartments Low Rise26.6028.92 24.5261,51561,5154.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip RateUnmitigatedMitigatedLand UseWeekday Saturday SundayAnnual VMT163.7449 163.7449 7.0100e-003163.92010.1419 2.3400e-0030.1442 0.0380 2.2100e-0030.0402Unmitigated 0.0545 0.1770 0.6389 1.6300e-003163.7449 163.7449 7.0100e-003163.92010.1419 2.3400e-0030.1442 0.0380 2.2100e-0030.0402Mitigated 0.0545 0.1770 0.6389 1.6300e-003NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10PM10 Total4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures MobileROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 Page 6 of 9Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1032.1847Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO232.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003Total 2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-00432.1847 32.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003Apartments Low Rise273.57 2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-004Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr lb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.55.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1032.1847Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO232.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003NaturalGas Unmitigated2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-00432.1847 32.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003NaturalGas Mitigated2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-004NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO25.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Page 7 of 90.00000.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.08780.00000.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.0158Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5UnmitigatedROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.5942 0.5942PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO26.2 Area by SubCategory6.0000e-0040.0000 0.60911.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-003Unmitigated 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0050.0000 0.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.0000 0.60911.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-003Mitigated 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-005NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorylb/daylb/dayExhaust PM10PM10 Total6.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM1032.1847 32.1847Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO26.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003Total 2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-00432.1847 32.1847 6.2000e-0045.9000e-00432.37602.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-0032.0400e-003Apartments Low Rise0.27357 2.9500e-0030.0252 0.0107 1.6000e-004Land Use kBTU/yr lb/daylb/day Page 8 of 9Hours/DayDays/YearHorse Power Load Factor Fuel Type10.0 Stationary Equipment7.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures Water8.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste9.0 Operational OffroadEquipment TypeNumber0.0000 0.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.0000 0.60911.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-003Total 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0050.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.60911.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-003Landscaping 0.0104 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.00000.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.08780.00000.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.0158Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategorylb/daylb/dayPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5MitigatedROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.5942 0.5942PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO26.0000e-0040.0000 0.60911.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-003Total 0.1140 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0050.5942 0.5942 6.0000e-0040.60911.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-0031.8100e-003Landscaping 0.0104 3.8900e-0030.3333 2.0000e-0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Page 9 of 9User Defined EquipmentEquipment TypeNumber11.0 VegetationLoad Factor Fuel TypeBoilersEquipment TypeNumber Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeFire Pumps and Emergency GeneratorsEquipment TypeNumberHours/DayHours/YearHorse Power Page 1 of 6CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1Date: 9/5/2017 3:19 PM1431 El Camino Real - Existing UsesSan Mateo County, Mitigation ReportConstruction Mitigation SummaryPhaseROG NOx CO SO2Exhaust PM10Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePercent ReductionArchitectural Coating0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00TierNumber Mitigated Total Number of Equipment DPF0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00OFFROAD Equipment MitigationOxidation CatalystAir Compressors Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00Equipment Type Fuel TypeEquipment Type ROGNOxCOSO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4N2OCO2eUnmitigated tons/yrUnmitigated mt/yrAir Compressors 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000Equipment Type ROGNOxCOSO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4N2OCO2eMitigated tons/yrMitigated mt/yrAir Compressors 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+0000.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000Equipment Type ROGNOxCOSO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4N2OCO2ePercent Reduction Page 2 of 6Air Compressors 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+0000.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000Fugitive Dust MitigationMitigation InputYes/No Mitigation Measure Mitigation InputMitigation InputNo Soil Stabilizer for unpaved RoadsPM10 Reduction PM2.5 ReductionNo Replace Ground Cover of Area DisturbedPM10 Reduction PM2.5 ReductionNo Water Exposed Area PM10 Reduction PM2.5 ReductionFrequency (per day)No Unpaved Road Mitigation Moisture Content %Vehicle Speed (mph)No Clean Paved Road % PM Reduction 0.00UnmitigatedMitigatedPercent ReductionPhaseSourcePM10PM2.5PM10PM2.5PM10PM2.5Architectural CoatingFugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.00Architectural CoatingRoads0.000.000.000.000.000.00Operational Percent Reduction SummaryCategoryROG NOx CO SO2Exhaust PM10Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePercent ReductionArchitectural Coating0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Consumer Products0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Electricity0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hearth0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Landscaping0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mobile0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 3 of 6Natural Gas0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Water Indoor0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Water Outdoor0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Operational Mobile MitigationProject Setting:Mitigation Sl tdCategoryMeasure% Reduction Input Value 1 Input Value 2Increase Diversity-0.010.13Input Value 3No Land UseIncrease Density0.00No Land UseImprove Walkability Design0.00No Land UseNo Land UseImprove Destination Accessibility0.00Integrate Below Market Rate Housing0.00No Land UseIncrease Transit Accessibility0.25Land UseLand Use SubTotal0.00No Land UseNo Neighborhood Enhancements Improve Pedestrian NetworkImplement NEV Network0.00No Neighborhood Enhancements Provide Traffic Calming MeasuresNeighborhood Enhancements Neighborhood Enhancements Subtotal0.00No Neighborhood EnhancementsNo Parking Policy PricingLimit Parking Supply0.00On-street Market Pricing0.00No Parking Policy PricingUnbundle Parking Costs0.00Parking Policy PricingParking Policy Pricing Subtotal0.00No Parking Policy PricingNo Transit ImprovementsProvide BRT System0.00Increase Transit Frequency0.00No Transit ImprovementsExpand Transit Network0.00No Transit Improvements Page 4 of 6Transit ImprovementsTransit Improvements Subtotal0.00Land Use and Site Enhancement Subtotal0.00Transit SubsidyNo CommuteImplement Trip Reduction ProgramNo CommuteImplement Employee Parking "Cash Out"No CommuteNo CommuteWorkplace Parking ChargeMarket Commute Trip Reduction Option0.00No CommuteEncourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules0.00No CommuteEmployee Vanpool/Shuttle0.002.00No CommuteNo CommuteProvide Ride Sharing ProgramImplement School Bus Program0.00CommuteCommute Subtotal0.00Total VMT Reduction0.00No School TripArea MitigationMeasure Implemented Mitigation MeasureInput ValueNoOnly Natural Gas HearthNoNo HearthNoUse Low VOC Cleaning SuppliesNoUse Low VOC Paint (Residential Interior)100.00NoUse Low VOC Paint (Residential Exterior)150.00NoUse Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Interior)100.00NoUse Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Exterior)150.00NoUse Low VOC Paint (Parking)150.00No% Electric LawnmowerNo% Electric Leafblower Page 5 of 6No% Electric ChainsawEnergy Mitigation MeasuresMeasure Implemented Mitigation MeasureInput Value 1 Input Value 2NoExceed Title 24NoInstall High Efficiency LightingNoOn-site RenewableAppliance TypeLand Use Subtype% ImprovementClothWasher30.00DishWasher15.00Fan50.00Refrigerator15.00Water Mitigation MeasuresMeasure Implemented Mitigation MeasureInput Value 1 Input Value 2NoApply Water Conservation on StrategyNoUse Reclaimed WaterNoUse Grey WaterNoInstall low-flow bathroom faucet32.00NoInstall low-flow Kitchen faucet18.00NoInstall low-flow Toilet20.00Water Efficient LandscapeNoInstall low-flow Shower20.00NoTurf ReductionSolid Waste MitigationNoUse Water Efficient Irrigation Systems6.10No Page 6 of 6Mitigation MeasuresInput ValueInstitute Recycling and Composting ServicesPercent Reduction in Waste Disposed APPENDIX B Historical Resources Compliance Report HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR THE 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT CITY OF BURLINGAME, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (),63URMHFW1XPEHU*RHV+HUH Prepared for: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Contact: Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner and California Department of Transportation, District 4 Office of Permits, MS 5E P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, California 94623-0660 October 25, 2017 Prepared by ______________________________________ ____________________ Samantha Murray, MA Date Principal Architectural Historian DUDEK 465 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, California 94939 Reviewed for approval by ______________________________________ ____________________ Name Date [PQS discipline/level] [Caltrans address] Approved by ______________________________________ ____________________ Name Date [District Environmental Branch name] [Caltrans address] October 2017 HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR THE 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California PREPARED FOR: CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Contact: Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner PREPARED BY: Sarah Corder, MFA, Samantha Murray, MA, Sarah Brewer, and Adam Giacinto, MA, RPA DUDEK 465 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, California 94939 OCTOBER 2017 PRINTED ON 30% POST-CONSUMER RECYCLED MATERIAL. HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 IV DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 6 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 9 2.1Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2Scope of Project .................................................................................................................................... 9 2.3Project Area Limits ............................................................................................................................ 10 3 CONSULTING PARTIES AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ........................................... 12 3.1Native American Heritage Commission ......................................................................................... 12 3.2Native American Groups .................................................................................................................. 12 3.3Local Historical Groups .................................................................................................................... 13 4 SUMMARY OF IDENTIFICATION EFFORTS ............................................................ 15 4.1CHRIS Records Search...................................................................................................................... 15 4.2Building Development Research ...................................................................................................... 25 5 CEQA HISTORICAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED ....................................................... 27 5.1Newly Evaluated Resources within PAL ........................................................................................ 27 5.2Previously Evaluated Historical Resources within PAL ............................................................... 27 5.3Archaeological Resources .................................................................................................................. 28 6 LIST OF IDENTIFIED HISTORICAL RESOURCES ................................................... 31 7 STATE-OWNED CULTURAL RESOURCES FINDINGS .............................................. 33 7.1Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions (FNAE-SC) ..................................... 33 7.2SOIS Action Plan ............................................................................................................................... 34 7.3ESA Action Plan................................................................................................................................. 35 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 37 HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 VDUDEK OCTOBER 2017 ATTACHMENTS A Maps and Figures B Tribal Outreach C Confidential CHRIS Records Search Results D DPR Form Set: 1431-1433 El Camino Real E SOIS Action Plan F ESA Action Plan TABLES Table 1. City of Burlingame List of California Native American Tribal Contacts ............................................... 12 Table 2. Previous Technical Studies within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area ................................................ 15 Table 3. Previously Recorded Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area ........................................ 21 HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 6DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Project Description: The City of Burlingame (City) proposes to demolish an existing four-unit (two-story) apartment building along with the detached five-car garage structure at the rear and construct a new six-unit (three-story) townhouse complex, totaling 3,858 square feet and a proposed height of 35 feet. The property at 1431-1433 El Camino Real was constructed in 1947 according to San Mateo County Assessor records. Purpose and Scope of the Investigation: The City retained Dudek to prepare a cultural resources study in support of the proposed 1431 El Camino Real Project (project or proposed project). The intent of this report is to achieve compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project as it relates to historical resources. Further, the proposed project would encroach on a State of California right- of-way and requires an Encroachment Permit issued by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4. Therefore, Dudek prepared a cultural resources report in the format of a Historical Resources Compliance Report, which is used by Caltrans for projects without federal involvement. This report was prepared in accordance with Caltrans’ most recent edition of the Standard Environmental Reference, Volume 2, Cultural Resources. Results of the Investigation: Dudek conducted a pedestrian-level survey of the building located at 1431- 1433 El Camino Real on September 6, 2017. The property was recorded and evaluated on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms (DPR forms, Attachment D) for historical significance in consideration of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and City designation criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the significance evaluation, the subject property does not appear eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, or local register due to a lack of significant historical associations and compromised integrity. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 15064.5(a), 1431 El Camino Real does not appear to be a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Two NRHP-listed properties were also identified within/adjacent to the proposed project area: two young elm trees that are contributing elements of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191), and a non-contributing segment of El Camino Real (P-41-002192). In consideration of adequate protections for the NRHP-listed trees, Caltrans PQS has determined that a Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions (FNAE-SC) is appropriate for the proposed project. This will include preparation of both Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer (SOIS) and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Actions Plans (Attachments E and F). No archaeological resources were identified within the project site or immediate vicinity as a result of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search or Native American correspondence. However, it is always possible that intact archaeological deposits are present at subsurface HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 7DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 levels. Based on geomorphological evidence, and known buried cultural deposits in the Bay Area, the project site should be treated as potentially sensitive for archaeological resources. The project site is situated within Quaternary Alluvial deposits (generally less than 11,000 years old), which are generally considered to have formed too recently to support the presence of paleontological deposits. Therefore, the area is considered to be of low sensitivity for encountering significant paleontological deposits. Standard protection measures for unanticipated discoveries of human remains, archaeological resources, and paleontological resources have been provided. HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 8DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 9DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The proposed project site is located at 1431-1433 El Camino Real in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, on Assessor’s Parcel Number 026-013-110 (see Figure 1, Regional Map, and Figure 2, Vicinity Map, in Attachment A). The closest highways to the proposed project site are U.S. Route 101 and Highway 280. 2.2 Scope of Project The proposed project site is located in an R-3 zoning district and is surrounded by either R-1 or R-3 zoning districts with a lot size of 7,722 square feet. The proposed project would include the demolition of an existing four-unit (two-story) apartment building along with the detached five-car garage structure at the rear and construction of a new six-unit (three-story) townhouse, totaling 3,858 square feet and a proposed height of 35 feet. The property at 1431 El Camino Real was constructed in 1947 according to San Mateo County Assessor records. Therefore, the existing building at 1431 El Camino Real requires evaluation for historical significance to determine if the proposed project has the potential to impact historical resources, as defined by CEQA. The proposed building would have 6 units side by side and would be 3-stories in height with an occupant load of 48. Proposed units would be 2-bedrooms and 2.5 bathroom units with unit sizes ranging from 1,004 square feet to 1,195 square feet and the average unit size would be 1,097 square feet. Each unit would have ground level parking garage that will accommodate 2 parking spaces. Above the garage would be two living levels for residents. There would also be 2 at-grade guest parking spaces located in the right rear corner and a dedicated service vehicle space located in the front setback area. All entrances to each of the units would be located on the north facing (driveway) side of the project. The project would include 6 two-bedroom, 2.5-bathroom townhouse units and the unit size ranging from 1,083 square feet through 1,190 square feet. The proposed project would have 1,000 square feet of common open space in the rear yard and a minimum of 75 square feet of private open space per unit in the form of private balconies. Exterior lighting would include wall sconces at unit entries and possibly some soft lighting at front yard landscaping, mail area, and rear yard trash enclosure. The project also proposes to relocate one of the young elms adjacent to the sidewalk within the Caltrans right-of-way. Because this tree is a contributor to the NRHP-listed Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191), it will be replanted directly south of its current location to avoid any adverse effects to the resource. The proposed project will encroach onto a state right-of-way and requires an Encroachment Permit issued by Caltrans District 4. Therefore, Dudek prepared a cultural resources report in the format of a Historical HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 10DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Resources Compliance Report, which is used by Caltrans for projects without federal involvement. The report combines identification, evaluation, impact assessment, and mitigation into a single document. This report was prepared in accordance with the guidance provided in Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference, Volume 2, Cultural Resources. 2.3 Project Area Limits In coordination with the City, Dudek Principal Architectural Historian Samantha Murray, MA, delineated the Project Area Limits (PAL) map (Attachment A, Figure 3, Project Area Limits. Based on a review of the proposed project description and design plans, it was determined that the PAL should include the limits of Assessor’s Parcel Number 026-013-110 as well as the portion of the Caltrans ROW where improvements will be made. This includes the existing sidewalk, curb, gutters, driveways directly in front of the building, as well as any landscaping improvements to the sidewalk planter where one young elm tree is proposed for removal and relocation. Because this tree is a contributor to the NRHP-listed Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191), it will be relocated directly south of its current location to avoid any adverse effects to the resource. The vertical limits of the project area is 35 feet above ground surface (the proposed height of the new building) and 36 inches below grade (the maximum depth of ground disturbance). HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 11DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 12DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 3 CONSULTING PARTIES AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 3.1 Native American Heritage Commission Dudek sent a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to search the Sacred Lands File for any Native American cultural resources on August 11, 2017. Dudek received a reply from the NAHC on August 22, 2017, stating a negative finding for any cultural resources within the Sacred Lands File. A list of Native American tribes who may be affiliated with any cultural resources within the boundaries of the project area was included in the letter (Attachment B). 3.2 Native American Groups The proposed project is subject to compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (PRC Section 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to “tribal cultural resources” as part of the CEQA process, and that the lead agency (the City) notify California Native American tribal representatives (that have requested notification) who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. The City, with the assistance of Dudek, will contact all NAHC-listed California Native American tribal representatives that have requested project notification pursuant to AB 52. No responses have been received to-date. The City’s current list includes the California Native American tribal contacts listed in Table 1. Table 1. City of Burlingame List of California Native American Tribal Contacts Contact Person Tribe Contact Information Address Phone Email lrenne Zwierlein, Chairperson Amah MutsunTribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista 789 Canada Road, Woodside, California, 94062 650.400.4806 amahmutsuntribal@gmail.com Tony Cerda, Chairperson Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe 244 E. 1st Street Pomona, California, 91766 909.629.6081 rumsen@aol.com Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan P.O. Box 28 Hollister, California, 95024 831.637.4238 ams@indiancanyon.org Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area P.O. Box 360791 Milpitas, California, 95036 408.314.1898 muwekma@muwekma.org Andrew Galvan The Ohlone Indian Tribe P.O. Box 3152 Fremont, California, 94539 510.882.0527 chochenyo@AOL.com Source: City of Burlingame AB 52 contact list, last updated September 20, 2017 HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 13DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 3.3 Local Historical Groups Burlingame Historical Society Dudek contacted the Burlingame Historical Society on September 18, 2017, for any relevant information pertaining to the subject property, but received no response. HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 14DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 15DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 4 SUMMARY OF IDENTIFICATION EFFORTS 4.1 CHRIS Records Search A records search of the PAL and the surrounding 1-mile radius was completed by Northwest Information Center staff on September 13, 2017 (Confidential Attachment C). This search included the center’s collection of mapped prehistoric, historical and built-environment resources, DPR Site Records, technical reports, and archival resources. Additional sources consulted included the NRHP, California Inventory of Historical Resources/CRHR and listed Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, California Inventory of Historic Resources, historical maps, and local inventories. A total of 40 studies have been conducted within a 1-mile radius of the project area, which produced a total of 72 reports (Table 2). Of those, one study has been conducted within the project area, S-32166. There are 62 previously recorded resources within a 1-mile radius of the project area (Table 3). Resource, P-41- 002191, the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, lies within the project area. P-41-002192, El Camino Real, lies directly adjacent to the project area. Previous Technical Studies Of the 40 studies conducted in the 1-mile radius of the project area, only one study occurred adjacent to the project area. Study S-32166, written by William Kostura in 1999 for Caltrans, contains two reports. The first is entitled Historic Resources Compliance Report Including Report on the Finding of Adverse Effect for the Proposed Widening of State Highway 82 Between Bellevue Avenue and [Floribunda] Avenue in Hillsborough, San Mateo County, EA 253600, 04-SM-82, K.P. 21.9/22.1, P.M. 13.6/13.7; the second report is entitled Historical Architectural Survey Report for the Proposed Widening of State Highway 82 in Hillsborough, San Mateo County. The recording of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Rows (P-41-002191), occurred during the course of this study, along with the evaluation of El Camino Real (P-41-002192), in Burlingame and Hillsborough. Table 2. Previous Technical Studies within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Report Authors Year Title Publisher In PAL S-003147 David Chavez 1980 Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Airport Boulevard Widening Project, Burlingame, California — No S-004885 G. V. Scott 1974 The Millbrae Avenue Interchange, 04-SM-101, PM 17.9/18.1, Millbrae I/C, 04210-392680 Caltrans No S-010402 Rebecca Loveland Anastasio, Donna M. Garaventa, Stuart A. Guedon, Robert M. Harmon, and John W. Schoenfelder 1988 A Cultural Resources Assessment for San Francisco Resource Supply Study (San Mateo Substation to Martin Substation), Daly City to City of San Mateo, San Mateo County, California Basin Research Associates Inc. No S-011396 1989 Technical Report of Cultural Resources Studies for the Proposed WTG-WEST, Inc., Los Angeles to San Francisco and Sacramento, California: Fiber Optic Cable Project BioSystems Analysis Inc. No HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 16DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Table 2. Previous Technical Studies within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Report Authors Year Title Publisher In PAL S-012201 David Chavez and Jan M. Hupman 1990 Cultural Resources Evaluation for the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan EIR, San Mateo County, California David Chavez & Associates No S-017192 Laurence H. Shoup, Mark Brack, Nancy Fee, and Bruno Giberti 1994 BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Historic Architectural Survey Technical Report Archaeological/Historical Consultants No S-017192a Laurence H. Shoup and Ward Hill 1995 Bart-SFP Extension Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Historic Architectural Survey Technical Report, Volume II: Alternative VI, Highway 380 to Trousdale Drive in Burlingame Archaeological/Historical Consultants No S-017192b Cherilyn Widdell 1995 UMTA900828A; Project: BART Extension from Colma to San Francisco International Airport Office of Historic Preservation No S-017993 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss, Sharon Waechter, Stephen Wee, and Vance Bente 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project Woodward-Clyde Consultants No S-020508 Suzanne Baker and Ward Hill 1998 Archaeological Survey and Historic Architectural Survey of the Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS) Project, Sites #4, #5 and #8, San Mateo County, California Archaeological/Historical Consultants No S-020508a Keith A. Lusk, Cherilyn E. Widell, and Daniel Abeyta 1998 Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS) at San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County Federal Aviation Administration; California Office of Historic Preservation No S-021879 Marvis Baird, Dini Brown, Marie Japs, Gay Kochmich, Millie Millhauser, Carol Moye, Susan Lehmann, Katherine Solomonson, Alan Michelson, Mitch Postel, Marion Holmes, Linda Wickert, Eileen Murray, Robin O'Connell Dotey Schafer, Betty Wood, and Margery Wood 1990 Town of Hillsborough Historic Building Survey San Mateo County Historical Association No S-022978 Mike Avina 2000 Final Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, San Francisco to Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties: Addendum 1 Jones & Stokes No S-025132 George McKale and James Allen 2002 A Cultural and Paleontological Resources Study of a Portion of Mills High School, Millbrae, San Mateo County, California LSA Associates Inc. No S-025174 John Holson, Cordelia Sutch, and Stephanie Pau 2002 Cultural Resources Report for San Bruno to Mountain View Internodal Level 3 Fiber Optics Project in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California Pacific Legacy Inc. No S-026045 Richard Carrico, Theodore Cooley, and William Eckhardt 2000 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey and Inventory Report for the Metromedia Fiberoptic Cable Project, San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin Networks Mooney & Associates No HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 17DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Table 2. Previous Technical Studies within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Report Authors Year Title Publisher In PAL S-026297 Colin I. Busby 2002 Historic Properties Survey Report, Route 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project, Third Avenue to Millbrae Avenue, San Mateo County, California; 04-SM-101, K.P. 21.7/28.8 (P.M. 13.5-17.9) EA 26420K Basin Research Associates Inc. No S-026297a Ward Hill 2002 Historic Architectural Survey Report Route 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project Third Avenue to Millbrae Avenue San Mateo County, California 04-SM-101 KP 21.7/28.8 (PM13.5/17.9) EA 26420K Basin Research Associates Inc. No S-026297b Knox Mellon 2002 Archaeological Survey Report, Route 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project, Third Avenue to Millbrae Avenue, San Mateo County, California; 04-SM-101 KP 21.7/28.8 (PM 13.5/17.9) EA 26420K Basin research Associates Inc. No S-026297c Knox Mellon and David A. Nicol 2002 FHWA020807A; HAD-CA, File No. US 101 Auxiliary Lane, 04-SM-101 PM13.5/17.9, EA 04-245-26420K [Further Section 106 Consultation on the Proposed Construction of Auxiliary Lanes on State Route 101, San Mateo County] Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation No S-027715 Carolyn Losee 2003 Cingular BA-101-01 "Our Lady of Angels Catholic Church" Site: Archaeological Monitoring Recommended (letter report) Archaeological Resources Technology No S-027930 Kyle Brown, Adam Marlow, James Allan, and William Self 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment of Alternative Routes for PG&E's Jefferson-Martin Transmission Line, San Mateo County, California William Self Associates Inc. No S-029496 2001 Nextel Communications (On-Air), CA 0176C Broadway, 1177 Airport Road, Burlingame, California. Earth Touch Inc. No S-029657 Wendy J. Nelson, Tammara Norton, Larry Chiea, and Reinhard Pribish 2002 Archaeological Inventory for the Caltrain Electrification Program Alternative in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California Far Western Anthropological Research Group Inc. No S-029657a Rand F. Herbert 2002 Finding of No Adverse Effect, Caltrain Electrification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California JRP Historical Consulting Services No S-029657b Parsons 2002 Historic Property Survey for the Proposed Caltrain Electrification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California Parsons; JRP Historical Consulting Services; Far Western Anthropological Research Group Inc. No S-029657c Knox Mellon 2002 FTA021021A; Caltrain Electrification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties Office of Historic Preservation No S-029657d Meta Bunse 2003 Final Finding of Effect Amendment, Caltrain Electrification Project, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California JRP Historical Consulting Services No S-029657e Rand F. Herbert 2001 Draft Finding of No Adverse Effect, Caltrain Electrification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California JRP Historical Consulting Services No S-029657f Sharon A. Waechter, Jack Meyer, and Laura Leach- Palm 2008 Cultural Resources Addendum for the Caltrain Electrification Program Alternative: San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California Far Western Anthropological Research Group Inc. No S-032166 William Kostura 1999 Historic Resources Compliance Report Including Report on the Finding of Adverse Effect for the Proposed Widening of State Highway 82 Between Bellevue Avenue and [Floribunda] Avenue in Hillsborough, San Mateo County, EA 253600, 04-SM-82, K.P. 21.9/22.1, P.M. 13.6/13.7 California Department of Transportation, District 04 Adjacent S-032166a William Kostura 1999 Historical Architectural Survey Report for the Proposed Widening of State Highway 82 in Hillsborough, San Mateo County California Department of Transportation, District 04 Adjacent HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 18DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Table 2. Previous Technical Studies within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Report Authors Year Title Publisher In PAL S-032250 Philippe Lapin 2003 Historic Property Survey Report, Mission Bells Project, State Route 82/Interstate 101, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California California Department of Transportation, District 04 No S-032788 2002 Historic Resources Evaluation Report Draft, Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Facility, Proposed Improvements, Burlingame, California Carey & Co. Inc. No S-033061 Nancy Sikes, Cindy Arrington, Bryon Bass, Chris Corey, Kevin Hunt, Steve O'Neil, Catherine Pruett, Tony Sawyer, Michael Tuma, Leslie Wagner, and Alex Wesson 2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project, State of California SWCA Environmental Consultants No S-033061a 2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project, State of California SWCA Environmental Consultants No S-033061b Nancy E. Sikes 2007 Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project (letter report) SWCA Environmental Consultants No S-036274 Dean Martorana 2009 Historic Property Survey Report, US 101/Broadway Interchange Reconstruction Project, San Mateo County, California, EA 235840, 4-SMC-101 PM 16.30-17.06 URS Corporation No S-036274a Cheryl Brookshear 2009 Historical Resources Evaluation Report, US 101/Broadway Interchange Reconstruction Project, San Mateo County, California, Post Mile 4-SMC-101 16.30- 17.06 EA 235840, US 101, San Mateo County JRP Historical Consulting LLC No S-036274b Dean Martorana 2009 Archaeological Survey Report, US 101/Broadway Interchange Reconstruction Project, San Mateo County, California, EA 235840, 4-SMC-101 PM 16.30-17.06 URS Corporation No S-036313 2009 Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 Replacement Project, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California: Historic Context and Archaeological Survey Report ESA+Orion No S-036313a Rancy S. Wiberg 2009 Technical Report, Extended Archaeological Survey, Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2, Segments 2 and 3 Between Sites 8 and 9, City of San Mateo and Town of Hillsborough Holman & Associates No S-036456 Dana E. Supernowicz 2009 Colocation ("CO") Submission Packet, FCC Form 621, Mike Harvey Acura, Project Number: SF-03116A EarthTouch Inc. No S-036456a Dana E. Supernowicz 2009 Cultural Resources Study of the Mike Harvey Acura Project, T-Mobile Site No. SF03116A, 1070 Broadway Street, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California 94010 Historic Resource Associates No S-036757 Matthew R. Clark 2010 NHPA Section 106 Compliance for the Town of Hillsborough SCADA Upgrade Project, Type A Installations, San Mateo County, California Holman and Associates No S-037875 Lorna Billat 2011 Collocation ("CO") Submission Packet, FCC Form 621, Rollins Road PGE Lattice, SF53341C EarthTouch Inc. No S-038036 Carrie D. Wills, M.A. and Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. 2010 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for AESCO Job Number 20101651-B3541, Extenet Systems Candidate BGM-139A (Burlingame Network 139A), 1457 Drake Avenue, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California Michael Brandman Associates No S-038063 Neal Kaptain 2009 Smart Corridors Geoarchaeological Sensitivity Research (letter report) LSA Associates Inc. No S-038147 Dana Supernowicz 2009 Collocation Submission Packet, New Life Community Church, SF13050A EarthTouch Incorporated No S-038147a Dana Supernowicz 2009 Cultural Resources Study of the New Life Community Church Project, T-Mobile Site no. SF13050A, 1430 Palm Drive, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California 94010 Historic Resource Associates No HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 19DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Table 2. Previous Technical Studies within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Report Authors Year Title Publisher In PAL S-038914 Randy Wiberg 2011 Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2, Replacement Project, Site 12, City of Burlingame Holman & Associates No S-039000 Dana E. Supernowicz and Jon L. Brady 2004 Cultural Resources Study of Canyon Road/Summit Project, AT&T Wireless Services Site No. SNFCCA1786, Shinnyo En Buddhist Temple, 2220 Summit Drive, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California 94010 Historic Resource Associates No S-039104 Brian F. Byrd, John E. Berg, Philip Kaijankoski, Jack Meyer, Jeffrey Rosenthal, Jelmer W. Eerlans, Anna Fritschi, Howard Spero, and Eric Wohlgemuth 2012 Archaeological Investigations for the State Route 82 Signal Interconnect and Intersection Modification Project, San Mateo County, California, 04-SMA-82 PM 0.0/15.9, EA 04-24992 Far Western Anthropological Research Group Inc. No S-039104a Brett Rushing 2010 Historic Property Treatment Plan for the State Route 82 Signal Interconnect and Intersection Modification Project, 04-SM-82 PM 0.0/15.9, EA 24992 Caltrans No S-039958 David Brunzell 2012 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Crown Castle Hillsborough Project, San Mateo County, California (BCR Consulting Project No. SYN1210) (letter report) BCR Consulting No S-042892 Jennifer Thomas 2012 0211-01 103.6EW Station 15+89 ECDA Project (Cluster #1) - Cultural Resources Study (letter report) Far Western Anthropological Research Group Inc. No S-045365 Heidi Koenig 2014 Peninsula Health Care District Memory Care and Assisted Living Facility Project, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, Draft Cultural Resources Survey Report Environmental Science Associates No S-046663 Michael Konzak and Adrian Praetzellis 2014 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Caltrain Base Stations 4 and 5, in the Cities of Burlingame and San Mateo, San Mateo County, California Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University No S-046663a Michael Konzak and Adrian Praetzellis 2014 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Caltrain Base Stations 4 and 5, in the Cities of Burlingame and San Mateo, TCNS Number: 98618, San Mateo County, California Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University No S-046663b Carol Roland-Nawi and Michael Konzak 2014 FCC_2014_0813_007; Caltrain Positive Train Control Project (PTC) Base Station 04, Burlingame & 05, San Mateo Office of Historic Preservation; Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University No S-047840 Carrie D. Wills and Kathleen Crawford 2015 FCC Form 621 (SF03083A), Collocation ("CO") Submission Packet, SF083 Peninsula Professional, 1828 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA 94010 Environmental Assessment Specialists Inc. No S-047840a Carrie D. Wills 2015 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate SF03083A (SF083 Peninsula Professional), 1828 El Camino Real, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California (letter report) Environmental Assessment Specialists Inc. No S-047840b Carrie D. Wills and Kathleen A. Crawford 2015 Direct APE Historic Architectural Assessment for T- Mobile West, LLC Candidate SF03083A (SF083 Peninsula Professional), 1828 El Camino Real, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California (letter report) Environmental Assessment Specialists Inc. No S-047840c Julianne Polanco 2015 FCC_2015_1109_003; SF03083A (SF083 Peninsula Professional) 1828 El Camino Real, Burlingame, San Mateo County, Collocation Office of Historic Preservation No S-047843 Carolyn Losee and Stephen Geist 2015 FCC Form 621 Collocation Submission Packet, Highway 101-Broadway, CCL00530 / FA10095911, 1070 Broadway, Burlingame, San Mateo County, CA 94010, GE2G Project Number: 310521 Geist Engineering & Environmental Group Inc. No HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 20DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Table 2. Previous Technical Studies within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Report Authors Year Title Publisher In PAL S-047843a Carrie D. Wills and Sarah L. Farley 2010 FCC Form 621, Collocation Submission Packet, AT&T Mobility, LLC, Hwy 101-Broadway, CNU0530, 1070 Broadway, Burlingame, CA 94010, San Mateo County Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) on behalf of EnviroBusiness Inc. d/b/a EBI Consulting No S-047843b Carolyn Losee 2015 Cultural Resources Investigation for AT&T Mobility CNU0530 "Highway 101 - Broadway" 1070 Broadway, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California 94010 (update) (letter report) Archaeological Resources Technology No S-047843c Carolyn Losee 2015 Cultural Resources Investigation for AT&T Mobility CNU0530 "Highway 101 - Broadway" 1070 Broadway, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California 94010 (letter report) Archaeological Resources Technology No S-047843d Carrie D. Wills and Kathleen A. Crawford 2010 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for AT&T Mobility, LLC Candidate CNU0530 (Hwy 101 - Broadway), 1070 Broadway, Burlingame, San Mateo County, California Michael Brandman Associates No S-047843e Julianne Polanco and Paula Carr 2015 FCC_2015_1016_003; FCC 100601C; CNU0530 "Highway 101-Broadway" 1070 Broadway, Burlingame, Collocation Office of Historic Preservation No S-048343 Daniel Shoup 2016 Historic Property Survey Report: Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project CML 5171(021) Burlingame, San Mateo County Archaeological/Historical Consultants No S-048343a Daniel Shoup 2016 Archaeological Survey Report: Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project CML 5171(021) Burlingame, San Mateo County Archaeological/Historical Consultants No Previously Recorded Cultural Resources One previously recorded resource is located within the proposed PAL: the NRHP-listed Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row (P-41-002191). One additional resource is located directly adjacent to the PAL: El Camino Real (P-41-002192). The Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191). One NRHP-listed resource lies within the project area. The Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191) is a 1.76-mile-long landscaping effort dating from 1873 to 1876 that consists of a row of trees lining each side of the historic El Camino Real from Ray Drive/Rosedale Avenue in Burlingame on the northwest to Peninsula Avenue in Hillsborough on the southwest. The current Historic Property Data File for San Mateo County indicates that the resource was formally listed in the NRHP in 2011. The trees are predominantly mature blue gum and manna gum eucalyptus, which can reach over 100 feet tall and over 5 feet in diameter. English elm trees also contribute to the resource, although their numbers have slowly declined due to Dutch Elm disease. Although there are no mature trees within the PAL, the recently planted saplings adjacent to the sidewalk are considered historically significant since they represent an on-going effort to maintain the feel and intent of the original tree-lined El Camino Real. The NRHP Registration form for the resource states the following about the more recently planted trees (Pfaff 2011:5): Since 2004, Caltrans has had an ongoing agreement with SHPO regarding removals and replacements of trees within the Resource Area…In keeping with McLaren’s original design HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 21DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 intent, as trees have had to be replaced, elm trees have been planted and will continue to be planted in the future. Since 2006, Caltrans has planted 44 non-historic, contributing elm saplings to rehabilitate the resource. Burlingame Planning Commission requirements led to the planting of 5 more elms in 2009-10. Cal Fire has planted 33 additional contributing elm saplings in March 2011. Of the 82 total, 5 have died, leaving 77 new contributing elms. New elm trees, replacing lost elm trees in kind, are considered to be contributing elements of the resource and thus contribute to the integrity of materials and design of the Tree Rows as they carry out McLaren’s original design of a landscaped, shaded avenue. This resource is listed in the NRHP under Criterion A (property associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history) and Criterion C (property embodying distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction). Its nomination lies in its association with the inception of Burlingame and Hillsborough, and with figures of historical importance to the region, William C. Ralston and George H. Howard. Also considered is a long history of protection and sense of identity for the community of Burlingame. The trees are also an example of the work master landscaper John McLaren put forth to transform the landscape of the area from an otherwise barren environment (Kostura 1999). Map IV in Study S-32166 shows that the landscaping between Hillside Drive and Adeline Drive on the south side of El Camino Real, adjacent to the project area, exhibits poor integrity(Attachment A, Figure 4). El Camino Real (P-41-002192). El Camino Real, the “Kings Highway,” was established in the Spanish Era (1776–1800s) as a means to travel between the missions in California. The segment of the highway that runs adjacent to the project area was evaluated in 1999 by William Kostura. The evaluation found that the segment of El Camino Real that runs between Ray Drive and Peninsular Avenue in Burlingame and Hillsborough (i.e., the segment adjacent to the proposed project) lacks integrity to the period of significance and is a non-contributing portion of the larger resource. Paving, widening, and development during the 1940s have greatly reduced the integrity of the Spanish Era resource (Kostura 1999). Table 3. Previously Recorded Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Primary No. Trinomial Resource Name Resource Type Age Recording Events In PAL P-41-000038 CA-SMA-000034 Nelson 373 Site, Other Prehistoric ([none], [none]) No P-41-000039 CA-SMA-000035 Nelson 374 Other Prehistoric, Unknown ([none], [none]) No P-41-000040 CA-SMA-000036 Nelson 375 Site Prehistoric ([none], [none]) No P-41-000077 CA-SMA-000074 Mills Estate Site Prehistoric 1950 (L.L. Valdivia, [none]); 1952 (Heizer, Meighan, [none]); 1990 (Barb Bocek, Campus Archeology, Stanford University) No HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 22DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Table 3. Previously Recorded Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Primary No. Trinomial Resource Name Resource Type Age Recording Events In PAL P-41-000078 CA-SMA-000075 SMa 75 Site Prehistoric 1950 (Evans, Lathrap, [none]) No P-41-000079 CA-SMA-000076 [none] Site Prehistoric 1952 (Meighan, [none]) No P-41-000090 CA-SMA-000087 San Mateo Shellmound F Site Prehistoric 1936 (Jerome Hamilton, [none]); 1954 (Alan Brown, [none]) No P-41-000093 CA-SMA-000090 SMA-90 Site Prehistoric 1954 (A. Elsasser, [none]) No P-41-000094 CA-SMA-000091 SMA-91 Site Prehistoric 1954 (L.L. Valdivia, [none]) No P-41-000105 CA-SMA-000102 [none] Site Prehistoric 1968 (Hons, Robertson, San Francisco State College); 2009 (Denise Jurich, Jesse Martinez, Emilie Zelazo, PBS&J) No P-41-000108 CA-SMA-000105 SMA-105 Site Prehistoric 1969 (Schenk, [none]) No P-41-000126 CA-SMA-000124 San Mateo Shellmound E Site Prehistoric 1936 (J. Hamillton, [none]); 1969 (Schenk, [none]) No P-41-000165 CA-SMA-000165H Southern Pacific Depot Building Historic 1983 (John W. Snyder, Caltrans); 2000 (Chris McMorris, JRP Historical Consulting Services) No P-41-000228 CA-SMA-000230H Kohl Mansion, The Oaks, Mercy High School Building Historic 1981 (Jeanmarie Montgomery, Merch High School); 1981 (T. McGregor, [none]) No P-41-000302 CA-SMA-000300 Albemarle Way Site Prehistoric 1989 (B. Bocek, Campus Archaeology, Stanford University) No P-41-000310 CA-SMA-000316 C-791 Site Prehistoric 1936 (J. Hamilton, [none]); 1995 ([none], Woodward-Clyde Consultants); 2010 (Jessie Martinez, PBS&J) No P-41-000311 CA-SMA-000317 Broadway Car Wash Site Prehistoric 1936 (J. Hamilton, [none]); 1936 (J. Hamilton, [none]); 1990 (B. Bocek, Stanford University); 1995 ([none], Woodward-Clyde Consultants); 2010 (Jesse Martinez, PBS&J) No P-41-000416 — CT-7 Structure Historic 1995 (Hatoff, Voss, Waechter, Wee, Bente, Woodward-Clyde Consultants) No P-41-000417 — CT-8 Structure Historic 1995 ([none], Woodward-Clyde Consultants); 2009 ([none], JRP Historical Consulting) No P-41-000498 — C-San Mateo-6 Site Prehistoric 2000 (Mike Avina, Jones & Stokes); 2009 (Denise Jurich, Jesse Martinez, Emilie Zelazo, PBS&J) No P-41-000637 — Chinese Fishing Village Site Site Historic 1980 (Nancy Wey, Chinese American Survey) No HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 23DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Table 3. Previously Recorded Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Primary No. Trinomial Resource Name Resource Type Age Recording Events In PAL P-41-000640 CA-SMA-000172H Southern Pacific Depot Building Historic 1977 (Francis Baxter, Millbrae Historical Society); 1979 (J. Cooper, Cabrillo College) No P-41-001917 — Danvers House (von Antwerp Estate) Building Historic 1990 (Wickert, San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc) No P-41-001924 — Villa Roma Building Historic 1990 (Solomonson; Wickert, San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc) No P-41-001925 — 1905 Forest View Building Historic 1990 ([unreadable], San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc) No P-41-001926 — 2077 Forest View Building Historic 1990 (Michelson; Wickert, San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc) No P-41-001927 — 2100 Forest View Building Historic 1990 (Wickert; Solomonson, San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc) No P-41-001928 — Mountford S. Wilson House Building Historic 1990 (Wickert, San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc) No P-41-001929 — 2141 Forest View Building Historic 1990 ([unreadable], San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc) No P-41-001933 — Edgecourt Gates; George A. Pope Estate Gates Structure Historic 1990 (Wickert, San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc.) No P-41-001941 — Crosby Home Building Historic 1990 (Wickert, San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc) No P-41-001943 — La Dophine Building, Structure Historic 1980 (Marvis Baird, San Mateo County Historical Association); 2006 (Nancy E. Stoltz, [none]) No P-41-001983 — Lilienthal House Building Historic 1990 (Michelson; Wickert, San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc) No P-41-001984 — [none] Building Historic 1990 (Solomonson, Wickert, San Mateo Co. Hist. Assoc.) No P-41-002078 — Broadway Overpass Structure Historic 2001 (Marjorie Dobkin, Ward Hill, [none]) No P-41-002079 — 949 Rollins Road Building Historic 2001 (Marjorie Dobkin, Ward Hill, [none]) No P-41-002191 — Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows Other Historic 1999 (William Kostura, Caltrans, District 4); 2011 (Jennifer Pfaff, Burlingame Historical Society) Yes P-41-002192 — El Camino Real Structure Historic 1963 ([none], [none]); 1999 (William Kostura, Caltrans District 4); 2008 (Denise Jurich, Jesse Martinez, PBS&J); 2011 (Andrew Hope, Caltrans) Adjacent P-41-002226 — Mike Harvey Acura Building Building Historic 2009 (Dana E. Supernowicz, Historic Resource Associates) No P-41-002260 — 1299 Bayshore Highway Building Historic 2009 (Brookshear, Clementi, JRP Historical Consulting) No HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 24DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Table 3. Previously Recorded Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Primary No. Trinomial Resource Name Resource Type Age Recording Events In PAL P-41-002261 — 1322-28 Marsten Road Building Historic 2009 (Cheryl Brookshear, Karen Clementi, JRP Historical Consulting) No P-41-002262 — 1320 Marsten Road Building Historic 2009 (Cheryl Brookshear, Karen Clementi, JRP Historical Consulting) No P-41-002263 — 1244-1246 Rollins Road Building Historic 2009 (Cheryl Brookshear, Karen Clementi, JRP Historical Consulting) No P-41-002264 — 1222 Rollins Road Building Historic 2009 (Cheryl Brookshear, Karen Clementi, JRP Historical Consulting) No P-41-002265 — 1212-1220 Rollins Road Building Historic 2009 (Cheryl Brookshear, Karen Clementi, JRP Historical Consulting) No P-41-002266 — 1221 Rollins Road Building Historic 2009 (Cheryl Brookshear, Karen Clementi, JRP Historical Consulting) No P-41-002267 — 1213 Rollins Road Building Historic 2009 (Cheryl Brookshear, Karen Clementi, JRP Historical Consulting) No P-41-002285 — New Life Community Church Building Historic 2009 (Dana E. Supernowicz, Historical Resource Associates) No P-41-002308 — Shinnyo En Buddhist Temple Building Historic 2004 (Dana E. Supernowicz, Historic Resource Associates) No P-41-002399 — HST-92P Site Prehistoric 2010 (Jesse Martinez, PBS&J) No P-41-002443 — MP 13.90 and 14.31 Structure Historic 2000 (Meta Bunse/Rand Herbert, JRP Historical Consulting Services) No P-41-002444 — Culvert near California Drive MP 14.84 Structure Historic 2000 (Meta Bunse/Rand Herbert, JRP Historical Consulting Services) No P-41-002471 — T-Moblie West, LLC SF03083A/SF083 Peninsula Professional Building Historic 2015 (Kathleen Crawford, Crawford Historic Services) No P-41-002505 — 1038 Morrell Avenue Building Historic 2009 (James Williams, PBS&J) No P-41-002516 — 840 Edgehill Drive Building Historic 2009 (James Williams, Amber Grady, Richard Brandi, PBS&J)No P-41-002517 — 873 California Drive Building Historic 2009 (James Williams, PBS&J)No P-41-002518 — 1107 California Drive Building Historic 2009 (James Williams, Richard Brandi, PBS&J) No HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 25DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Table 3. Previously Recorded Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Primary No. Trinomial Resource Name Resource Type Age Recording Events In PAL P-41-002519 — 1131 California Drive Building Historic 2009 (James Williams, PBS&J) No P-41-002521 — 1279 California Drive Building Historic 2009 (James Williams, Amber Grady, PBS&J) No P-41-002522 — 1283 California Drive Building Historic 2009 (James Williams, PBS&J) No P-41-002523 — 881 California Drive Building Historic 2009 (James Williams, PBS&J) No P-41-002536 — 10 Guittard Road Building Historic 2010 (Amber Grady, James Williams, PBS&J) No 4.2 Building Development Research Burlingame Building Division of the Community Development Department Dudek staff visited the Burlingame Building Division of the Community Development Department on September 6, 2017. Dudek obtained all relevant and available permit and building development information for the subject property. San Bruno Public Library Dudek contacted Susan Goetz at the San Bruno Public Library on September 18, 2017, for any relevant information they may have about Burlingame. No response was received. San Mateo County Tax Assessor’s Office The San Mateo County Tax Assessor’s office provided the date of construction for the property, but was unable to provide any additional information. ParcelQuest Dudek staff used the ParcelQuest system to obtain a property record for the property. HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 26DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 27DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 5 CEQA HISTORICAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED 5.1 Newly Evaluated Resources within PAL Caltrans PQS evaluated the following resource(s) within the PAL and has determined that pursuant to PRC 15064.5(a) they are not historical resource(s) for purposes of CEQA because they do not meet the California Register of Historical Resources criteria outlined in PRC 5024.1. 1431-1433 El Camino Real: Caltrans PQS Sarah Corder, MFA, and Samantha Murray, MA, identified one building within the PAL over 45 years of age that had not been previously evaluated for historical significance. Pursuant to PRC Section 15064.5(a), 1431-1433 El Camino Real (constructed 1947) does not appear to be a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA because it does not meet the CRHR criteria outlined in PRC Section 5024.1. No important historical associations were identified for the subject property, and it does not appear to be significant for its architecture due to a lack of requisite integrity. The building also does not appear eligible for local designation with the City of Burlingame for the same reasons. See the Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms (DPR forms) in Attachment D for the full significance evaluation. No mitigation is recommended for this property. 5.2 Previously Evaluated Historical Resources within PAL The following resource(s) within the PAL previously were listed or determined eligible for the NRHP, previously determined to meet CRHR eligibility criteria, and/or previously determined to be historical resource(s) for purposes of CEQA pursuant to PRC 15064.5(a) and the determination(s) is/are still valid. Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191): One NRHP-listed resource (listed in 2011) is located within the project area: two young elm trees that contribute to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191). A third mature tree is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the project area. Although the Tree Rows within and around the proposed project area are noted to have poor integrity (Figure 4, Attachment A), it appears that younger trees/saplings that were planted to replace lost mature trees, and are considered contributors to the larger resource (see discussion in Section 4.1). The project proposes to remove one tree from the sidewalk planter within the Caltrans ROW so that it is not adversely affected during widening of the adjacent driveway. Following completion of construction activities, the tree will be replanted directly south of its current location, within the same sidewalk planter. SOIS and ESA Action Plans (Sections 7.2 and 7.3) have been prepared to reduce impacts to the Tree Rows below a level of significance. El Camino Real (P-41-002192): Listed in the NRHP in 1963, this resource is located directly adjacent to the proposed project area. While the larger resource is listed in the NRHP, the segment of El Camino HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 28DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Real that is adjacent to the PAL (between Ray Drive and Peninsular Avenue) was previously evaluated and found not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of integrity to the period of significance, and is considered a non-contributing portion of the larger resource (Kostura 1999). No mitigation is recommended for this property. 5.3 Archaeological Resources No archaeological resources were identified within the project site or immediate vicinity as a result of the CHRIS records search or Native American coordination. In addition, both surface and subsurface deposits in the area have been heavily disturbed through construction of the existing building occupying the site. However, it is always possible that intact archaeological deposits are present at subsurface levels. Based on geomorphological evidence and known buried cultural deposits in the Bay Area, the project site should be treated as potentially sensitive for archaeological resources. The project site is situated within Quaternary Alluvial deposits (generally less than 11,000 years old), which are generally considered to have formed too recently to support the presence of paleontological deposits. Management recommendations to reduce potential impacts to unanticipated archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains during construction activities are provided in Section 7.2. Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources All construction crew members should be alerted to the potential to encounter sensitive archaeological material. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether additional study is warranted. Prehistoric archaeological deposits may be indicated by the presence of discolored or dark soil, fire-affected material, concentrations of fragmented or whole marine shell, burned or complete bone, non- local lithic materials, or the characteristic observed to be atypical of the surrounding area. Common prehistoric artifacts may include modified or battered lithic materials; lithic or bone tools that appeared to have been used for chopping, drilling, or grinding; projectile points; fired clay ceramics or non-functional items; and other items. Historic-age deposits are often indicated by the presence of glass bottles and shards, ceramic material, building or domestic refuse, ferrous metal, or old features such as concrete foundations or privies. Depending upon the significance of the find under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5(f); PRC Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 29DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the county coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the county coroner has determined, within 2 working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant shall complete his/her inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are limited, nonrenewable resources of scientific, cultural, and educational value and are afforded protection under state laws and regulations (CEQA). Paleontological resources are explicitly afforded protection by CEQA, specifically in Section V(c) of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the Environmental Checklist Form, which addresses the potential for adverse impacts to “unique paleontological resource[s] or site[s] or . . . unique geological feature[s]” (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). Further, CEQA provides that, generally, a resource shall be considered “historically significant” if it has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory (14 CCR 15064.5 [a][3][D]). In the event that paleontological resources (silicified shell, bone, or other features) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find. This analysis should comply with guidelines and significance criteria specified by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 30DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 31DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 6 LIST OF IDENTIFIED HISTORICAL RESOURCES None of the following resources meet the criteria for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation, and are not historical resources under CEQA. The complete evaluation of 1431-1433 El Camino Real on DPR forms is provided in Attachment D: Name Address/Location Community OHP Status Code Map Reference # 1431-1433 El Camino Real 1431-1433 El Camino Real Burlingame 6Z n/a (see Figure 3. PAL) The following resource(s) within the PAL previously were listed or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, previously determined to meet California Register of Historical Resources eligibility criteria, and/or previously determined to be historical resource(s) for purposes of CEQA pursuant to PRC 15064.5(a) and the determination(s) is/are still valid: Name Address/Location Community OHP Status Code Map Reference # Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41- 002191) Borders both sides of El Camino Real (SR-82) for 1.76 miles between Chapin Avenue and Rosedale Avenue. Burlingame, CA 1S/1D n/a (see Figure 3. PAL) El Camino Real (P- 41-002192) Segment between Ray Drive and Peninsular Avenue_ Burlingame, CA 1CL (however the segment adjacent to the PAL is non- contributing) n/a (see Figure 3. PAL) HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 32DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 33DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 7 STATE-OWNED CULTURAL RESOURCES FINDINGS 7.1 Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions (FNAE-SC) Pursuant to PRC 5024(f) and PRC 5024.5 Caltrans and SHPO agree that in order to avoid adverse effects to state-owned historical resources, the Caltrans District may propose a finding of “No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions” (FNAE-SC) when the appropriate standard conditions are imposed and the finding is documented in the HRCR. HRCR to CSO In consultation with Caltrans District 4, it was determined that a Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions is appropriate for the proposed project. The documents required to support this finding include this HRCR with an attached SOIS and ESA Action Plan. The SOIS portion of the plan discusses the City’s commitment to replant the elm tree proposed for relocation within the same planter, and in line with the rest of the NRHP-listed resource. The ESA portion of the plan describes the actions that will be taken to protect the adjacent tree from adverse effects. Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191) within the PAL Caltrans, in accordance with PRC 5024 Memorandum of Understanding Stipulation X.B.1.b. and Attachment 5, has determined a Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions – SOIS is appropriate for this project/activity because the proposed work on following State-owned historical resources(s)—which have been determined eligible for or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places/as a California Historical Landmark(s), meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Caltrans is hereby notifying CSO of this finding, Samantha Murray, MA, who meets the Professionally Qualified Staff Standards in PRC 5024 Memorandum of Understanding Attachment 1 as Principal Architectural Historian has reviewed the documentation and determined that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. [List the property(ies) and whether they are on the Master List, and include description of work below or indicate below the title of the HRCR attachment that contains the description; attach SOIS Action Plan (Attachment E). x The Howard-Ralston Tree Rows along State Route 82, El Camino Real, in the cities of Burlingame and Hillsborough, San Mateo is a State-owned resource listed in the NRHP in 2011 under Criteria A and C, with a Period of Significance of 1873 to 1930. HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 34DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191) Adjacent to the PAL Pursuant to PRC 5024 Memorandum of Understanding Stipulation X.B.1.a, and Attachment 5, Caltrans has determined a Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions - ESA, is appropriate because the following State-owned historical resource(s)—which have been determined eligible for or are listed in the National Register of Historic Place or for are eligible or are register as California Historical Landmark(s) — will be protected through the establishment of ESA(s). Caltrans is hereby notifying CSO of this finding. Samantha Murray, MA, who meets the Professionally Qualified Staff Standards in PRC 5024 Memorandum of Understanding Attachment 1 as a Principal Architectural Historian has reviewed the documentation and determined that the proposed ESA is appropriate (see Attachment F). x The Howard-Ralston Tree Rows along State Route 82, El Camino Real, in the cities of Burlingame and Hillsborough, San Mateo is a State-owned resource listed in the NRHP in 2011 under Criteria A and C, with a Period of Significance of 1873 to 1930. 7.2 SOIS Action Plan An FNAE-SC-SOIS is appropriate when a project or activity’s effects to a state-owned historical resource may be considered not adverse if the work is consistent with the SOIS, and is carried out in accordance with Attachment 5 of the MOU. When an undertaking’s activities include stabilization, maintenance, repairs, rehabilitation, or alterations, use of SOIS can avoid adverse effects to historic built-environment properties. The SOIS Action Plan (Attachment E) describes how the proposed project will comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties – Rehabilitation as described in Stipulation X.B.1.b of the Section 106 PA. To support a finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions-SOIS this document was prepared in accordance with Stipulation X.b.1 of the Section 106 PA and Attachment 5, and to ensure compliance with CEQA. The SOIS (36 CFR part 67.7) provide a general approach to historic preservation practices and the treatment of historic properties. Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. Relocation of the northernmost elm tree (Figure 3, Attachment A) to the southern portion of the sidewalk planter area will ensure that the tree is not impacted by creation of a driveway on the northern side of the PAL. The new location will be in line with the rest of the historic Tree Rows and the relocated tree will continue to be a contributing element of the NRHP-listed resource. Implementation of the SOIS Action Plan (Attachment E) will ensure protection of the NRHP-listed resource throughout construction. HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 35DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 7.3 ESA Action Plan An FNAE-SC-ESA is appropriate when a project or activity’s effects to state-owned historical resources, or properties considered to be eligible pursuant to Stipulation VIII.C.3 or 4, will be avoided by designation and enforcement of ESAs as described in Attachment 5 to this MOU. The ESA Action Plan discusses the ESA methodology that will protect historic properties during construction, documents the protective measures required, identifies responsible parties and their appropriate tasks, outlines an anticipated schedule and process and how these ESAs will be implemented and enforced during construction. The ESA Action Plan also details how the ESA will be integrated into the final bid solicitation package and how the responsible parties will track and verify the successful implementation of the ESA Action Plan at the various phases of the project development process. Although the project has been designed to avoid adverse impacts to historic properties, it has the potential to affect adjacent trees that are not proposed for relocation. The ESA Action Plan has been established as a precautionary measure to protect the adjacent NRHP-listed Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41- 002191) during all project-related activities. The proposed project does not include work within the property footprint for the ESA; however due to the adjacent tree’s proximity to the proposed undertaking, it may be vulnerable during project construction. As such, avoidance measures must be taken to ensure the proposed project avoids this ESA. Prior to project construction, the ESA footprint will be clearly delineated on project plans, and will include notations as outlined in the Caltrans Standard Specifications (2010), stating: 1). Do not enter the ESA unless authorized; 2). If the ESA is breached, immediately secure the area and stop all operations within 60 feet of the ESA boundary and notify the Engineer; 3). If the ESA is damaged, the Department determines what efforts are necessary to remedy the damage and who performs the remedy. The importance of maintaining and enforcing the ESA boundaries will be discussed during the pre- construction meeting with construction personnel. During the meeting it will be stressed that no construction activity (including storage or staging or equipment or materials) should occur within ESA. At least one calendar week prior to the commencement of construction activities all responsibilities parties shall perform a field review of the ESA location to ensure that they are sufficiently familiar with the area. For the duration of the construction, the project Landscape Architect/Arborist will perform spot inspections to ensure that project personnel are fully aware of the ESA boundary and that the measures outlined in the plans are being followed. Following completion of project construction, the Local Agency Project Manager will inform the Caltrans Architectural Historian when work is finished. The ESA for the proposed project includes the young elms within the sidewalk planter and the adjacent mature eucalyptus tree to the north (adjacent to where the northern driveway is proposed). The ESA Action Plan table is included in Attachment F of this document. HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 36DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT 10631 37DUDEK OCTOBER 2017 8BIBLIOGRAPHY 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Kostura, W. 1999. Historic Resources Compliance Report including Report of the Finding of Adverse Affect for the Proposed Widening of State Highway 82 Between Bellevue Avenue and Floribunda Avenue in Hillsborough, San Mateo County. Prepared for Caltrans District 4. ATTACHMENT A Maps and Figures Milpitas San Jose Mountain View Palo Alto Campbell San Ramon BlackhawkDanville Moraga Town AlamoOrinda Lafayette Walnut Creek Clayton Brentwood Pleasant Hill OakleyConcord Aptos Hills-Larkin Valley Interlaken Santa Cruz Soquel Aptos Corralitos Felton Day Valley Scotts Valley Ben Lomond Boulder Creek MH Lexington Hills Los Gatos Saratoga Cupertino Los Altos Hills Los Altos Santa ClaraSunnyvale Portola Valley Woodside Atherton San CarlosHalf Moon Bay Menlo Park BelmontEl Granada Redwood City Montara Hillsborough San Mateo Foster City Burlingame San Bruno Pacifica South San Francisco San Francisco Newark Fremont Union City Hayward PleasantonFairview Livermore DublinSan Leandro Castro Valley Alameda Oakland Berkeley Antioch Vine Hill Richmond Martinez Pittsburg West Pittsburg Pinole Rodeo Hercules Mill Valley San Rafael Lagunitas-Forest Knolls Lucas Valley- Marinwood Inverness Novato Benicia Vallejo American Canyon Petaluma Cruz San Mateo County San Francisco County Marin County Contra Cost a C o u nt y Marin Co u n t y Sonoma C o u n t y Sacramento County Santa C l a r a C o u n t y Sant a C r u z C o u n t y Santa Clara Santa Cruz County San Mateo County Alameda C o u nt y Alameda C Pacific Ocean ?35 ?82 ?24 ?131 ?85 ?29 ?113 ?123 ?13 ?61 ?185 ?152 ?237 ?37 ?116 ?160 ?17 ?130 ?121 ?9 ?12 ?84 ?92 ?4 ?1 £¤101 §¨¦80 §¨¦238 §¨¦680 §¨¦280 §¨¦580 §¨¦880 Regional Map 1431 El Camino Real Project SOURCE: Esri Basemaps Date: 7/17/2017 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1039001\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Figure1_Regional.mxd0105Milesn FIGURE 1 Project Site !^ ?82 £¤101 §¨¦280 Vicinity Map 1431 El Camino Real Project SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series San Mateo QuadrangleTownship 4S; Range 5W; Section 14 Date: 7/17/2017 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1039001\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Figure2_Vicinity.mxd0 2,0001,000 Feetn Project Boundary FIGURE 2 Project Site Project Area Limits Map 1431 El Camino Real Project SOURCE: Bing Maps (Accessed 2017)Date: 10/4/2017 - Last saved by: kzecher - Path: \\dudek-files\GISData\Projects\j1039001\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Figure3_ProjectAreaLimits.mxd05025 Feet Project Area Limits Parcel Boundary El Camino Real (P-41-002192) Existing Trees part of Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row (P-41-002191) Tree to Remain Tree to be Relocated FIGURE 3 Project Area Limits Map San Mateo County 1431 El Camino Real Project ______________________________________________ Caltrans PQS Date ______________________________________________ Local Assistance Engineer Date Integrity of Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows Around the Project Area 1431 El Camino Real Project SOURCE: Kostura 1999 Date: 10/4/2017 - Last saved by: kzecher - Path: \\dudek-files\GISData\Projects\j1039001\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Figure4_Integrity of Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows.mxdFIGURE 4 PAL ATTACHMENT B Tribal Outreach ATTACHMENT C Confidential CHRIS Records Search Results ATTACHMENT D DPR Form Set: 1431-1433 El Camino Real Page 1 of 16 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1431-1433 El Camino Real P1. Other Identifier: ____ DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California && The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Mateo Date 1995 T 4S ;R 5W; of of Sec ;MD B.M. c. Address 1431-1433 El Camino Real City Burlingame Zip 94010 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10S , 555325.17mE/ 4160298.07 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN 026-013-110. The subject property is located on the southwest side of El Camino Real where Mills Avenue intersects El Camino Real. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The subject property is a 4,102-square-foot multi-family residence constructed in 1947 and located within the City of Burlingame. The Minimal Traditional style building is situated on a mid-block lot with a similar setback to surrounding buildings. The multifamily residential building is two stories, roughly rectangular in plan, and has a multi-gabled roof that is clad in composition shingles. The exterior of the building is clad in stucco on the first story and horizontal siding on the second story. See Continuation Sheet *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP3. Multiple Family Property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) Overview of NW elevation; view to SE; acc#P9060002 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: Historic Prehistoric Both 1947 (San Mateo County Assessor) *P7. Owner and Address: *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address)S. Brewer and S. Corder Dudek: 38 N Marengo Avenue Pasadena, CA 91104 *P9. Date Recorded: 9/6/2017 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Historical Resources Compliance Report for the 1431 El Camino Real Project, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California (Dudek 2017) _ ____ *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) Page 2 of 16 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _1431-1433 El Camino Real_________________ *Map Name: San Mateo, California *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 1995 DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1431-1433 El Camino Real *NRHP Status Code 6Z Page 3 of 16 DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California && The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Multi-family residence B4. Present Use: Multi-family residence *B5. Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Constructed in 1947 (San Mateo County Assessor). The following building permits were also found for the property: repair of leak in the bedroom and check of the gas line from 1968 (BBP# R445), alteration permit with no details from 1970 (BBP#S177), reroof in 1971 (BBP#T5), termite repair to the rear steps and a section of subflooring in 1973 (BBP#U946), wet sandblasting in 1976 (BBP#W522), dry rot and fungus repair in 1981 (BBP#3918), reroof with composition shingles in 1984 (BBP#8806), reroof in 1989 (BBP#1722), new water heater in 1989 (BBP#8862), water damage repair to garage and upgrade of electrical service to 200 amps in 1993 (BBP#9300886), reroof with composition shingles in 2005 (BBP#R05-0023), and service work performed by M.F. Electrical in 2014 (BBP#E14-0034). Observed alterations to the building (for which there are no associated building permits) include the following: replacement doors, replacement windows, replacement porch columns on main entry porch, replacement porch railings, addition of exterior lighting, and addition of a satellite dish. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: H.L. Peterson Construction Company *B10. Significance: Theme Area Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Historical Overview of Burlingame Prior to European settlement, the grasslands and oak forests of the City were home to the Ohlone Indian Tribe. Ohlone is a collective term used for multiple Native American groups that were living on the land between what is now Monterey and San Francisco prior to European settlement in the area. In the very early years, Ohlone buildings were constructed using reeds from the nearby bay and creeks. Shell mounds in the area also suggest that a large portion of their food supply came from the bay. The tribe primarily lived off shellfish from the bay, and they were known to be a peaceful tribe. Hunting camps were found in nearby San Bruno, but the shell mounds in the area suggest that hunting was likely a secondary source of food (Carey & Co. 2008; Levy 1978). B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: See Continuation Sheet B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Sarah Corder and Samantha Murray *Date of Evaluation: 9/6/2017 (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) (This space reserved for official comments.) Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __4__ of __16__ *P3a. Description (Continued): Entry points to the building are located on the side elevations (southeast elevation and northwest elevation), which are accessed by porches on these elevations. There is a driveway located to the southeast of the building that leads to a one-story, five-car garage structure at the rear of the parcel. Significant alterations to the building include the following: replacement windows, replacement doors, replacement porch railings, addition of exterior lighting, and the addition of classical style detailing on the main entry porch. Northeast Elevation: The northeast (street-facing) elevation features a somewhat regular fenestration that is interrupted by a large exterior end brick chimney offset to the east of center. All original windows on this elevation were replaced with vinyl horizontal sliding windows. The windows also have wooden shutters with diamond cutout designs. While there is no entry point located on this elevation, there is a small staircase with a decorative metal railing that currently exists on the north corner of the building that provides access to the side (northwest) elevation. . Like all other elevations of the building, the northeast elevation is clad in stucco on the first story and horizontal siding on the second story (see Figure 1). Southeast Elevation: The southeast elevation features the three main entry points for the building’s rental units. Like the other elevations, the elevation is clad in stucco on the first story and horizontal siding on the second story. The elevation features a two-story, central entry porch accessed by two steps from the driveway along the southeast elevation. The porch is configured with three entry points, two side entry points that feature original six-paneled doors, and a main entry door that features a replacement four-paneled door with a divided fanllight that features a classical style door surround, which are not original to the building. While the configuration of the porch and its location appear to be original, there have been multiple alterations to it over the years, including replacement of the entry door for unit 1433, the addition of classical style detailing in the porch columns and door surround, and replacement of the original railings with metal railings. Fenestration on this elevation is irregular, and all windows on this elevation were replaced with vinyl horizontal sliders. This elevation also features faux balconies under the second-story windows, which appear to be original to the building (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). Southwest Elevation: The southwest (rear) elevation features a somewhat regular fenestration that is interrupted by a large exterior end brick chimney offset to the east of center. All original windows on this elevation were replaced with vinyl horizontal sliding windows. While there is no entry point located on this elevation, there is a small staircase providing access to the northwest elevation located on the west corner of the building. Like all other elevations of the building, the southwest elevation is clad in stucco on the first story and horizontal siding on the second story (see Figure 3). Northwest Elevation: The northwest elevation features side entry points for the building’s rental units. Like the other elevations, this elevation is clad in stucco on the first story and horizontal siding on the second story. The elevation features a large two-story projecting porch with access on the first and second floors to the rental units. The porch is accessed from both the northeast and southwest elevations of the house. The majority of the porch appears to be original and the woodwork features angular notching and Y-bracing. Fenestration on this elevation is irregular, and all windows are replacement vinyl horizontal sliders. Another change to the elevation is the small porch on the northern corner. It appears to have been added after original construction and is distinguished by the use of a metal railing, similar to the metal railing added to the main entry porch (see Figures 4 and 5). Garage Building: There is a one-story garage located to the rear of the property. The garage features a low-pitched roof and is clad in stucco. The five-bay garage likely provides parking and storage for the residents of the apartment building to the front of the lot (see Figure 6). Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __5__ of __16__ Identified Alterations As detailed in the construction history discussion (see DPR section B6), the following exterior alterations have been made to the building: • Replacement windows • Replacement doors • Replacement porch features and balustrade on southeast elevation • Replacement porch features on the northwest elevation • Reroofed • Addition of exterior lighting • Addition of satellite dishes *B10. Significance (Continued): European expansion into the region began in 1765 with the funding of an expedition to settle California requested by Visitor-General José de Gàlvez. The request for an expedition was granted in an effort to secure a portion of California for imperial rule under Spain. In 1769, Captain Gaspar de Portolá led an expedition to Alta California. It was not until the De Anza Exposition in 1776 that civilian settlement took off in the area under the leadership of Juan Bautista de Anza. Early settlers in this expedition were predominately peasants from Spanish, Mexican, and indigenous backgrounds that camped in an area to the north of Burlingame Creek (BHS 2013; Postel 2014). Although Spain was successful in the establishment of the mission system in the region, it was overtaken by the Mexican Empire in the 1820s. Once overtaken, the mission system became secularized and new ranchos emerged throughout the peninsula. Ranchos allowed the commercial transactions and functions once conducted by the missions to be privatized and split up among numerous individuals during the 1820s and 1830s. This created large tracts of land that could be used for agricultural goods and services, such as dairies and cattle grazing. Two examples of privatization and rancho development directly related to Burlingame are Rancho San Mateo and Rancho Buri Buri (BHS 2013). The story of the Rancho Buri Buri started in 1835 when Jose Antonio Sanchez Jr. and his family were granted ownership of the land by the Mexican government upon his retirement from the military after 45 years of service. The land grant was for approximately 15,000 acres and included land from South San Francisco to Burlingame. The Sanchez family constructed two identical adobes in present-day Millbrae. After Sanchez’s death in 1843, the rancho was divided among his family, who subsequently sold portions of the rancho to land speculators. Over time, the rancho was divided and developed into cities, including Burlingame (Postel 2014). The story of Rancho San Mateo began in 1822 when Mexican Governor Pio Pico granted the land to his secretary Cayetano Arenas. While given to Arenas, the land was not his for long and fell into the hands of William Davis Merry Howard and his business partner Henry Mellus. Howard and Mellus were owners of a San Francisco-based mercantile shop at the time. However, Mellus’s retirement led to the ownership of the entire property by Howard until his death in 1856 (BHS 2013). Following his death, the rancho was split into thirds going to three of the Howard family members: his wife Agnes, his son William Henry Howard, and his father-in law Joseph Henry Poett (BHS 2013). Following the division of the property, the chain of ownership is a little unclear with a variety of people involved in the property, including William Ralston (founder of Bank of California) and Darius Ogden Mills (president of Bank of California) (BHS 2013; PR 2017). William Ralston began purchasing property in the Peninsula during the 1860s. Once he settled into his new estate and holdings, Ralston invited many famous people to visit his new home. Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __6__ of __16__ One such visitor was Anson Burlingame shortly after his appointment from President Lincoln to be minister to China. Burlingame was inspired by the developments in the area made by Ralston and purchased approximately 1,000 acres of Ralston’s estate that he planned to use following his service in China. Following the death of Anson Burlingame in 1870, Ralston named the early town after him. It is also interesting to note the Ralston was an advocate for planting rows of eucalyptus trees along newly laid out streets in the town as an effort to beautify the city (Carey & Co. 2008; COB 2017). Development of the area continued throughout the nineteenth century, including development of a Burlingame Country Club in 1893, followed by a post office, train station, and residential and commercial development. Transportation advancements and the establishment of the country club and train station in the 1890s made Burlingame a desirable and growing city, as evident by the first residential subdivision in 1896. The original 6,000-square-foot subdivision included 1,000 parcels. The City developed a series of residential and commercial areas on a grid system with tree-lined streets (Carey & Co. 2008; COB 2017). While development continued on an upward trajectory into the twentieth century, disaster struck in nearby San Francisco in 1906 with a massive earthquake. The earthquake caused numerous fires across San Francisco that lasted for 3 days and destroyed approximately 28,000 buildings. The quake killed approximately 3,000 people and left 250,000 homeless. The massive homeless population led to a huge increase in housing requirements outside of the city, thus making cities like Burlingame, Millbrae, and San Bruno perfect spots for relocation and emergency housing. The influx of people following the earthquake in 1906 was one of many factors contributing to the decision to make the town of Burlingame official. In 1908, the Town of Burlingame was incorporated and was eventually reclassified as a city (Brown 2010; LAT 2016). One of the early additions to the City was the Easton Addition, which was made up of two 1,500-acre properties owned by Ansel Easton and D.O. Mills. According to Burlingame Properties, the property was defined as follows: “The Easton estate extended from Sanchez Creek north to Mills Creek (near present day Adeline Drive) and the Mills estate extended from Mills Creek to El Portal Creek (near present day Mills Avenue)” (BP 2017). In the years following the incorporation of Burlingame in 1908, Ansel Easton’s son, Ansel Mills Easton, chose to subdivide his parents estate and develop the area. Development continued in the Easton Addition until World War I and resumed following World War I. Like other cities in the country, there was a housing boom in Burlingame to support returning soldiers (BP 2017). Burlingame continued to grow throughout the twentieth century with 35 additional subdivisions created between the years of 1912 and 1963. Evidence of this growth and development is clear when comparing the 1921 Sanborn maps to the 1949 Sanborn maps, as blocks went from having a couple of houses to there being only a couple of vacant lots on blocks. According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Inventory of Historic Resources, Burlington had the following by the mid-1930s: “4,000 single-family homes, 83 apartment buildings, 15 duplexes, and over 250 businesses. The town evolved into a mature city with fire and police departments, a new jail, several newspapers, six elementary schools, and one high school. Over fifty civic, religious, and social organizations had been established to serve the 13,000 residents” (Carey & Co. 2008). Prosperity and growth in Burlingame continued in the years of prosperity following World War II and by the time of the U.S. Census in 1960, there were 24,063 residents of the City. The 1949 Sanborn map also shows a shift to more apartment buildings to handle the housing needs during this boom period. Neighborhoods that were generally single-family residences are represented in the 1949 map as being a mix of single-family and multifamily units (City Directory 1965; Sanborn 1921, 1949). Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __7__ of __16__ Historical Overview of 1431-1433 El Camino Real A review of historic maps and aerial photographs was conducted as part of the archival research effort for this property. Sanborn maps were available for the City in 1908, 1913, 1921, and 1949. The section of El Camino Real, where the subject property is located, was not included on the 1908 and 1913 maps; however, it is included on the 1921 and 1949 maps. In 1921, the subject property is not present on the map, but the block in which is it located is on the map. The neighborhood is in its early stages of development at this time with only two buildings located on the side of the block where the subject property was constructed in 1947. The neighborhood as a whole developed slowly over time with single-family residences. However, by 1949, most of the blocks in the neighborhood feature dwellings and there are few vacant parcels. For instance, on the side of the block where the subject property is located there are only three vacant parcels. The 1949 map also shows the subject property in a similar scale and mass to the building that stands today. It is listed as a two-story building with four apartments and there is a one-story building located to the rear of the property. The apartment building is also sharing the parcel with a one-story single-family residence. Within the same block, there are three other multifamily units listed on the 1949 map. Historic aerial photographs from the following years were reviewed for the property: 1946, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1987, 1993, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012. The property is not visible in the 1946 photograph, but is visible in the other years. The building does not show changes to the scale and massing over time, which is consistent with the building permits reviewed for the property. The aerial photographs also show that the buildings on the block are transitioning from small family homes to larger multifamily complexes. The neighborhood growth seen on the 1949 Sanborn map was the start of a continuous pattern of development in the area that led to heavy, higher-density development over time (NETR 2017; Sanborn 1921, 1949). A review of Burlingame Building Permit (BBP) records indicates that the original permit for new construction was filed in 1946 by Charles E. Markis for a new apartment building with H.L. Peterson Construction Company of San Francisco listed as the builder (BBP#E910), which is consistent with the 1947 date of construction provided by the San Mateo County Assessor. Numerous permits for alteration of the subject property were also identified (see DPR section B6). The building permit folder also contained multiple letters and reports pertaining to the property, including the following: an inspection report from Always Reliable Termite Control was also found in the property record folder for repairs pertaining to termite damage and fungus in 1960 (ARTC 1960), letter confirming special use permit being granted for the property to be used for a “Home for Aged Persons” in 1968 (COB 1968), letter regarding possible sale of property and continuation of rest home usage for the property in 1975 (COB 1975), and a letter pertaining to a request to return the building to a standard rental property instead of a rest home in 1985 (COB 1985). Building permit research found the following people listed as owners of the property: • 1946: Charles E. Markis • 1960: A. Plotkin • 1968–1971: Grace H. Duda • 1971–1976: Grace Strong • 1981: Gene Schrader • 1985–1986: Nellie Jimenez • 1989–1993: Francisca Arroyo • 2005–2006: Ken S. Leung • 2014: Jay Leupp Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __8__ of __16__ City directory research revealed that the property was used as a rental property with up to four separate rental units. There were a series of renters over the years and most of them were short-term rentals based on the available City directories. One of the more notable of the renters was Raymond MacDougall, a paint mixer, who lived at the property with his wife in 1956. An article from the San Mateo Times (SMT) in 1956 shows that MacDougall was involved in a traffic accident in which his vehicle struck an 11-year-old boy on a bicycle. The boy was treated at a nearby hospital and no charges were filed at that time against MacDougall (SMT 1956a). MacDougall’s issues continued on March 10 when he was shot and killed at the subject property. The SMT reported that MacDougall and his wife were part of a domestic dispute involving MacDougall’s wife Mae’s ex-husband Edgar Brittain. Issues between the three appear to have been ongoing for months prior to the shooting. Brittain had a history of violence toward his wife during their marriage, and once divorced he continued to threaten her repeatedly according to the SMT. Brittain was tried and convicted for the murder and sentenced to life in prison (SMT 1956b–1956j). No other significant information was found about the renters of the property. City directory research indicates that the only owners to live at the property were Grace Duda and Grace Strong, which is likely due to their work with the property when it was a rest home for the elderly throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The conversion of the property into a rest home for the elderly started in 1968 when building owner Grace Duda filed for a boarding house license for the property (SMT 1968). A review of building permits and records show that the Duda’s intention was to convert a portion of the apartment building into a rest home for the elderly known as El Camino Rest Home. Based on information found during archival research, it appears that the conversion of the property was successful and at least the first floor of the building functioned as the El Camino Rest Home until at least 1977 first under the ownership of Grace Duda and then under Grace Strong for a maximum of five residents. A newspaper clipping from 1976 also suggests that the property continued after Grace Strong, under Bridie Nee, but there was no evidence to show if Bridie Nee owned the property or was just managing the El Camino Rest Home. In 1985, a letter was sent to owner Nellie Jimenez from the City regarding the conversion of the property from a rest home to its original configuration. Based on this letter, it appears that the building may have functioned as the El Camino Rest Home into the 1980s, but there was no additional evidence to support this scenario (Burlingame City Directories; COB 1968, 1975, 1985; SMT 1968, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974a, 1974b, 1976). Architectural Style of 1431-1433 El Camino Real Minimal Traditional (c. 1935–1950) The Minimal Traditional architecture movement flourished during the 1940s in response to worker housing needs for World War II production facilities and to fulfill the housing needs for returning soldiers. The Minimal Tradition movement offered small, low-cost, and easy-to-produce housing forms. The Small House movement began after the Great Depression with the establishment of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and its guidelines for new homes that could be easily built and insured. The work of the FHA helped revive the housing industry in the United States during the Depression and for many years after. The FHA also provided guidance on how to design and build these small houses as further incentive for American families to participate in the Small House movement. The groundwork laid by the FHA’s emphasis on small houses got people into the housing market and helped to alleviate housing needs during the population booms before, during, and after World War II. Minimal Traditional homes were often part of planned communities, but there are also examples spread throughout older neighborhoods in the United States. One of the most famous planned communities employing the Minimal Traditional style was Levittown, New York. The ease of construction and cost-effective nature of the materials used to construct Minimal Traditional homes made them popular with land developers and government entities needing a lot of housing in a short period. In addition to ease of construction and cost-effective materials, the Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __9__ of __16__ following are characteristics of the Minimal Traditional style of architecture (McAlester 2015): • One to two stories in height • Gabled or hipped roofs with minimal overhangs • Double-hung, multi-lite windows • Minimal detailing at the roofline, including scalloped trim • Wooden shutters with cutout features • Mass-produced and cost-effective materials • Modern materials, including concrete and asbestos siding • Rectangular or L-shaped in plan • Emphasis on practicality in design; no overly designed features or elements • Typically built by builders and not architect-designed • Typically constructed as part of large tract developments in a variety of floor plans to provide choices for buyers NRHP/CRHR Statement of Significance In consideration of the project site’s history and requisite integrity, Dudek finds the subject property not eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR based on the following significance evaluation and in consideration of national and state eligibility criteria. Criterion A/1: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Archival research did not find any associations with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history. The subject property is one of many multifamily residences from approximately the same period of construction (1930s– 1950s), and no historical associations or patterns of development were identified. Residential development in Burlingame was based on housing booms caused by the advances in transportation, the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, and post-war prosperity following World War I and World War II. Cities like Burlingame became a haven for those left homeless from the quake in 1906. Combined with reliable rail transportation to and from San Francisco, Burlingame became a desirable commuter town. Following World War I and World War II, housing was needed for returning service members who were ready to settle down and start families in Burlingame. These patterns of development were seen across the United States in the years leading up to and following World War II, when residential development became a priority to house a growing post-war population. Due to a lack of significant associations with events important to history, the subject property does not appear eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1. Criterion B/2: Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. All owner and occupant names identified with the subject property were researched for possible significance. Archival research failed to indicate any associations with significant persons. For these reasons, the subject property does not appear eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria B/2. Criterion C/3: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. To support a rapidly growing population in the years surrounding World War II, builders in Burlingame turned to one of the popular architectural styles of the time, Minimal Traditional. The subject property was constructed in 1947 when Burlingame (and much of the United States) Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __10__ of __16__ was experiencing a residential boom in response to post-war prosperity. Although the subject property retains the most basic elements of the Minimal Traditional style (i.e., two-stories in height, minimal detailing at the roofline, wooden shutters with cutout details, mass-produced and cost-effective materials, variety of cladding, and rectangular in plan), the building exhibits substantial alterations that have compromised its integrity, including replacement windows, replacement doors, replacement porch elements and railings, replacement roofing, addition of classical detailing on main entry porch, and addition of exterior lighting. The result is a relatively altered and unremarkable example of a Minimal Traditional multifamily residence. Archival building permit research identified the original builder as H.L. Peterson Construction Company of San Francisco, which is consistent with the Minimal Traditional style of architecture being the choice of local building companies to construct homes during that era. For this reason, the property is not likely to be the work of a master architect or important creative individual. Finally, the subject property does not appear eligible as a contributor to a historic district since the surrounding buildings exhibit a variety of architectural styles and construction periods. For these reasons, the subject property does not appear eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3. Criterion D/4: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. There is no evidence to suggest that this property has the potential to yield information important to state or local history, nor is it associated with a known archaeological resource. Therefore, the property is recommended not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4. City of Burlingame Statement of Significance City historic resource designation criteria closely follow those of the NRHP and CRHR with regard to consideration of important events, people, and architectural merit. Based on the NRHP/CRHR criteria discussion above, the subject property is recommended as not eligible for listing under all City designation criteria as shown in City of Burlingame Municipal Code Ord. 1899 Section 2 (2014). Integrity Discussion Location: The building is sited on the original location of construction in its original orientation. Therefore, the subject property retains integrity of location. Design: The building has been subject to several alterations over time that have significantly compromised its integrity of design, including replacement windows, replacement doors, replacement porch elements and railings, replacement roofing, addition of classical detailing on main entry porch, and addition of exterior lighting. Therefore, the building does not maintain integrity of design. Setting: The subject property was originally built in a primarily single-family residential neighborhood based on the 1949 Sanborn map, however, over the years the single family properties were replaced by larger multi-family properties. Therefore, the subject property does not retain integrity of setting. Materials: Numerous alterations to the house have compromised the property’s material integrity, including replacement windows, replacement doors, replacement porch elements and railings, replacement roofing, addition of classical detailing on main entry porch, and addition of exterior lighting. All of these alterations introduced new materials to the subject property that were not part of the original design. Therefore, the building does not maintain integrity of materials. Workmanship: Similar to the issue with materials, the physical evidence of craftsman’s skills Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __11__ of __16__ in constructing the original building was compromised by the exterior alterations to the building. Therefore, the building no longer retains its integrity of workmanship. Feeling: The alterations made to the subject property do not significantly impact the building’s ability to correlate as a multifamily residence designed in the Minimal Traditional style of architecture. Therefore, the property retains its integrity of feeling. Association: The property has no direct links with important events or people. Therefore, the building does not have integrity of association. In summary, the subject property appears not eligible under NRHP and CRHR designation criteria. Further, the property no longer retains integrity of setting, design, materials, or workmanship. Consequently, the property does not maintain the requisite integrity to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR. Figure 1. Overview of Northeast Elevation (View To West) IMG #: P9060008 Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __12__ of __16__ Figure 2. Detail of First Story of Entry Point on Southeast Elevation (View to Northwest) IMG#: P9060009 Figure 3. Overview of Southwest and Southeast Elevations (View to North) IMG#: P9060014 Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __13__ of __16__ Figure 4. Overview of the Northeast and Northwest Elevations (View to South) IMG #: P9060006 Figure 5. Detail of First Story of Entry Point On Northwest Elevation (View to South) IMG#: P9060007 Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __14__ of __16__ Figure 6. Garage Located to Rear of Building (View to Southwest) IMG#: P9060012 Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __15__ of __16__ *B12. References (Continued): ARTC (Always Reliable Termite Control). 1960. Inspection Chart for termite inspection completed at 1431 El Camino Real on December 21, 1960. Accessed in person from the building permits folder at the City of Burlingame. Brown, Mary. 2010. San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935–1970: Historic Context Statement. San Francisco City and County Planning Department. September 30, 2010. BHS (Burlingame Historical Society). 2013. “Explore the History of Burlingame.” Accessed September 19, 2017. https://burlingamehistory.org/history-of-burlingame/. BP (Burlingame Properties). 2017. “Easton Addition.” Accessed September 22, 2017. https://burlingameproperties.com/neighborhoods/easton-addition Burlingame City Directories, Multiple Years. COB (City of Burlingame). 1968. City of Burlingame to Grace Duda, December 5, 1968. Letter. Building Permit Folder, Burlingame Building Division of the Community Development Department, Burlingame, California. COB. 1975. City of Burlingame to Grace Strong, December 1, 1975. Letter. Building Permit Folder, Burlingame Building Division of the Community Development Department, Burlingame, California. COB. 1985. City of Burlingame to Nellie Jimenez, July 18, 1985. Letter. Building Permit Folder, Burlingame Building Division of the Community Development Department, Burlingame, California. COB. 2017. Envision Burlingame: Draft General Plan Public Review Draft August 2017. Accessed September 25, 2017. http://burlingame.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=14537. Carey & Co. 2008. Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of Burlingame. October 6, 2008. LAT (Los Angeles Times). 2016. “110 Years Ago: Images from San Francisco’s Devastating 1906 Earthquake.” Latimes.com. Los Angeles Times. April 18, 2016. Levy, Richard. 1978. “Costanoan,” in California, ed. R. F. Heizer, Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute. McAlester, V.S. 2015. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research). 2017. Historical aerial photographs from 1946, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1987, 1993, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012. Accessed September 18, 2017. Historicaerials.com. NPS 1990 Postel, M. 2014. “San Bruno before the Gold Rush.” La Peninsula: The Journal of the San Mateo County Historical Association, Volume xlii, No. 2. Summer 2014. PR (Peninsula Royalty). 2017. “Peninsula Royalty: The Founding Families of Burlingame-Hillsborough” Accessed September 18, 2017. https://burlingamefoundingfamilies.wordpress.com/mills-introduction/darius-ogden-mil ls/. Sanborn (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company) San Bruno. 1908, 1913, 1921. 1949. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company. SMT (San Mateo Times). 1956a. “Millbrae Boy, 11, Struck by Car.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. March 1, 1956, Page 18. SMT. 1956b. “Ex-Mate Fells Love Rival in Burlingame.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. March 10, 1956, Page 1. SMT. 1956c. “Triangle Killer Says He Was Threatened.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. March 12, 1956, Page 1. SMT. 1956d. “Jury Indicts Triangle Killer.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. March 20, 1956, Page 1. Page of DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California && Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _1431-1433 El Camino Real____________________________________________________ Page __16__ of __16__ SMT. 1956e. “Ex-Judge to Defend Slayer.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. March 27, 1956, Page 1. SMT. 1956f. “Brittain Trial Set May 14.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. April 10, 1956, Page 7. SMT. 1956g. “Murder Trial Opens Monday.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. May 12, 1956, Page 11. SMT. 1956h. “Threats Told Murder Jury.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. May 15, 1956, Page 11. SMT. 1956i. “Jury Decrees Life for Triangle Slayer.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. May 18, 1956, Page 1. SMT. 1956j. “Brittain Denied Plea, Tries to Take His Life.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. June 1, 1956, Page 1. SMT. 1968. “Burlingame Apartment Plan Studied.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. October 14, 1968, Page 24. SMT. 1970. “El Camino Rest Home.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. January 23, 1970, Page 31. SMT. 1971. “El Camino Rest Home.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. January 30, 1971, Page 23. SMT. 1973. “El Camino Rest Home.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. February 13, 1973, Page 34. SMT. 1974a. “Fictitious Business Name Statement.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. August 10, 1974, Page 24. SMT. 1974b. “Fictitious Business Name Statement.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. August 17, 1974, Page 19. SMT. 1976. “Fictitious Business Name Statement.” Newspapers.com: San Mateo Times. November 29, 1976, Page 27. ATTACHMENT E SOIS Action Plan ϭŽĨϮ SOIS ACTION PLAN FOR THE 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT STAGE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES *denotes primary responsibility TASK DATE TASK COMPLETED PreǦǦ Construction Qualified Architectural Historian* Local Agency Project Manager Local Agency Engineer A Qualified Architectural Historian will ensure that SOIS requirements for the project are clearly described and illustrated in the plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E). Local Agency Project Manager* Local Agency Engineer Qualified Architectural Historian The Local Agency will submit the PS&E package to Caltrans for review at the 35%, 65%, and 100% stages. Caltrans Architectural Historian* Caltrans Environmental Branch Chief Caltrans Local Assistance Engineer The Caltrans Architectural Historian will review for approval the PS&E package at the 35%, 65%, and 100% stages to ensure that SOIS requirements for the project are clearly described and illustrated in the PS&E package. Caltrans Architectural Historian* Caltrans Environmental Branch Chief Caltrans Local Assistance Engineer Caltrans Architectural Historian will ensure the SOIS Action Plan is included in Environmental Commitment Record (ECR). Local Agency Project Manager* Local Agency Engineer Qualified Architectural Historian The Local Agency will notify the Caltrans Architectural Historian that construction is commencing two weeks prior to commencement. During Construction Caltrans Environmental ConstructionǦLiaison* The Caltrans Environmental ConstructionǦLiaison will conduct spot inspections as needed to ensure the ECR Local Agency Project Manager* Local Agency Engineer Qualified Architectural Historian A Qualified Architectural Historian will review any proposed project changes to ensure changes are consistent with the SOIS. The Local Agency will submit any proposed project changes to the Caltrans Architectural Historian for review and approval. Caltrans Architectural Historian* Caltrans Environmental Branch Chief Caltrans Local Assistance Engineer Caltrans Environmental ConstructionǦLiaison The Caltrans Architectural Historian will review for approval any proposed project changes to ensure changes are consistent with the SOIS. The other consulting parties will be notified of approved changes. ϮŽĨϮ SOIS ACTION PLAN FOR THE 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT Post Construction Local Agency Project Manager* Local Agency Engineer Qualified Architectural Historian Caltrans Environmental ConstructionǦLiaison The Local Agency Project Manager will inform the Caltrans Architectural Historian when construction is complete. Responsible Parties as of October 25, 2017 Caltrans Architectural Historian** TBD Caltrans Environmental Branch Chief TBD Caltrans Local Assistance Engineer Caltrans Environmental ConstructionǦLiaison TBD Local Agency Project Manager TBD Local Agency Engineer TBD Qualified Architectural Historian*** TBD **The Caltrans Architectural Historian must be a PQS Principal Architectural Historian. ***The Qualified Architectural Historian is a representative of the Local Agency and must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History or Historic Architecture. ATTACHMENT F ESA Action Plan ϭŽĨϭ ESA ACTION PLAN FOR THE 1431 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT STAGE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES *denotes primary responsibility TASK DATE TASK COMPLETED PreǦǦ Construction Project Landscape Architect & Arborist* Caltrans District 4 Principal Investigator Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will ensure that the ESA for adjacent contributing trees is clearly described and illustrated on the work plan. Caltrans District 4 Principal Investigator will review and approve the work plan. Project Landscape Architect & Arborist* Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will identify an appropriate location within the HowardǦRalston Tree Rows for a planting for relocating the impacted tree. During Construction Project Landscape Architect & Arborist* Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will review for approval any proposed project changes to ensure changes are consistent with the ESA. The other consulting parties will be informed of approved changes. Post Construction Project Landscape Architect & Arborist* Caltrans District 4 PQS Principal Investigator City of Burlingame, Community Development Director Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will inform Caltrans District 4 Principal Investigator and City of Burlingame when the project has been completed as per the ESA Action Plan. Project Landscape Architect & Arborist* Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will document the planting of the new elm. Responsible Parties as of October 25, 2017 Caltrans District 4 PQS Principal Investigator TBD Local Agency Project Manager TBD Project Landscape Architect/Arborist TBD APPENDIX C Project Application to the Planning Commission APPENDIX D Klaus Multiparking Noise Specification FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1431 El Camino Real Prepared for: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Contact: Catherine Keylon Prepared by: 465 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, California 94939 Contact: Darcey Rosenblatt JANUARY 2018 Responses to Comments January 2018 TOC-1 ISMND TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. Section 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1-1 Section 2 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS .................................................. 2-1 2.1 List of Authors ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Comment Letters and Reponses............................................................... 2-1 Section 3 ERRATA ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Changes in Response to Specific Comments ........................................... 3-1 Section 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .............. 4-1 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (Under separate cover) REVISED HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE REPORT (Under separate cover) Responses to Comments January 2018 TOC-2 ISMND INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Responses to Comments January 2018 1-1 ISMND SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Burlingame has evaluated the comments received on the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist (IS/EC) prepared for the project proposed for 1431 1509 El Camino Real. The Responses to Comments, Errata and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which are included in this document, together with the Draft IS/EC and the Revised IS/EC Historical Resources Compliance Report (HRCR) appendix comprise the Final IS/MND for use by the City of Burlingame in its review and consideration of the new residential building project proposed for 1431 El Camino Real. This document is organized into three sections: Section 1–Introduction. Section 2–Responses to Written Comments: Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the IS/EC. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the project and responses to the questions and concerns raised in these letters are included in this section. Section 3–Errata: Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Revised IS/MND, which have been incorporated. Section 4–Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Includes mitigations proposed in the IS/MND and appropriate logistical details of these mitigations. For consideration of the decision making process the Final IS/MND includes the following contents: This final summary document IS/EC (provided under separate cover) IS/EC HRCR appendix (provided under separate cover) Responses to Comments January 2018 1-2 ISMND INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Responses to Comments January 2018 2-1 ISMND SECTION 2 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS 2.1 List of Authors A list of public agencies and individuals that provided comments on the IS/EC is presented below. There were no letters submitted from organizations. Each communication has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses. Section 2.2 includes the reprinted communications followed by the corresponding responses. Author Author Code State Agencies California Department of Transportation.....................................................................CALTRANS Individuals Rulin Abufannouna and Rami Alfakhouri.........................................................ABUFANNOUNA 2.2 Comment Letters and Reponses The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors. Responses to Comments January 2018 2-2 ISMND INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Responses to Comments January 2018 2-3 ISMND Responses to Comments January 2018 2-4 ISMND Responses to Comments January 2018 2-5 ISMND Responses to Comments January 2018 2-6 ISMND Responses to Comments January 2018 2-7 ISMND State Agencies California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Response to CALTRANS-1 The author asks for clarification of the present parking capacity at the project location. The site currently includes a detached five car parking structure. This structure would be demolished as part of the proposed project. The author asks that the City consider a variance to allow automatic parking lifts in order to meet and/or reduce parking minimum requirements on site. The proposed project already includes the use of vehicle lifts as described on page three of the IS/EC. Each unit would have two on-site parking spaces (for a total of 12 spaces) under each unit that would be provided in the form of mechanical, stacked-vehicle lifts. The vehicle lift would store one vehicle at ground level and one vehicle below ground. There would also be two ground-level guest parking spaces and a service/delivery vehicle space. The author also suggests that parking reduction strategies could include measures such as an on- site car-share point-of-departure. This suggestion was considered by the City and applicant, but it was found not to be feasible for a building of only six units which represents an increase of only 2 units with a net gain of 8 daily trips (1 new am peak and 1 new pm peak). Further reductions in parking spaces have been deemed not feasible for this site because although there is nearby public transportation, the nearest Caltrain station (Broadway) is only currently open on weekends. Also there is no on-street parking on the project side of El Camino and the cross walk is some distance from the project site. Providing on-site parking for the limited number of project residence avoids safety hazards that could occur were residents to regularly park on the opposite side of the street. Changes to the established neighborhood parking situation are normally only considered with conditions of hardship and not shown in this circumstance. Response to CALTRANS-2 The author asks that the primary and secondary effects on pedestrians, bicyclists, disabled travelers and transit users be evaluated, including countermeasures and trade-offs resulting from mitigating VMT increases. The author notes that access for pedestrians and bicyclists to transit facilities must be maintained. As described in Section 2.16 of the IS/EC, the proposed project would generate a very low volume of net new daily and peak -hour trips. Effects on pedestrians, bicyclists, disabled travelers and transit users were evaluated in the IS/EC and there were no impacts found associated with the project. In fact, to some small extent, these conditions are Responses to Comments January 2018 2-8 ISMND upgraded by the provisions for bike parking and improvements to driveway conditions that currently present some transit difficulties. Response to CALTRANS-3 The author requests that the project include a “robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions”. As described in the IS/EC, there are no significant air quality or greenhouse gas impacts resulting from the construction and operation of this project which represents a de-minimus change over current conditions. Although project design and environmental assessment did consider (and in some cases include) a range of measures to improve transportation access to and from the site and to reduce transportation impacts associated with the project, the full range of TDM measures requested were not deemed necessary for this limited change in site conditions. Response to CALTRANS-4 The author notes that because this project proposes the relocation of a young elm associated with the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, Noah M. Stewart, Caltrans Architectural Historian and environmental Branch Chief has been working directly with the Lead Agency and the project applicant on the cultural resource documents needed to satisfy Caltrans requirements under PRC 5024. Caltrans requested changes to the draft Historical Resources Compliance Report (HRCR – Appendix B of the IS/EC) are described fully in Section 3 – Errata of this document. The author acknowledges that given project elements in place to protect this resource it appears the move of this young elm will not have a significant adverse change to the resource, but also that the level of change be clarified. The project action plan was developed and is included in the HRCR to ensure that relocation of the tree (it will be replanted directly south of its current location) will avoid any adverse effects or long-term change to this resource. The author also asks if and how the trees will be protected with regards to Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA), and how those areas will be delineated. These methodologies are described in the ESA Action Plan – included as part of the HRCR. The ESA Action plan clearly states that the Project Landscape Architect and Arborist will ensure that the ESA for adjacent contributing trees is clearly described and illustrated on the work plan. The Caltrans District 4 PQS Architectural Historian will review and approve the work plan. Response to CALTRANS-5 The author asks that the project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. The project’s scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring Responses to Comments January 2018 2-9 ISMND are discussed in the Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP) included in this document, however economic issues, such as fair share contributions and financing are not typically discussed in a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document such as this. Response to CALTRANS-6 The author notes that the any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the state ROW requires an Encroachment Permit that is issued by Caltrans. In these conditions, an Encroachment Permit would be required by the City of Burlingame as a Condition of Approval for the project. Responses to Comments January 2018 2-10 ISMND INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Responses to Comments January 2018 2-11 ISMND Responses to Comments January 2018 2-12 ISMND INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Responses to Comments January 2018 2-13 ISMND Individuals Rulin Abufannouna and Rami Alfakhouri Response to ABUFANNOUNA – 1 The author expresses concerns that her family will be displaced by the project. The CEQA environmental document is designed to look at a projects impact on the environment and does not cover issues of individual resident displacement. However, the City has contacted this resident, explaining that the project has not yet been approved and the Planning Commission is the final decision maker on the project. They have also been informed that there is a tentative hearing date scheduled for Monday February 12 (7:00 pm at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road, in the City Council chambers) and that they are encouraged to attend and directly present their concerns. This communication also passed on a link to the City’s affordable housing web page that has contact information for various housing resources and included contacts to appropriate contacts within the City’s Housing Department. Responses to Comments January 2018 2-14 ISMND INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Responses to Comments January 2018 3-1 ISMND SECTION 3 ERRATA There are no changes to the IS/EC based on comments received for the Condominium Project at 1431 El Camino Real. The revisions described below have been made to the draft Historical Resources Compliance Report (HRCR) which was Appendix B of the IS/EC. These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the IS/EC. 3.1 Changes in Response to Specific Comments The following changes were made in response to comments from Caltrans regarding the HRCR. HRCR, Cover Page "EFIS goes here." Was removed from this page HRCR, Page 9 The following was added to paragraph 3 - The PAL includes two trees that are part of the NRHP-listed Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191). While one of the trees will not be impacted by the project and will be protected, the project also proposes to relocate one of the young elms adjacent to the sidewalk within the Caltrans right-of-way. HRCR, Page 10 The following was added to paragraph 2 - The PAL was approved by Noah Stewart, PQS Principal Architectural Historian and Catherine Keylon, City Senior Planner. HRCR, Page 15 Record Search, paragraph 2 - the total number of trees that are part of the Howard-Ralston Tree Row that are within the PAL was more clearly described in this paragraph. HRCR, Page 20 The following was added to the last paragraph - Although there are no mature trees within the PAL, there are two recently planted elm saplings adjacent to the sidewalk are considered historically significant since they represent an on-going effort to maintain the feel and intent of the original tree- lined El Camino Real. HRCR, Page 34 A map that depicts the current and proposed location of the relocated tree was added to the SOIS Action Plan and referenced on this page. HRCR, Page 35 A map that depicts the ESA location(s) was added to the ESA Action Plan and referenced on this page. HRCR, Page 35 The following was added at this page - The SOIS Action Plan details the required review of all plans, specifications, and estimates by Caltrans District 4 prior to the start of construction. The Project Landscape Architect & Arborist shall use flagging tape or temporary signage to indicate which trees are to remain and be protected, and which tree is to be removed and replanted within the sidewalk planter. During construction, the Caltrans Environmental Construction-Liason will conduct spot-checks as needed to ensure the Environmental Commitment Record requirements are met. A qualified architectural historian shall also review any proposed project changes to ensure that they are consistent with the SOIS. Any changes must be submitted to Caltrans PQS Architec tural Historian Noah M. Stewart for review and approval. Upon completion of all construction-related activities, the Local Agency Project Manager will inform the Caltrans PQS Architectural Historian that work is complete. SOIS Action Plan Table Noah M Stewart listed as Caltrans Architectural Historian and Environmental Branch Chief (510)286- 5370. ESA Action Plan Table The following was deleted in this section – For the duration of the construction, the project Landscape Architect/Arborist will perform spot inspections to ensure that project personnel are fully aware of the ESA boundary and that the measures outlined in the plans are being followed. Any changes to the project changes affecting the trees/ESA will need to be reviewed and approved by Caltrans PQS. Following completion of project construction, the Local Agency Project Manager will inform the Caltrans Architectural Historian Noah M. Stewart and the City of Burlingame when work is finished. At Responses to Comments January 2018 3-2 ISMND the end of construction, the Project Landscape Architect and Arborist will document the planting of the new elm. The following was added to this section - Delineation of ESA on Project Plans: Prior to finalization of the project work plan, the Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will ensure that the ESA for adjacent contributing trees is clearly described and illustrated on the work plan. Delineation of ESA in the Field: The ESA is expressly designed to protect th e Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows (P-41-002191). The Local Agency Project Manager will ensure that the ESA is fenced-off prior to commencement of construction-related activities. The ESA is demarcated as the sidewalk planter directly in front of 1431-1433 El Camino Real (containing the two young elms) and the area directly adjacent to the northwest side of the proposed driveway location (containing the single mature eucalyptus tree). The approximate ESA boundary is shown on the map provided in Attachmen t F. Prior to the start of any project-related activities, protective fencing shall be established around the planters that contain the trees. Pre-construction Meeting: The Local Agency Project Manager will ensure that a qualified architectural historian will discuss the importance of maintaining and enforcing the ESA boundaries during the pre-construction meeting with construction personnel. During the meeting it will be stressed that no construction activity (including storage or staging or equipment or materials) should occur within ESA. It will also be stressed, that construction workers must remain outside of the ESAs at all times. The meeting will also include a discussion regarding procedures and responsible parties in the event of a post-review discovery, inadvertent effect, or an ESA violation. Relocation of Elm: Prior to the start of construction activities, the northwestern most elm within the sidewalk planter will be replanted directly southeast of the adjacent elm in the sidewalk planter (see ESA Action Plan Map in Attachment E for specific locations). This elm must be relocated due to its proximity to the proposed northwestern driveway. Therefore, the tree relocation must occur prior to the start of construction. Construction Stage Project Plan Changes: The Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will review for approval any proposed project changes to ensure changes are consistent with the ESA. All other consulting parties will be informed of approved changes. Any changes to the project affe cting the tree grove/ESA will need to be reviewed and approved by Caltrans PQS prior to implementation. ESA Spot-Checks: Throughout the course of construction, the Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will perform spot inspections to ensure that project personnel are fully aware of the ESA boundary and that the measures outlined in the work plans are being following. In the event of a post -review discovery or ESA violation, Caltrans District 4 Architectural Historian Noah M. Stewart and the headquarters Cultural Studies Office (CSO) will be notified within 48 hours of the violation or post- review discovery. Fence Removal: at commencement of all construction-related activities, the Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will be onsite to monitor removal of the protective fencing that delineates the ESA and provide guidance to avoid inadvertently damaging the trees during fence removal. Post-Construction Stage Project Completion: The Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will inform Caltrans District 4 PQS Architectural Historian Noah M. Stewart and City of Burlingame when the project has been completed as per the ESA Action Plan. The Project Landscape Architect & Arborist will also document the planting of the new elm in a post-construction memorandum. Responses to Comments January 2018 4-1 ISMND SECTION 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that public agencies adopting mitigated negative declarations (MNDs) take affirmative steps to determine that approved mitigation measures are implemented subsequent to project approval. The lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the mitigation measures incorporated into a project or included as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance with the MND during project implementation (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6(a)(1)). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by City of Burlingame as lead agency to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures identified in the MND for the 1431 El Camino project (proposed project). The City of Burlingame, as lead agency pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, will ensure that all mitigation measures are carried out. The remainder of this MMRP consists of a table that identifies the mitigation measures by resource and identifies the mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, including the method for verifying implementation of the mitigation measure, timing of verification (prior to, during, or after construction) and responsible party. Space is provided for sign -off following completion/implementation of the mitigation measure. The source documents are this IS/MND for the proposed project. Responses to Comments January 2018 4-2 ISMND Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date Cultural Resources CUL-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. All construction crew members shall be alerted to the potential to encounter sensitive archaeological material. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether additional study is warranted. Prehistoric archaeological deposits may be indicated by the presence of discolored or dark soil, fire- affected material, concentrations of fragmented or whole marine shell, burned or complete bone, non-local lithic materials, or a characteristic observed to be atypical of the surrounding area. Common prehistoric artifacts may include modified or battered lithic materials; lithic or bone tools that appeared to have been used for chopping, drilling, or grinding; projectile points; fired clay ceramics or non-functional items; and other items. Historic-age deposits are often indicated by the presence of glass bottles and shards, ceramic material, building or domestic refuse, ferrous metal, or old features such as concrete foundations or privies. Depending on the significance of the find under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5[f]; Public Resources Code Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. A qualified archaeologist will ensure that construction workers comply with mitigation measure consistent with State and Federal law. X City of Burlingame CUL-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the county coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the county coroner has determined, within 2 A qualified paleontologist will ensure that construction workers comply with mitigation X City of Burlingame and County Coroner Responses to Comments January 2018 4-3 ISMND Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant shall complete his/her inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. measure consistent with State and Federal law. CUL-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources. Paleontological resources are limited, nonrenewable resources of scientific, cultural, or educational value and are afforded protection under state laws and regulations (CEQA). Paleontological resources are explicitly afforded protection by CEQA, specifically in Section V(c) of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the Environmental Checklist Form, which addresses the potential for adverse impacts to “unique paleontological resource[s] or site[s] or … unique geological feature[s]” (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). Further, CEQA provides that, generally, a resource shall be considered “historically significant” if it has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory (14 CCR 15064.5[a][3][D]). In the event that paleontological resources (silicified shell, bone, or other features) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find. This analysis shall comply with guidelines and significance criteria specified by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. Verification of compliance with mitigation measure consistent with State law. X City of Burlingame Responses to Comments January 2018 4-4 ISMND Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date Noise N-1 The project sponsor shall retain a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare an acoustical study in accordance with State Title 24 requirements. The acoustical study shall identify methods of design and construction to comply with the applicable portions of the California Building Code Title 24 to achieve an indoor noise level of 45 A weighted decibel community noise equivalent level or less from traffic noise sources. Construction Project Manager X X City of Burlingame N-2 All construction equipment shall use available noise-suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment shall be maintained in a good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by a faulty or poorly maintained engine, drive train, or other component. Construction Project Manager X City of Burlingame N-3 During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and as far as possible from the boundary of sensitive receptors. Construction Project Manager X City of Burlingame N-4 Pursuant to the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, the applicant shall limit construction activities to between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, and Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Construction Project Manager X City of Burlingame PROJECT LOCATION 1245 Cabrillo Avenue Item No. 8c Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: February 12, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Chu Design Associates APN: 026-171-050 Property Owners: Eric and Jennifer Lai Lot Area: 6,119 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. Project Description: The existing two-story house and two-story detached accessory structure contain 2,793 SF (0.46 FAR) of floor area. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing accessory structure, build a new detached garage and add onto the first and second floors of the existing house. The proposed project will increase the total floor area to 3,269 SF (0.53 FAR), where 3,278 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is 9 SF below the maximum allowable floor area and is therefore within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. The roof ridge of the existing house measures 30’-2” above average top of curb. The applicant is proposing to match the existing roof ridge at the addition. Therefore, a request for a Special Permit is required for overall building height (30’-2” proposed where between 30’-0” and 36’-0” is allowed with a Special Permit). Staff would note that the finished floor of the existing house is approximately 7’-3” above the average top of curb. The existing house has four bedrooms and there is no change in the number of bedrooms with this project. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the new detached garage (10’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Easton Creek: Easton Creek runs along the rear of the property. A portion of the rear of the accessory structure extends beyond the top of creek bank (see sheets A.2.1 and Topographic Survey Plan). The existing two-story accessory structure, which contains a garage and storage areas, will be removed as a part of this project. No new improvements are proposed beyond the top of bank after the accessory structure is removed. The proposed detached garage is located above the top of bank (see sheets A.2 and L1.0). In his memo dated January 12, 2018, the Senior Engineer notes that if improvements (deck, retaining wall, pool, shed, dwelling foundation, driveway pad, etc.) are constructed within 25 feet of the creeks’ top of bank, the surrounding area shall be stabilized to prevent erosion due to stormwater discharge from the improvements. Proposed stabilization measures will need to be shown on the site plan or landscape plan as a part of the building permit plan set. In addition, vegetation that may impact the creek must be removed and replaced with stabilized material. He also notes that with the removal of the existing garage over the creek, the expectation is that the applicant shall remove any non-native material along the embankment and take great care not to disturb the hillside; otherwise, the applicant shall obtain a Fish and Wildlife and Water Board Permit. The applicant has been notified that he should consult with the Department of Fish and Wildlife for more information based on the proposed project. Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Design Review and Special Permit 1245 Cabrillo Avenue 2 Tree Removal: The application includes removing a protected size Lawson cypress (Port Orford cedar), measuring 35.8 inches in diameter and located in the rear third of the lot. The arborist report, prepared by Kielty Arborist Services (Kielty), dated December 15, 2017 (attached), notes that the tree is in fair condition and that “the poor location of the tree being surrounded by non-pervious paving has caused the aggressive surface roots to cause severe damage to the property”. In order for it to be located above the top of creek bank, the new detached garage is proposed to be built closer to the cypress tree than the existing garage. This will require severing a high percentage of surface roots, resulting in 35-40% root loss and causing a poor performing unstable tree. Kielty notes that “impacts to the tree will be moderate to severe with decline expected in the tree” and that “root loss will also reduce the structural integrity of the tree.” Kielty recommends removing the existing cypress tree and replacing it with a red maple or Chinese pistache or comparable tree planted in a location where it will thrive without damaging the new detached garage. Two new Japanese maple trees, one at the front and one at the rear of the site, are proposed on the site (see Landscape Plan, sheet L1.0). In his memo dated December 27, 2017, the City Arborist notes that an application for a Protected Tree Removal Permit to remove the cypress tree “was denied in December 2016 because the tree was in good condition and there was no effort to explore a means to preserve the tree and eliminate tripping hazard”. His memo also acknowledges that an application is now being proposed on the site that would adversely affect the tree and notes that “the tree will most likely be approved for removal since the demolition and construction of the new garage and patio will damage the roots and cause the tree to decline.” A Protected Tree Removal Permit will be required for removal of the cypress tree. The City Arborist notes that it will not be effective until the Planning Commission review and approves the project. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); and Special Permit for overall building height (30’-2” existing and proposed where between 30’-0” and 36'-0" is allowed with a Special Permit) (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)). 1245 Cabrillo Avenue Lot Area: 6,119 SF Plans date stamped: January 8, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 17'-1" 19’-7” no change no change 18'-9" (block average) 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 1'-6" ¹ 10'-6" no change (1st floor) 8’-4” (2nd floor) 11’-3” (1st floor) 10’-6” (2nd floor) 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 39'-0" 65’-0” 40’-7” 49'-7" 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2498 SF 40.8% 2420 SF 39.5% 2447 SF 40% ¹ Existing nonconforming left side setback. Design Review and Special Permit 1245 Cabrillo Avenue 3 1245 Cabrillo Avenue Lot Area: 6,119 SF Plans date stamped: January 8, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D FAR: 2793 SF 0.46 FAR 3269 SF 0.53 FAR 3278 SF ² 0.53 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered 1 uncovered 1 covered (10’ x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 30'-2" 30'-2" ³ 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.26.075 ² (0.32 x 6,119 SF) + 1100 SF + 220 SF = 3,278 SF (0.53 FAR) ³ Special Permit requested for overall building height (30’-2” existing and proposed where between 30’-0” and 36'-0" is allowed with a Special Permit). Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Parks and Engineering Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on January 22, 2018, the Commission had several comments regarding the proposed project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all of the required information has been submitted (see the attached January 22, 2018, Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached applicant’s response letter and revised plans, date stamped January 29, 2018, for responses to the Commission’s comments. In summary, the following changes were made: The existing horizontal wood siding will be retained and matching horizontal siding will be used on the addition areas and new detached garage (see revised building elevations, sheets A.4 through A.8). The previous proposal included replacing the horizontal siding with wood shingle siding. To address the adjacent neighbor’s concern regarding the interface of windows on the second floor, the Bedroom #3 and Bathroom #3 were swapped so that the window in Bedroom #3 is not directly in front of the neighbor’s second floor window (see revised Upper Floor Plan and Proposed Left Elevation, sheets A.3 and A.5, respectively). The roof design above the master bedroom on the second floor was revised from a gable end to a shed roof (see revised Proposed Left Elevation and Proposed Rear Elevation, sheets A.5 and A.6, respectively). 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 Design Review and Special Permit 1245 Cabrillo Avenue 4 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring a combination of gable and shed roofs, composition shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, horizontal siding on the house and board and batten siding on the gable ends, adhered stone veneer base, and aluminum clad wood windows (with simulated true divided lites and wood trim) is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings for Building Height: That because the finished floor of the existing house is approximately 7’-3” above the average top of curb and the building height is measured from the average top of curb elevation, it results in an overall taller roof height and causes the roof of the house to extend to 30’-2” above average top of curb level; that the proposed roof ridge at the addition will match the existing roof ridge; and that the encroachment above the 30’ height limit is insignificant (two inches above the maximum allowed) and is comprised of a pitched roof at the center peak of the house with minimal impact to the appearance of bulk and mass, the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 29, 2018, sheets A.1 through A.8, N.1, L1.0 and Topographic Survey Plan; 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 the conditions of the Parks Division’s May 2 and December 27, 2017 memos and the Engineering Division’s January 12, 2018 memo shall be met; Design Review and Special Permit 1245 Cabrillo Avenue 5 5. 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; 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 all 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 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; 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; 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 submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners Design Review and Special Permit 1245 Cabrillo Avenue 6 Attachments: January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated January 29, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Report Prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated December 15, 2017 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 2, 2018 Aerial Photo BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 22, 2018 a.1245 Cabrillo Avenue, 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 and new detached garage (Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans - 01.22.18 Attachments: Commissioner Kelly was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum had an ex parte communication with the neighbor to the left. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Is it possible to do work on the left side of the house without impacting the neighbors, given the nonconforming setback? (Hurin: Only work proposed on the left side is to enclose the front porch, and the second floor. The second floor is set back further from the side property line. The owner is responsible for keeping everything on their site with means such as scaffolding or fabric along the side, or working with the adjacent neighbor.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant with property owner Eric Lai. Commission Questions/Comments: >Line appears to be missing on the left elevation. (Chu: Appears to be a drafting error, will check with roof plan.) >Would there be a possibility to leave the garage in its current position? Trying to figure out if there is a way to work around the tree. (Chu: The current garage is two -story and has various ceiling heights. It would make this addition impossible because it would occupy too much floor area.) >All new windows and doors throughout? (Chu: Yes.) >Consider retaining the shiplap siding? It's an unusual and distinctive look. (Chu: Owner's preference is to change the siding.) >Will it be possible to work around the fence between adjacent neighbor to the left? (Chu: If the fence needs to be removed to repair the side of the house, the owners would build the fence back.) >Would the upstairs window on Bedroom #3 interface adversely with the neighbor's upstairs window? (Lai: The window would face the neighbor's office space .)(Chu: Can check to see if the windows would line up.) Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/6/2018 January 22, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: Neighbor on Drake Avenue, across the creek: Does not object to the project. Only concern is existing garage is built on piers that are sunk into the creek. Will there be an assessment or review to determine whether removing the piers and garage will have an adverse impact on the creek? Concern with erosion . When there is rain the water will occassionally go up around the piers of the garage. Will landscaping be required for the new area to maintain the creek? Chair Gum closed the public hearing. City Attorney Kane suggested Public Works staff can follow up with the neighbor regarding the creek. Commission Discussion: >Likes the project, blends in well with the existing architecture. Massed well. >OK with the Conditional Use Permit for the height since it matches the existing ridge and conforms with the design. >Should indicate the line of the 100-year flood plain on the site plan. >Nicely designed project. Just needs to address the items brought up in the questions. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Recused:Kelly1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/6/2018 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage at 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, Zoned R-1, Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners, APN: 026-171-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 12, 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: 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 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, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue Effective February 22, 2018 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 29, 2018, sheets A.1 through A.8, N.1, L1.0 and Topographic Survey Plan; 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 the conditions of the Parks Division’s May 2 and December 27, 2017 memos and the Engineering Division’s January 12, 2018 memo shall be met; 5. 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; 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 all 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 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; 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; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue Effective February 22, 2018 Page 2 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 submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, R-1 N 34°56'16" E 119.87'N 34°56'16" E 124.87'S 55°03'44" E25.00'S 34°56'16" W5.00'S 55°03'44" E 25.00'S 55°03'44" E 50.00'464746464646454445444 4 4343434242426"PRIVET32"CEDAR13"BIRCH6"PEAR12"PRUNUS8"ESCALLONIA16"PITTOSPORUM12"PITTOSPORUM8"RHUS8"RHUS8"RHUS8"RHUS18"GINKGO222222233336444668857777533311111111111111111111111111111188333BAG1G1G1RESIDENCE(E)GARAGE(N)C A B R I L L O A V E N U E50' R.O.W.(E)LAWN(N)UNIT PAVERDRIVEWAYCONCRETE(N)UNIT PAVERDRIVEWAYCONCRETE(E)VEGETATION(E)LAWN(E)PORCH(E)PORCH(E) FENCINGTO REMAIN(E) FENCINGTO REMAINADJACENTBUILDINGADJACENTBUILDING(E) WALLTO REMAIN(N) WOODFENCING*MATCH (E)(E) EVERGREENTREES(E) FENCINGTO REMAIN(E) TREESTO REMAIN(E) WATERMETER(E) CONCRETESIDEWALK(E) BIRCHTREE TOREMAIN(E) TREESTO REMAIN(E) CEDARTREE TO BEREMOVED(E) FENCINGTO REMAIN(E) STEPS(E) LANDING /STEPS(E) VEGETATION(E) CONCRETEDRIVEWAY APRON46474646464645444544444343434242 42RESIDENCE(E)GARAGE(N)C A B R I L L O A V E N U E50' R.O.W.ADJACENTBUILDINGADJACENTBUILDING(E)IRRIGATION(E)IRRIGATION(N) VALVE*CONNECT TO (E)IRRIGATION MAINLINEL1.0DATE:NOVEMBER 21, 2017SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANTITLE:SHEET NO:PLANLANDSCAPEREVISIONSLAI RESIDENCE 1245 CABRILLO AVE. BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIASCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"IRRIGATION PLANPLANTING NOTES1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT AND SOD QUANTITIES PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID FOR WORK.2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF NURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPEASSOCIATION.3. PLANT MATERIAL CANNOT BE GUARANTEED AS DEER RESISTANT DUE TO CHANGING HABITS OF DEER.4. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A LAYER OF BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 INCHES, WITH A CHIP SIZE OF NO LESS THANONE INCH. A 2 INCH LAYER OF GREENWASTE MULCH UNDER THE BARK MULCH IS RECOMMENDED.5. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY. SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH DIAMETERWILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN TYPICAL NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPE AREAS.6. PLANTING HOLES SHALL GENERALLY BE 2x - 3x THE SIZE OF THE ROOT BALL. THE WALLS AND BASES OF PLANT HOLES SHALL BE SCARIFIED.HOLES SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH 5% ORGANIC COMPOST & 95% EXISTING SOIL. PLANTING HOLES OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD BEINOCULATED WITH MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI, PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS.7. TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRESSURE TREATED 2" DIA. POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITH TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPSFORMING A FIGURE-EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE.8. RESIDUAL WEED PRE-EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY. APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TOMANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.9. LAWN SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 25%. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.RAINBIRD XERI-POP W/ MPR NOZZLEHUNTER MPR40 BODY W/ MP ROTATOR SERIES30-55(C)-CORNER, (1)-1000 etc.(5)-5 SERIES, (8)-8 SERIESCL(L)-LEFT, (S)-SIDE, (R)-RIGHTRAINBIRD XERI-POP W/ SQ NOZZLE(Q)-QUARTER, (H)-HALF, (F)-FULL5FILTER / PRESSURE REGULATORFEBCO 825Y REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLYPVC SCH 40 SLEEVINGIRRIGATION LEGENDDESCRIPTIONPVC SCH 40 LATERAL PIPINGPVC SCH 40 MAINLINEIRRITROL 100 SERIES CONTROL VALVESHUT-OFF VALVESYMUNDER ALL PAVING / WALLS AS NEEDED PER MFR'S SPECSSIZING TBD BY CONTRACTORW/ GLOBE VALVEW/ SHUT-OFF VALVESBRASS BALL VALVEREMARKSSEE PLAN FOR SIZINGW/ WEATHER STATIONWEATHERMATIC SMARTLINE SERIES CONTROLLERHOSEBIB30" TALL BRASS LINE & FIXTURE60-10030-55--60-10060-100-175 max.PSI30-5510-3060-10020-5020-50RAINBIRD XERI-BUBBLER SPIKE *NOT SHOWNAS NEEDED, SEE DETAIL15-30-INSTALL PER MFR'S SPECSHUNTER MPR40 BODY W/ MP STRIP SERIESGPM.07-2.63.14-.55-----.02-.41.13-.52.02-.22------QSIZING TBD BY CONTRACTORIRRIGATION METHODWATER USE(SPY: SPRAY DRP: DRIP BUB: BUBBLER SUB: SUB-SURFACE)(VL: VERY LOW L: LOW M: MEDIUM H: HIGH MX: MIXED)MXDRPNETAFIM TECHLINE CV DRIPLINENETAFIM TECHLINE CV (SUBSURFACE)IRRIGATION NOTES1. THE CONCEPTS ON THE IRRIGATION PLAN ARE SCHEMATIC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, THE FULL EXTENT OF WHICH ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY THECONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AS NECESSARY BASED ON ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS.2. ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONSSUPERSEDE ANY SPECS ON THESE PLANS / DETAILS.3. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL USE PRESSURE REGULATORS AS NEEDED TO KEEP ALL COMPONENTS WITHIN OPTIMAL PSI RANGE, PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECS.4. CONTROLLER TYPE SHALL BE A SMART CONTROLLER. RAIN SENSORS AND / OR WEATHER STATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED.5. CONTROLLER SHALL BE SET TO IRRIGATE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8PM AND 10AM. CONTROLLER SHALL BE SET TO IRRIGATE DEEPLY AND LESSFREQUENTLY TO ENCOURAGE DROUGHT RESISTANT ROOT GROWTH. IRRIGATION SCHEDULE TO BE DETERMINED BY AUDITOR / CONTRACTOR.6. PIPING BETWEEN THE WATER METER AND A REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE BRASS OR COPPER TYPE 'K'.7. THE BOTTOM OF THE REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE INSTALLED MIN. 12" ABOVE THE GROUND.8. A 100 MESH FILTER SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE MAINLINE BEFORE THE REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY.9. VALVES SHALL BE HOUSED IN WEATHER-PROOF PLASTIC BOXES, WITH LOCKABLE LIDS MARKED WATER.10. CONTROL WIRE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH WATERPROOF PLASTIC WIRE NUTS.11. MAIN SUPPLY LINES & FITTINGS SHALL BE PVC SCH 40, SIZE AS NOTED ON PLAN, BURIED 12" - 16" DEEP.12. LATERAL SUPPLY LINES & FITTINGS SHALL BE PVC SCH 40, SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR, BURIED 9" - 12" DEEP.13. FLEXIBLE POLY PIPE TO BE 12" -34", DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR . ALL 14" FLEXIBLE DISTRIBUTION LINES TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 5'-0" IN LENGTH& ARE TO BE STAKED.14. BUBBLERS SHALL BE SPACED TO CREATE AN EVEN WET ZONE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE CANOPY OF ALL NEW SHRUBS, NEW TREES & EXISTINGIMMATURE NON-NATIVE TREES. BUBBLERS SHALL BE PLACED TO AVOID AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IRRIGATING OAK TREES & ANY OTHER EXISTING,MATURE NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS.15. HOSE BIBS SHALL BE MOUNTED ON GALVANIZED STEEL RISERS 30" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. SECURE TO A #4 STEEL BAR DRIVEN 18" INTOSOLID GROUND.16. CHECK VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL DOWNHILL DRIPLINE & DISTRIBUTION LINE.17. RISER HEIGHT IN LAWN AREAS SHALL BE 4". RISER HEIGHT IN MEADOW AREAS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE 12". THE RISERS FORSPRINKLERS ON SLOPES SHALL BE SET APPROXIMATELY PERPENDICULAR TO THE PLANE OF THE SLOPE.18. IF LOCATION OF A SUPPLY LINE INTERFERES WITH THE DRILLING OF THE PLANT HOLES, THE PLANT HOLES SHALL BE LOCATED AS TO CLEAR THESUPPLY LINES.18. ALL LINES SHALL BE THOROUGHLY FLUSHED OUT PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT OF VALVES, SPRINKLERS, EMITTERS, & OTHER TERMINAL FITTINGS.19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE FINAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO ENSURE PROPER COVERAGE AND PREVENT WATER RUN-OFFAND EXCESS SPRAY.20. ALL SPRAY AND DRIP ZONES TO BE MIN. 5'-0" AND PREFERABLY 10'-0" AWAY FROM OAK TREE TRUNKS.7/31/19 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 22, 2018 c.2683 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for building height and Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Samaneh Nili, TRG Architecture + Interior Design, applicant and designer; Sunil and Katherine Koshie, property owner) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 2683 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2683 Summit Dr - Attachments 2683 Summit Dr - Plans - 01.22.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the neighbor at 2675 Summit Drive, and he indicated he would be attending the meeting. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >What is considered the block? The eight properties from where Summit turns, down to Burlingview? (Gardiner: Can confirm with the project planner.) >Should this have a Hillside Area Construction Permit? (Gardiner: Believes it qualifies as being within the HACP area.)(Terrones: The agenda description includes the HACP.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. There were no questions of the applicant. Public Comments: Naomi Tanaka, neighbor to the left: Wants to restate what has been discussed as concern with the applicant. Concern with the privacy on the side, with windows aligning. Concern with views being obstructed from family room. Sunil Koshie (Applicant): Will work with neighbor to address concerns. Has reviewed plans with neighbor, exchanged some emails, and met at the architect's office. Had considered adding trees for privacy, but neighbor was concern with tree roots and impact on fence. Suggested translucent windows, which is agreeable. Back yard became overgrown but can be trimmed back to open up the views for the neighbor. Commissioner questions: >Will the landscape plan be revised based on neighbor input to not have the screening trees? (Grange: Yes, the plan pre-dates the meeting with the neighbor.) >Can all the windows on side be sand blasted or frosted? They are not view windows. (Grange: Yes, Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2018 January 22, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes they will allow the light but provide privacy.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Nice project - clever solution to a strange building and lot. >The flat roof and sloped roof on the front look awkward in their adjacency. They are both nice elements but when they come together they look awkward. >Well articulated. >Should have story poles, not just for the neighbor to the side but also the neighbors behind. >The architect has made a good case for the variance, and it can be supported. >There is good support for the Special Permit for height, given the sloping lot. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2018 2683 Summit Drive, R-1 2683 SUMMIT DRIVEA D D I T I O N A N D R E M O D E LA0.0COVER SHEETPROPOSED SITE PLANA1.1EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2.0EEXISTING ROOF PLANA2.01EPROP0SED FIRST FLOOR PLANA2.1A2.2PROPOSED ROOF PLANA2.3TRG ARCHITECTS, INC.1014 HOWARD AVENUE,SAN MATEO, CA 94401650.579.5762 tel650.579.0115 faxCIVIL ENGINEERPRECISION ENGINEERING901 WALTERMIRE ST.BELMONT, CA 94002415.743.0527 teltlutze@gmail.comARCHITECTSURVEYORB & H SURVEYING, INC.901 WALTERMIRE ST.BELMONT, CA 94002650.637.1590 tel650.637.1059 faxSUBJECT PROPERTY2683 SUMMIT DR.BURLINGAME, CA94010027-224-02010,164 SF4,066 sf4,352 sfPROJECT ADDRESS:OWNER: SUNIL & KATHERINE KOSHIEPARCEL NUMBER:LOT AREA:MAX. LOT COVER (40%):MAX. FLOOR AREA (32%+1,100)1,847.14 sf402.6 sf86 sf1151.36 sf70 sf-70 sf3,487 sfPROPOSED FLOOR AREA:(E) 1st FLOOR:(E) GARAGE: (N) ADDITION:(N) 2nd FLOOR:(N) COVERED PORCH:(200sf exemption)TOTAL FLOOR AREA:1847.14 sf86 sf70 sf402.6 sf-48 sf2358 sf23.2 %PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:(E) HOUSE(N) ADDITION (STAIRWELL+SEATING AREA)(N) PORCH ENTRANCE(E) GARAGE:(E) ENTRY STAIRS(N) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE:LOT COVERAGE %:A1SheetsOfSheet:Status:REVISIONSNo.RevisionsChecked By:Date:Job:Appr.DateByScale:Drawn by:Consultant(s):FAX 650.579.0115E-Mail: admin@trgarch.com650.579.5762Architect:San Mateo, California 944011014 Howard Avenue1/16" = 1'-0"GRAPHIC SCALES:5'01/8" = 1'-0"3/16" = 1'-0"50'05'25'01'15'3/4" = 1'-0"1" = 1'-0"04'01'3'3" = 1'-0"IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT ISA REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY01'1/4" = 1'-0"01'12'5'10'5'10'1'1-1/2" = 1'-0"02'1'These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an"architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. asamended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works CopyrightProtection Act of 1990. This protection includes, but is not limited to theoverall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces andelements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use ofthese plans, work, or project represented, can legally result in thecessation of construction or building being seized and/or monetarycompensation to TRG Architects.Project:Owner(s):Sheet Contents:AS NOTEDTRG10-31-2017PLANNING SUBMITTALPROP0SED SECOND FLOOR PLANEXISTING & PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONA3.1A3.2A3.3A3.4EXISTING & PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONEXISTING & PROPOSED REAR ELEVATIONEXISTING & PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATIONC0.1SITE SURVEYEXISTING SITE PLANA1.0A4.1SECTION12-04-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS12-22-17CAPLANNING COMMENTSL1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN1,847.14 sf402.6 sf126+48+6 sf2,430 sfEXISTING LOT COVERAGE:(E) HOUSE(E) GARAGE:(E) PORCH & ENTRANCE STEPS:1,847.14 sf402.6 sf48 sf126+6=132 sf-132 sf2298 sfEXISTING FLOOR AREA:(E) 1st FLOOR:(E) GARAGE(E) ENTRANCE STEPS(E) PORCH (200sf exemption)01-05-18CAPLANNING COMMENTS SETBACK LINE12"OAK12"CLUSTER18"CLUSTER12"CLUSTER14"CLUSTER24"CLUSTER12"TREE30"CLUSTER15"CLUSTER15"CLUSTER12"CLUSTER7" ORANGE TREE8" TREE OAKSheetsOfSheet:Status:REVISIONSNo.RevisionsChecked By:Date:Job:Appr.DateByScale:Drawn by:Consultant(s):FAX 650.579.0115E-Mail: admin@trgarch.com650.579.5762Architect:San Mateo, California 944011014 Howard Avenue1/16" = 1'-0"GRAPHIC SCALES:5'01/8" = 1'-0"3/16" = 1'-0"50'05'25'01'15'3/4" = 1'-0"1" = 1'-0"04'01'3'3" = 1'-0"IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT ISA REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY01'1/4" = 1'-0"01'12'5'10'5'10'1'1-1/2" = 1'-0"02'1'These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an"architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. asamended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works CopyrightProtection Act of 1990. This protection includes, but is not limited to theoverall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces andelements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use ofthese plans, work, or project represented, can legally result in thecessation of construction or building being seized and/or monetarycompensation to TRG Architects.Project:Owner(s):Sheet Contents:AS NOTEDTRG10-31-2017PLANNING SUBMITTAL12-04-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS12-22-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS01-05-18CAPLANNING COMMENTS REMODELED RESIDENCEAPN: 027-224-020LOT AREA: 10,164 sfPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE12"OAK12"CLUSTER18"CLUSTER12"CLUSTER14"CLUSTER24"CLUSTER12"TREE30"CLUSTER15"CLUSTER15"CLUSTER12"CLUSTER7" ORANGE TREE8" TREE OAKSheetsOfSheet:Status:REVISIONSNo.RevisionsChecked By:Date:Job:Appr.DateByScale:Drawn by:Consultant(s):FAX 650.579.0115E-Mail: admin@trgarch.com650.579.5762Architect:San Mateo, California 944011014 Howard Avenue1/16" = 1'-0"GRAPHIC SCALES:5'01/8" = 1'-0"3/16" = 1'-0"50'05'25'01'15'3/4" = 1'-0"1" = 1'-0"04'01'3'3" = 1'-0"IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT ISA REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY01'1/4" = 1'-0"01'12'5'10'5'10'1'1-1/2" = 1'-0"02'1'These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an"architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. asamended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works CopyrightProtection Act of 1990. This protection includes, but is not limited to theoverall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces andelements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use ofthese plans, work, or project represented, can legally result in thecessation of construction or building being seized and/or monetarycompensation to TRG Architects.Project:Owner(s):Sheet Contents:AS NOTEDTRG10-31-2017PLANNING SUBMITTAL12-04-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS12-22-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS01-05-18CAPLANNING COMMENTS REVISED PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE12"OAK12"CLUSTER18"CLUSTER12"CLUSTER14"CLUSTER24"CLUSTER12"TREE30"CLUSTER15"CLUSTER15"CLUSTER12"CLUSTER7" ORANGE TREE8" TREE OAKSheetsOfSheet:Status:REVISIONSNo.RevisionsChecked By:Date:Job:Appr.DateByScale:Drawn by:Consultant(s):FAX 650.579.0115E-Mail: admin@trgarch.com650.579.5762Architect:San Mateo, California 944011014 Howard Avenue1/16" = 1'-0"GRAPHIC SCALES:5'01/8" = 1'-0"3/16" = 1'-0"50'05'25'01'15'3/4" = 1'-0"1" = 1'-0"04'01'3'3" = 1'-0"IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT ISA REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY01'1/4" = 1'-0"01'12'5'10'5'10'1'1-1/2" = 1'-0"02'1'These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an"architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. asamended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works CopyrightProtection Act of 1990. This protection includes, but is not limited to theoverall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces andelements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use ofthese plans, work, or project represented, can legally result in thecessation of construction or building being seized and/or monetarycompensation to TRG Architects.Project:Owner(s):Sheet Contents:AS NOTEDTRG10-31-2017PLANNING SUBMITTAL12-04-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS12-22-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS01-05-18CAPLANNING COMMENTS REVISED SheetsOfSheet:Status:REVISIONSNo.RevisionsChecked By:Date:Job:Appr.DateByScale:Drawn by:Consultant(s):FAX 650.579.0115E-Mail: admin@trgarch.com650.579.5762Architect:San Mateo, California 944011014 Howard Avenue1/16" = 1'-0"GRAPHIC SCALES:5'01/8" = 1'-0"3/16" = 1'-0"50'05'25'01'15'3/4" = 1'-0"1" = 1'-0"04'01'3'3" = 1'-0"IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT ISA REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY01'1/4" = 1'-0"01'12'5'10'5'10'1'1-1/2" = 1'-0"02'1'These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an"architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. asamended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works CopyrightProtection Act of 1990. This protection includes, but is not limited to theoverall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces andelements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use ofthese plans, work, or project represented, can legally result in thecessation of construction or building being seized and/or monetarycompensation to TRG Architects.Project:Owner(s):Sheet Contents:AS NOTEDTRG10-31-2017PLANNING SUBMITTAL12-04-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS12-22-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS01-05-18CAPLANNING COMMENTS REVISED SheetsOfSheet:Status:REVISIONSNo.RevisionsChecked By:Date:Job:Appr.DateByScale:Drawn by:Consultant(s):FAX 650.579.0115E-Mail: admin@trgarch.com650.579.5762Architect:San Mateo, California 944011014 Howard Avenue1/16" = 1'-0"GRAPHIC SCALES:5'01/8" = 1'-0"3/16" = 1'-0"50'05'25'01'15'3/4" = 1'-0"1" = 1'-0"04'01'3'3" = 1'-0"IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT ISA REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY01'1/4" = 1'-0"01'12'5'10'5'10'1'1-1/2" = 1'-0"02'1'These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an"architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. asamended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works CopyrightProtection Act of 1990. This protection includes, but is not limited to theoverall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces andelements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use ofthese plans, work, or project represented, can legally result in thecessation of construction or building being seized and/or monetarycompensation to TRG Architects.Project:Owner(s):Sheet Contents:AS NOTEDTRG10-31-2017PLANNING SUBMITTALSOUTH ELEVATION ELEVATION 7'-0" FROM PROPERTY LINETOTAL WALL AREA, 7 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE: 858 SQFT75.25 SQFTTOTAL OPENING AREA:PERCENTAGE ALLOWED PER 2016 CBC, TABLE 705.8: 25%PERCENTAGE PROPOSED: 8.9%PERCENTAGE ALLOWED PER 2016 CRC, TABLE R302.1(1) FOR WALLS BEYOND 5 FEET: UNLIMITED12-04-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS12-22-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS01-05-18CAPLANNING COMMENTS SheetsOfSheet:Status:REVISIONSNo.RevisionsChecked By:Date:Job:Appr.DateByScale:Drawn by:Consultant(s):FAX 650.579.0115E-Mail: admin@trgarch.com650.579.5762Architect:San Mateo, California 944011014 Howard Avenue1/16" = 1'-0"GRAPHIC SCALES:5'01/8" = 1'-0"3/16" = 1'-0"50'05'25'01'15'3/4" = 1'-0"1" = 1'-0"04'01'3'3" = 1'-0"IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT ISA REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY01'1/4" = 1'-0"01'12'5'10'5'10'1'1-1/2" = 1'-0"02'1'These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an"architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. asamended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works CopyrightProtection Act of 1990. This protection includes, but is not limited to theoverall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces andelements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use ofthese plans, work, or project represented, can legally result in thecessation of construction or building being seized and/or monetarycompensation to TRG Architects.Project:Owner(s):Sheet Contents:AS NOTEDTRG10-31-2017PLANNING SUBMITTALEXIT WINDOW CHARTWINDOW NET CLEAR AREA, HEIGHT & WIDTH260" X 60"12-04-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS12-22-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS01-05-18CAPLANNING COMMENTS SheetsOfSheet:Status:REVISIONSNo.RevisionsChecked By:Date:Job:Appr.DateByScale:Drawn by:Consultant(s):FAX 650.579.0115E-Mail: admin@trgarch.com650.579.5762Architect:San Mateo, California 944011014 Howard Avenue1/16" = 1'-0"GRAPHIC SCALES:5'01/8" = 1'-0"3/16" = 1'-0"50'05'25'01'15'3/4" = 1'-0"1" = 1'-0"04'01'3'3" = 1'-0"IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT ISA REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY01'1/4" = 1'-0"01'12'5'10'5'10'1'1-1/2" = 1'-0"02'1'These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an"architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. asamended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works CopyrightProtection Act of 1990. This protection includes, but is not limited to theoverall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces andelements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use ofthese plans, work, or project represented, can legally result in thecessation of construction or building being seized and/or monetarycompensation to TRG Architects.Project:Owner(s):Sheet Contents:AS NOTEDTRG10-31-2017PLANNING SUBMITTALEXIT WINDOW CHARTWINDOW NET CLEAR AREA, HEIGHT & WIDTH136" X 60" CHART OF OPENINGWEST ELEVATION ELEVATION 7'-0" FROM PROPERTY LINETOTAL WALL AREA, 7 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE: 858 SQFT58.5 SQFTTOTAL OPENING AREA:PERCENTAGE ALLOWED PER 2016 CBC, TABLE 705.8: 45%PERCENTAGE PROPOSED: 8.9%PERCENTAGE ALLOWED PER 2016 CRC, TABLE R302.1(1) FOR WALLS BEYOND 5 FEET: UNLIMITED12-04-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS12-22-17CAPLANNING COMMENTS01-05-18CAPLANNING COMMENTS PROJECT LOCATION 740 El Camino Real, Unit D Item No. 8f Regular Action Items City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 740 El Camino Real, Unit D Meeting Date: February 12, 2018 Request: Design Review for a second story deck addition to an existing condominium unit Applicant and Architect: Halle Hagenau APN: 108-990-040 Property Owners: Chris and Jordan Chavez Lot Area: 10,179 SF General Plan: Medium High Density Residential Zoning: R-3 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The subject property is a triangular shaped parcel on a corner lot with frontages on both El Camino Real and Fairfield Road. The frontage on El Camino Real is considered the front of the property and the frontage on Fairfield Road is considered the exterior side; the side shared with the neighboring property is the interior side. The lot contains a three-story residential building with four condominium units. Th e bottom floor consists of four separate attached garages assigned to each respective unit. The applicants reside in Unit D, located at the right exterior side of the building. They are proposing to remove an existing 85 SF uncovered deck and replace it with a new, partially covered 350 SF deck that extends 25’-2” from the main floor of their condominium (second story of the building). The proposed deck has an overall height of 18’-2” above grade to the top of the proposed trellis, a height of 13’-0” above grade to the top of the wood guardrail, and a vertical distance of 8’-0” from grade to the bottom of the deck. With this project the existing lot coverage will increase from 30.7% (3,130 SF) to 33.4% (3,395 SF) where 60% (6,107 SF) is the maximum allowed. There is no work proposed to the interior of the condominium unit. 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)). 740 El Camino Real, Unit D Lot Area: 10,179 SF Plans date stamped: January 15, 2018 Existing Proposed Minimum Required Front Setback: 20’-0” 21’-2” (to deck addition) 20’ for all buildings constructed on El Camino Real Exterior Side SB (Garage Level): (1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-6” 8’-6” 8’-6” 10’-0” 10’-0” no change 8'-6" 8’-6” 8’-6” Lot Coverage: 3,130 SF 30.7% 3,395 SF 33.4% 6,107 SF 60% Item No. 8f Regular Action Items Design Review 740 El Camino Real, Unit D -2- Existing Proposed Required/Allowed Number of Parking Spaces: 2 covered 1 uncovered no change 2 bedrooms = 2 spaces Clear Back-up Space/Aisle width: 24’-0” 24'-0” 24'-0" or all spaces can be exited in three maneuvers or less Parking Space Dimensions: covered: 20’-8” x 20’-4½” uncovered: 9’ x 20’ no change 9’ x 20’ covered spaces Driveway Width: 21’-7” 16’-0” 12'-0" minimum Vertical Clearance: 8’-9” 8’-0” (to bottom of deck, at all points) 7’-0” minimum Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on January 8, 2018, the Commission had suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitt ed and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached January 8, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the Commissions’ suggestions from the January 8, 2018 Design Review Study meeting: Proposed rail design is not consistent with the vertical wrought-iron elements of the rest of the building; Deck design should tie in with the design of the existing building and fence ; Clarify on the plans the materials to be used ; Would not like the deck to be made of Trex-like material; Design of the deck needs to be simplified. The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped January 15, 2018. The revised plans include modifications to the rail design and use of wood material to tie in with the existing building and fence. Please refer to the applicant’s response letter (attached) for a more detailed response to the Commissions’ suggestions. 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. Design Review 740 El Camino Real, Unit D -3- Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the design of the proposed deck and choice of materials are compatible with the existing balconies, design of the building, and adjacent fence. That the proposed location of the deck does not interfere or take away any required parking on -site and does not require any additional parking. That the location of the deck on the corner does not abut any other residential buildings and respectfully interfaces with El Camino Real and Fairfield Road. That the proposed landscape screening is in proportion to the mass and bulk of the deck structure. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 15, 2018, sheets G000, G001, C001-C003, and A050-A202; 2. that any changes to buildin g materials, exterior finishes, 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 issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval o f the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting de tails shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Bu ilding and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and Design Review 740 El Camino Real, Unit D -4- THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Halle Hagenau, applicant and architect Chris and Jordan Chavez, property owners Attachments: January 8, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter Application to the Planning Commission Letters of Support from neighbors – date stamped October 16, 2017 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 2, 2018 Aerial Photo PROJECT LOCATION 846 Paloma Avenue Item No. 9a Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 846 Paloma Avenue Meeting Date: February 12, 2018 Request: Design Review for first and second-story addition to an existing one-story house and Special Permit for a new detached garage in the rear 40% of the lot. Applicant and Designer: Robert Medan, Robert Medan Architects APN: 029-015-320 Property Owners: Sharyl Wong and Andrew Blanco Lot Area: 5,286 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is located on Paloma Avenue on an interior lot. The surrounding properties are first and second-story single-family houses. The applicant proposes to add a new second-story and remodel the first-floor to add one bedroom, living, dining and f amily room on the first-floor (321 SF) and three bedrooms on the second-floor (988 SF). The total proposed floor area of the project is 2,781 SF (0.52 FAR), where 3,100 SF (0.58 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch exemptions). The proposed house is 319 SF below the maximum allowed floor area and 187 SF below the maximum permissible lot coverage, where 1,927 SF (36%) is the proposed lot coverage and 2,114 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed as per the code. The existing house has two (2) bedrooms and would increase to four (4) bedrooms, which requires two parking spaces, one of which must be covered. The existing one car garage (417 SF) would be demolished to build a new one car detached garage (308 SF). The applicant requests a Special Permit for the detached garage to be located in the rear 40% of the lot (C.S. 25.26.035 (d)). The new detached garage would have 13’-0” x 21’-0” clear internal dimensions, whereas 10’-0” x 20’-0” is required for a new one car garage. T here is space for one uncovered space in the driveway 9’-0”x 20’-0” proposed, 9’-0”x 20’-0” required as per code. All other Zoning Code requirements such as setbacks have been met. The applicant requests the following applications: Design Review for a new second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); Special Permit for a new detached garage located in the rear 40% of the lot (C.S. 25.26.035 (d)). 846 Paloma Avenue Lot Area: 5,286 SF Plans date stamped: January 31, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19’-10” NA No change 26’-5” 15'-0" or block average 20'-0" or block average Side (left): (right): 3’-2 3/8” 10’-8 3/8” No change 9’-8” 3-0" 3-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 67’-5” NA 52’-4” 57’-4” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 1,683 SF 32% 1,927 SF 36% 2,114 SF 1 40% FAR: 1,581 SF 0.29 FAR 2,781 SF 0.52 FAR 3,100 SF 2 0.59 FAR Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review and Special Permit 846 Paloma Avenue -2- 846 Paloma Avenue Lot Area: 5,286 SF Plans date stamped: January 31, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Parking: 1 covered 1 uncovered 1 covered (13’ x 21’) 3 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 20'- 3” 25'-7" 30'-0" DH Envelope: --- complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.40 X 5,286 SF) = 2,114 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 5,286 SF) + 1100 + 308 SF = 3,100 SF (0.58 FAR). 3 Special Permit required for a new detached garage in the rear 40%. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division. 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 struct ural components. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a -d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural c haracteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new struct ure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new s tructure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Robert Medan, applicant and architect Sharyl Wong and Andrew Blanco, property owners Design Review and Special Permit 846 Paloma Avenue -3- Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Form Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 2, 2018 Aerial Photo Project Address: 846 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-320 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing one-story house and Special Permit for a new detached garage in the rear 40% of the lot. 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. 8)As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) requires non-compliant plumbing fixtures to be replaced by water-conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. This law applies to all residential and commercial property built prior to January 1, 1994. Details can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09- 10/bill/sen/sb_0401-0450/sb_407_bill_20091011_chaptered.html. Revise the plans to show compliance with this requirement. 9)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. 10)Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 11)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. Project Comments – Planning Application 12) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. (PWE letter dated 8-17-88) 13) Obtain a survey of the property lines and maintain the licensed surveyor’s hubs with identification in place at the time of the foundation / steel inspection. 14) Indicate on the floor plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line will be built of one-hour fire-rated construction. 2016 CRC Table R302.1(1) § or 2016 CBC, Table 602) Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: January 2, 2018 650 558-7270 Project Address: 846 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-320 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing one-story house and Special Permit for a new detached garage in the rear 40% of the lot. 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. Please be aware that the property is located in the Special Flood Zone. Please confirm that the property has either (a) been removed from the flood zone with a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) provided by FEMA, or (b) show project compliance with municipal code section 18.22.513 “Elevation and Floodproofing”. The BFE for this property is: 14’ based on NAVD. 2. 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). 2. An elevation certificate is required prior to building permit sign-off to prove that finish floor has not been altered and is at elevation of 17.4’ as shown on the survey. Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 1/3/18 650-558-7245 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 846 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-320 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing one-story house and Special Permit for a new detached garage in the rear 40% of the lot. 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 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. Reviewed By: BD Date: 1.8.18 650.558.7333 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 846 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-320 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing one-story house and Special Permit for a new detached garage in the rear 40% of the lot. 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. Fire sprinkler requirements: 1. 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. 2. Fire flow shall meet requirements of California Fire Code Appendix B. Contact Burlingame Engineering Department for fire flow information. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 12/21/17 650-558-7617 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 846 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-320 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing one-story house and Special Permit for a new detached garage in the rear 40% of the lot. 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: December 4, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 Project Comments – Planning Application 846 Paloma Avenue, R-1 PROJECT LOCATION 1206 Lincoln Avenue Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue Meeting Date: February 12, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for first and second-story addition to an existing two-story house Applicant and Designer: Jack Backus APN: 026-084-130 Property Owner: Miki and Spencer Behr Lot Area: 6,250 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The existing two-story house with an attached one car garage is located on the second lot from the corner on Lincoln Avenue. The surrounding properties are one and two-story single-family houses. The existing house contains 2,746 square feet (SF) (0.43 Floor Area Ratio, FAR) of Floor Area and has three bedrooms. The house has a split level with one bedroom on the first-floor, one bedroom on the mezzanine floor (located above the garage) and one bedroom on the second-floor. The applicant proposes to expand the kitchen/dining room and a bedroom on the first-floor (252 SF), and add a new bedroom and expand the master bedroom and bath on the second-floor (389 SF). The existing house has a non-conforming side setback (3’-5”) on the left side and the first-floor extension would be pushed back by 0’-7” to meet the required 4’-0” side setback requirement. All other setbacks comply. Two new dormers are added on the front of the house to provide light and air to the second floor. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,915 SF (0.46 FAR) where 3,100 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 169 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and the proposed Lot Coverage of the house is 2,154 SF (34.4%) where 2,500 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed as per code. With the proposed project, the number of bedrooms would increase from three (3) to four (4) bedrooms, (four bedrooms, one living room, and one family room). For four (4) bedrooms, two parking spaces are required on site, one of which must be covered. The existing one-car garage has clear interior dimensions 11’-9½” x 20’-1½” and would be retained (9’-0” x 8’-0” is required for existing one car garage). One uncovered space 9’-0”x18’-9 ¾” is provided in the driveway where 9’-0” x 18’-0” is allowed as per code. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant requests the following: Design Review for an addition to an existing second story of a single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 1206 Lincoln Avenue Lot Size: 6,250 SF Plans date stamped: January 22, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 17’-8 ½” No change 15’-0” (or block average) (2nd flr): 22’-1 5/8” 22’-1 5/8” 20'-0" (or block average) Side (left): (right): 3’-5” (non-conforming) 8’-0 ½” 4’-0” 8’-0 ½” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 68’- 1 ½” 75’- 1” 63’- 0 ½” 61’- 7 ½” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,888 SF 30.2 % 2,154 SF 34.4 % 2,500 SF1 40% Item No. 9b Design Review Study Design Review 1206 Lincoln Avenue 2 1206 Lincoln Avenue Lot Size: 6,250 SF Plans date stamped: January 22, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D FAR: 2,746 SF 0.43 FAR 2,915 SF 0.46 FAR 3,100 SF 2 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (11’-9 ½ ”X20’-1 ½”) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X18’-9 ¾ ”) No change 1 covered (9’x18’ for existing garage) 1 uncovered (9'x18' for existing space) Height: 24’-9 ½” 28’-9 ½ ” 30'-0" DH Envelope: Doesn’t comply towards the left complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.40 X 5000 SF) = 2,500 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 5000 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,100 SF (0.50 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 prope rties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Jack Backus, applicant and designer Miki and Spencer Behr, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 2, 2018 Aerial Photo Project Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-084-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story house. 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. 4)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 Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: January 2, 2018 650 558-7270 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-084-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story house. 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). 4. The project shall comply with the City’s NPDES permit requirements to prevent storm water pollution. 5. Replace damaged and displaced curb, gutter and/or sidewalk fronting site. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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: 10/27/17 650-558-7245 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-084-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story house. 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: Scope of addition/renovation exceeds 750 square feet. Per Burlingame Municipal Code - Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence: 1. Provide a 1-inch water meter or size to accommodate sprinkler system flow 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. 4. Fire flow shall meet requirements of California Fire Code Appendix B. Contact Burlingame Engineering Department for fire flow information. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 11/11/17 - 650-558-7617 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-084-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story house. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No 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. No existing tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Division. (558 -7330) Landscape to remain Appropriate amount of trees exist on site. Reviewed By: BD Date: 11.2.17 650.558.7333 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-084-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story house. 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: November 7, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 Project Comments – Planning Application 1206 Lincoln Avenue, R-1 PROJECT LOCATION 1402 Grove Avenue Item No. 9c Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1402 Grove Avenue Meeting Date: February 12, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for first and second-story addition to an existing single-family dwelling Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse APN: 026-075-130 Property Owner: Lisa Ley Lot Area: 5,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The existing two-story house with an attached one car garage is located on an interior lot. It contains 2,200 square feet (SF) (0.44 Floor Area Ratio, FAR) of Floor Area and has four bedrooms. The surrounding properties are one and two-story single-family houses, and a multi-family development located one house left to the subject property. The applicant proposes an addition to the kitchen and family room on the first- floor (272 SF) and addition to the existing second-story for creating a new master bedroom and bath (213 SF). With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,685 SF (0.53 FAR) where 2,700 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 15 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and the proposed Lot Coverage of the house is 1 ,881 SF (37.6%) where 2,000 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed as per code. With the proposed project, the number of bedrooms reduces from four to three bedrooms (three bedrooms, one living room and one family room). Two parking spaces are required on site, one of which must be covered. The existing one-car garage has clear interior dimensions 11’-9” x 18’-6” where 9’-0” x 18’-0” is required for existing one car garage and one uncovered space 9’-0” x 20’-0” is provided within the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements such as setbacks have been met. The applicant requests the following: Design Review for an addition to an existing second story of a single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 1402 Grove Avenue Lot Size: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 2, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 23’-10 ½” No change 15’-0” (or block average) (2nd flr): 23’-10 ½” No change 20'-0" (or block average) Side (left): (right): 3’-4” (Front) 3-5” (Rear) 4’-4” (Front) 4’-9” (Rear) 3’-4” (Front) 3’-5” (Rear) 4’-4” (Front) 4’-9” (Rear) 3'-0" 3'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 40’-3” 51’-11” 39’-9 ½ ” 38’-11” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1526 SF 30.5 % 1881 SF 37.6 % 2000 SF1 40% FAR: 2200 SF 0.44 FAR 2685 SF 0.53FAR 2700 SF 2 0.54 FAR 1 (0.40 X 5000 SF) = 2000 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 5000 SF) + 1100 SF = 2700 SF (0.54 FAR) Item No. 9c Design Review Study Design Review 1402 Grove Avenue 2 1402 Grove Avenue Lot Size: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 2, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 4 3 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (11’-9”X18’-6”) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X20’-0”) 1 covered (11’-9” X18’-6”) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X20’-0”) 1 covered (9’x18’ for existing garage) 1 uncovered (9'x20') Height: 21’-8 ½” 22’-4” 30'-0" DH Envelope: Doesn’t comply towards the front left corner complies CS 25.26.075 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 stru cture with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer Lisa Ley, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 2, 2018 Aerial Photo Project Address: 1402 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-075-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor 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. No comments at this time. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 10-2-17 650-558-7617 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1402 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-075-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor 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. 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. (No new curb drain is allowed now unless as a last resort. Applies to all new 1st floor additions.) For all new impervious area created (rear 1st floor addition of 283sf), the stormwater must be retained onsite. No new storm runoff is allowed from the property. Please show design and location of proposed stormwater retention system. 2. 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. 3. 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). Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 11/16/17 650-558-7245 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1402 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-075-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor 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: October 12, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1402 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-075-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor 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: 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. Landscape to remain; two new Crape Myrtles tree proposed in backyard. No further comments at this time Reviewed By: BD Date: 10.3.17 650.558.7333 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1402 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-075-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor 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 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) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 2) 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 2016 California Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020 3) 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. 4) 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. 5) On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and unprotected, will comply with 2016 CBC, Table 705.8. Provide a table or chart that specifies 1) the openings allowed and; 2) the size and percentage of the openings proposed. Project Comments – Planning Application 6) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 7) Specify on the plans whether the fireplace is a gas or solid wood-burning device. If the fireplace is a solid wood-burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will meet all requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood-burning device. 8) If the fireplace is a solid wood-burning device then specify on the plans that the fireplace chimney will terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet or will be retrofit with a fireplace insert (not a log lighter.) 2016 CRC §1003.9 or 2016 CBC 2113.9 18.10.100 Appendix C, Figure C amended—Exit terminals of mechanical draft and direct-vent venting systems. The Figure in Appendix C of the 2016 California Residential Code is amended by adding the following note: Note: Where the property line is less than ten (10) feet from the exit terminal of any newly installed or replacement high efficiency mechanical equipment the pipe size of the final ten (10) feet of any terminal must be increased to three inches (3″) or, as an alternative, manufacturer-approved baffles must be installed. 9) As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) requires non-compliant plumbing fixtures to be replaced by water-conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. This law applies to all residential and commercial property built prior to January 1, 1994. Details can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09- 10/bill/sen/sb_0401-0450/sb_407_bill_20091011_chaptered.html. Revise the plans to show compliance with this requirement. 10) 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. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: September 25, 2017 650 558-7270 1402 Grove Avenue, R-1 PROJECT LOCATION 250 California Drive Item No. 9d Design Review Study Item No. 9d Design Review Study City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for a New Mixed Use Office Building Address: 250 California Drive Meeting Date: February 12, 2018 Request: Application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for office use in a portion of the ground floor and building height for construction of a new, four-story mixed use office building (retail and office). Applicant and Property Owner: 20 Hobart LLC APN: 029-213-010 Architect: MBH Architects Lot Area: 11,515 SF (0.26 acres) General Plan: Service and Special Sales - Downtown Specific Plan (California Drive Mixed Use District) Zoning: CAR (California Drive Auto Row) Adjacent Development: Printing services, retail, restaurants and Burlingame Caltrain Station. Current Use: Automobile sales lot (Ocean Honda). Proposed Use: Four-story mixed use office building; retail and office on the ground floor and office on upper three floors. Allowable Use: Permitted uses include automobile sales and service, retail sales of automobile parts/accessories, government agencies and office and multifamily residential uses above the first floor. Conditional uses include office uses on the ground floor, hotels and retail, personal services and business services other than those related to automobile sales or service. 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 10-12 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. Project Summary: The project site is located at the corner of California Drive, South Lane and West Lane and has a parcel address of 226 California Drive; with this application the address will be changed to 250 California Drive. The existing site consists of a paved parking lot and is currently used as a vehicle display area by a nearby automobile dealership (Ocean Honda). The proposed development is on a project site of 11,515 SF (0.26 acres) and is surrounded by urban uses, including one and two-story commercial buildings across the railroad tracks and East Lane to the north, multi-story commercial buildings across California Drive to the south, a one-story commercial building to the east, and the Burlingame Train Station across South Lane to the west. Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 2 of 13 The applicant is proposing to construct a new four-story mixed use office building (retail and office) with below- grade parking in an automated parking system. The mixed use office building totals 45,000 SF which consists of retail and office uses, lobby areas, storage and mechanical rooms in the basement, vehicle entrance areas into the automated parking system, enclosed stairways and elevators, and covered roof decks on the fourth floor. The proposed building will contain 5,387 SF of retail space on the ground floor and 28,458 SF of office space on the ground floor and in the three floors above. The proposal also includes 1,037 SF of roof deck areas at the front and rear of the building on the fourth floor. The CAR District Regulations state that retail sales of automobile parts and accessories are permitted (Code Section 25.38.020 (d)). Retail sales other than those related to automobile sales or service are only allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 25.38.030 (a) and (c)). A retail tenant has not yet been determined. If the future retail tenant is not related to automobile sales and service, an application for a Conditional Use Permit will be required to be submitted at that time. The CAR District Regulations state that office uses above the first floor are permitted (Code Section 25.38.020 (f) (2)). Office uses on the ground floor are only allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Code Sections 25.38.030 (a) and (b)). The ground floor office space (720 SF) will be occupied by the Burlingame Historical Society and will also have storage space in the basement. The office space on the second through fourth floors has been designed as a shell to be able to accommodate either a single tenant or multiple tenants. Tenants for the office spaces have not yet been determined. In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed office space on the ground floor, 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. Parking for the building will be provided in a below-grade automated parking system, accessed from West Lane. The proposed parking system allows vehicles to enter and exit the site off West Lane (see Off-Street Parking section for additional information). The following applications are required for this project: Commercial Design Review for a new, four-story mixed use office building (retail and office) (Code Sections 25.38.045 and 25.57.010(c) (1)); Conditional Use Permit for office use in a portion of the ground floor (Code Section 25.38.030 (a)); and Conditional Use Permit for building height exceeding 35’-0” in height (55’-0” proposed where 55’-0” is the maximum allowed building height) (Code Section 25.38.030 (h)). Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 3 of 13 Commercial Design Review: Commercial Design Review is required for new commercial buildings pursuant to Code Sections 25.38.045 and 25.57.010 (c) (1). Design Review was instituted for commercial projects in 2001 with the adoption of the Commercial Design Guidebook. The project is located within the boundaries of the Burlingame Downtown Special Plan and therefore subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.2 (pages 5-2 through 5-12) provides design guidelines specifically for commercial and mixed use 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. The relevant pages of the plan have been included as an attachment for convenience of commissioners. The proposed exterior facades consist of brick veneer and an aluminum and glass window wall system, anchored by a slate stone base. The California Drive and South Lane facades will contain brushed stainless steel entry doors, while the rear of the building along West Lane will contain roll-up doors with perforated metal panels or aluminum metal panels. Metal canopies are proposed over entries to the building on the ground floor at the front and rear of the building. Two roof deck areas on the fourth floor will be covered by metal brise soleil. A metal cap reveal is proposed along the top edge of the building. A materials board will be available at the meeting. The proposed project includes two roof deck areas located on the fourth floor totaling 1,037 SF (405 SF along California Drive and 632 SF along West Lane). A total of nine new, 24-inch box street trees (four along California Drive and five along South Lane) are proposed to be installed as part of the project. The proposed Planting Plan indicates the trees would be Trident Maple (Acer Buergerianum). The following design review criteria for commercial development projects are outlined in the zoning code: 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. This space intentionally left blank. Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 4 of 13 Severn Lodge Dairy Wallscape and Burlingame Railroad Station: The subject property is immediately adjacent to a building at 220 California Drive, which features a prominent painted advertisement mural across its west facade, facing the subject property. This mural, identified as the Severn Lodge Daily Wallscape, is a circa 1917 advertisement for the Severn Lodge Dairy and the Dairy Delivery Company. In 1925-1926, a building was constructed on the subject property, effectively blocking the W allscape from public view. In June 2000, this building was demolished, making the mural visible for the first time in almost 75 years. In 2003, the Burlingame Historical Society restored and repainted the mural. In 2004, the Severn Lodge Dairy Wallscape was designated a California Point of Historical Interest and subsequently listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. The subject property is also located directly across South Lane from the Burlingame Railroad Station. The 1894 Mission Revival style train depot is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a designated California Historic Landmark. A Historic Memorandum was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 7, 2017 (attached). The purpose of the Memorandum was to provide a historic background of the subject property and the Wallscape, outline the regulatory framework, and provide a summary of the steps the developer has taken to respect and incorporate the Wallscape into the design of the proposed project. The Memorandum also comments on the project design and its compatibility with the Burlingame Train Station. The Memorandum notes that “In December 2016, Page & Turnbull inquired with staff at the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) about the regulatory framework surrounding California Points of Historical Interest and potential environmental reviews. These discussions revealed that projects which have the potential to impact designated California Points of Historic Interest are not subject to any additional environmental review at the state level. As such, OHP will not conduct any design review or analysis of the proposed project at 250 California Drive and its potential impacts to the Severn Dairy Lodge Wallscape. However, the Severn Dairy Lodge Wallscape at 220 California Drive does qualify as a cultural resource for the purposes of the CEQA, with review at the local level.” Given that the proposed project has been designed to preserve, highlight, and enhance public access to the Wallscape (see description below), the City can find that the proposed project does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Wallscape, and therefore not subject to any additional environmental review. With regards to preserving and incorporating the Wallscape into the project, the Memorandum notes that “In January, Page & Turnbull provided the developer with a series of design recommendations and ways to minimize the impact of the proposed project on the Severn Lodge Dairy Wallscape. Since that time, the developer has worked with the President of the Burlingame Historical Society on ways to preserve the mural and allow the public to experience it. In addition to designing the building around the Severn Lodge Dairy Wallscape, the developer has included it as a key design feature of the building itself. The Severn Lodge Dairy Wallscape can be seen from every floor of the office building, and a courtyard on the first floor has been created to provide a 14'-7" by 62'-1" publicly accessible outdoor space in front of the Severn Lodge Dairy Wallscape. The courtyard has been designed with new hardscape and landscape to compliment the mural. In an effort to ensure that the Severn Lodge Dairy Wallscape can be seen from the street and as soon as one enters the building, glass has been added throughout the building's first floor to look directly at the mural.” The proposed application includes the Burlingame Historical Society occupying a portion of the ground floor space adjacent to the courtyard and Wallscape. The location of their office and common lobby area will provide opportunities for the public to experience the Wallscape. Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 5 of 13 Regarding its impacts on the Burlingame Train Station, the Memorandum notes that “Although the subject property is separated from the train station by South Lane and the likelihood of potential impacts to the cultural resource are inherently reduced, Page & Turnbull suggested some strategies to increase compatibility and decrease the impact on the setting of the train station. Taking these into account, the developer has proposed an architectural style that does not try to mimic the Burlingame Railroad Station, but uses a selection of textured materials, complimentary colors, depth, and articulation in an effort to create a compatible design. The scale and height of the building have been reduced on all four sides of the proposed project, including the light-well for the Severn Lodge Dairy Wallscape, balconies at both the California Drive and West Lane frontages, and a step back on the fourth floor of the frontage facing the train station.” Building Height: The maximum building height allowed in the CAR District is 55’-0”. However, a Conditional Use Permit is required for any building or structure which exceeds 35’-0” in height. As measured to the top of the roof ridge, the proposed four-story building is 55’-0” in height. A request for a Conditional Use Permit for building height has been submitted by the applicant. With the proposed covered roof deck areas along the California Drive and West Lane building facades, the massing and height of the building at these locations transition from three stories (45’-0” in height) to four stories (55’-0” in height). Please refer to the rendering, floor plans and building elevations. Code Section 25.08.340 specifies that building height is measured from the average top of curb and to the highest edge of a gable, hip or shed roof or top of parapet. The building height limit applies to ninety-five (95) percent of the total roof surface; the remaining five (5) percent may include projections up to ten (10) feet above top of parapet for enclosing elevators, mechanical penthouses, solar structures, antennas or other equipment. As noted above, the proposed height of the building is 55’-0” and the project proposes a 4’-2” parapet (noted as roof screen on plans). The parapet serves as a solar structure roof screen/enclosure for purposes of the height measurement, as solar panels are intended to be mounted on the rooftop of the building and would be screened by the parapet/roof screen element. As a roof screen element, it is excluded from the building height measurement. In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for building height, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Off-Street Parking: The proposed project consists of 5,387 SF of retail on the ground floor and 28,458 SF of office on the first through fourth floors. Off-street parking is required for the proposed retail and office uses in the building. Based on the 1:400 GSF parking ratio for retail uses and 1:300 GSF parking ratio for office uses, a total of 109 off-street parking spaces are required. A total of 98 parking spaces are provided on-site in an automated puzzle parking system. This represents balance of 11 parking spaces. Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 6 of 13 Land Use section 3.6.1 of the Downtown Specific Plan allows that in instances where uses proposed are not exempt from providing parking, in-lieu fees may be paid instead of providing parking on-site where there is expansion, intensification, or construction of new buildings. In this case, the proposed mixed use office building is not exempt from providing parking since it is not located within the parking sector. The applicant notes that the parking in-lieu fees will be paid for the balance of spaces required for the proposed project. A Parking Variance is not required, as the payment of in-lieu fees is provided as an option through the Downtown Specific Plan for projects within the parking sector. Currently, the fee is $52,467.57 per parking space. The parking in-lieu fee for the proposed project is $577,143.27 (11 spaces x $52,467.57). The applicant is proposing to install an automated puzzle parking system manufactured by 5BY2, an independent supplier of automated parking garages (see attached specifications). As shown on the East-West Building Section, sheet A3.2.1, the system consists of three levels and extends 26’-1” below grade (31’-0” to bottom of car lift pit). Drivers will enter in one of two parking bays, located at the rear of the building off West Lane. The driver then exits the vehicle and walks to the adjacent lobby (Lobby 2) to retrieve a ticket from the parking kiosk. The system will not activate until the driver is outside of the vehicle and retrieves a parking ticket. Some customers may have an app on their smart phone, which can communicate to the parking system in lieu of a ticket or fob key. The system employs a turntable at each entry bay so that it rotates the vehicle so that it may exit in a forward direction. The applicant notes that queuing of parking and retrieving vehicles takes approximately 90 seconds. The Municipal Code does not include specifications for parking lifts or 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 automated parking systems. The parking system could each be considered within the scope of “creative approaches” to providing the required on-site parking. To date, the City has approved several commercial and residential projects with parking lifts. This space intentionally left blank. Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 7 of 13 250 California Drive Lot Area: 11,515 SF (0.26 acres) Plans date stamped: December 27, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Use: Retail on ground floor (retail business not determined) (5,387 SF) Office on ground floor and on upper three floors ¹ (28,458 SF) Permitted Uses: Retail uses related to automobile sales and service and office uses above the ground floor Conditional Uses: Retail uses not related to automobile sales and service and office uses on the ground floor SETBACKS Front Build-To Line (California Dr): 77% of front wall of the ground floor is located at front property line No minimum required; at least 60% of front wall of the ground floor must be located at front property line Left Side (South Ln): Right Side (Interior): 0’-0” 1’-6” No minimum required Rear (West Lane): 0’-0” No minimum required BUILDING ENVELOPE: Ground Floor Ceiling Height: 15’-0” 15’-0” Building Height: 55'-0" ³ 55’-0” (CUP required if building exceeds 35’-0”) OFF-STREET PARKING Off-Street Parking: 98 spaces provided in automated puzzle parking system ² Office - 1 space per 300 GSF Retail - 1 space per 400 GSF Office: 28,458 SF/300 GSF ratio Retail: 5,387 SF/400 GSF ratio Total = 109 spaces Driveway Width: 20'-0" driveway width (shared driveway with 226 Lorton Avenue) Parking areas with not more than 30 vehicle spaces shall have a minimum driveway width of 12’-0" ¹ Conditional Use Permit Use Permit for office use in a portion of the ground floor. ² Conditional Use Permit for building height exceeding 35’-0” in height (55’-0” proposed where 55’-0” is the maximum allowed building height). ³ Parking in-lieu fee, in the amount of $577,143.27 (11 spaces x $52,467.57), will be submitted in-lieu of providing 11 off-street parking spaces. Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 8 of 13 General Plan/Specific Plan: The Burlingame General Plan designates this site for Service and Special Sales. In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (with amendments in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017), 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 California Drive Mixed Use District. The California Drive Mixed Use District is described as follows: The Auto Row area is the area along California Drive between Burlingame and Peninsula Avenues. Automobile-related uses dominate in this area. Auto showrooms, hotel or retail uses are permitted on the ground floor, and housing, offices or hotel uses can be allowed on upper floors. Non-auto uses should be carefully considered to ensure compatibility with the area's traditional focus on automobile businesses; retail, personal and business services, and hotels require a conditional use permit, as do commercial uses greater than 5,000 square feet. 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 Policy LU-2.3: In Auto Row allow mixed-uses that introduce residential/commercial development, encourage the retention of the auto dealer uses on Auto Row, and create appropriate transitions to adjacent uses. Mixed office building proposed (retail and office) in Auto Row. Creates appropriate transition between Auto Row and retail, office and restaurant uses in area. Policy P-1.1: Encourage the use of “alternative” vehicle types with ample bicycle parking and free parking for electric cars. Bicycle storage provided in basement. Policy P-1.2: Devote less land for parking Downtown while accommodating increased demand by using the land more efficiently with decked or underground parking. There is no at-grade parking proposed with this project; all parking is provided in an underground automated puzzle parking system. Policy P-1.3: Conceal parking areas through the use of attractively designed above- or below-ground parking structures. Below-grade parking is concealed under the proposed building. Policy P-2.1: Explore creative parking solutions including parking pricing strategies. 98-car automated puzzle parking system is provided. Policy C-2.6: Consider the needs of pedestrian, bicycles, and people with disabilities. Building contains an elevator and a disable- accessible parking space is provided on-site. Policy S-1.1: Improve the safety of streetscapes through better lighting, repair of curbs and gutters, universal design/ADA compliance, and other measures. The project includes replacing the existing sidewalk, curb and gutter along all three frontages; improvements will comply with ADA requirements. 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. A total of nine new 24-inch box size street trees (Trident Maple) will be planted along the California Drive and South Lane frontages. Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 9 of 13 GOAL/POLICY PROJECT PROPOSED Policy S-1.7: Require new developments and major remodel projects to include pedestrian-oriented retail design treatments on all exposed elevations. Exposed ground level building facades consist of windows, entry doors and canopies, which provide a connection between pedestrians and the retail and office spaces. Policy D-1.1: Ensure that new construction fits into the context and scale of the existing downtown. Proposed building is compatible with existing buildings and buildings currently under construction. Policy D-1.2: Require design review for all new downtown buildings and for changes to existing downtown buildings, and integrate historic review into the design review process. Proposed building is subject to Design Review; design of the proposed building incorporates the Severn Lodge Dairy Wallscape and does not try to mimic the Burlingame Railroad Station, but uses a selection of textured materials, complimentary colors, depth, and articulation in an effort to create a compatible design. 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; project is subject to design review. Policy D-4.1: Encourage buildings to be built out to the sidewalk, with doors and windows facing the sidewalk to create a lively pedestrian environment. Building is built out to the sidewalk with doors and windows facing the sidewalk. Policy D-4.2: Corner buildings should have interest along both street elevations, such as doors, windows, and awnings on both the front and side building faces. Proposed building has doors and windows along all three frontage and canopies along the California Drive and West Lane frontages. Policy I-2.1: Consider including solar (photovoltaic) panels and/or small wind turbines on top of parking lots/structures. Project includes solar panels on the rooftop of the building. Policy I-3.1: Coordinate undergrounding activities with phasing of streetscape improvements. Existing above ground utility poles and electrical lines along West Lane will be undergrounded. Staff Comments: Comments from the Building, Engineering, Fire, Parks, and Stormwater Divisions are attached. 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 the proposed mixed use office building (retail and office), the required public facilities impact fee for this development project is $390,466.10. 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. Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 10 of 13 Commercial Linkage Fee: The purpose of commercial linkage fee is to: (a) Encourage the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households with varying income levels within the City as mandated by State law, California Government Code Section 65580 and following. (b) Offset the demand for affordable housing that is created by new development and mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany new commercial development by protecting the economic diversity of the City’s housing stock; reducing traffic, transit and related air quality impacts; promoting jobs/housing balance; and reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region. (c) Promote the City’s policy to provide an adequate number of affordable housing units to the City’s housing stock in proportion to the existing or projected need in the community, as identified by the Housing Element. (d) Support the Housing Element goal of providing housing opportunities for those who work in Burlingame. (e) Support the Housing Element goal of achieving increased affordability of housing. (f) Support the Housing Element policy of developing of a variety of housing types that are affordable to very low and extremely low income households. (g) Support the Housing Element goal of preserving residential character by encouraging maintenance, improvement and rehabilitation of the City’s neighborhoods and housing stock. Based on the proposed mixed use retail/office building, the required commercial linkage fee for this development project is $683,675.00. The commercial linkage fee shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the commercial development project. 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 Burlingame General Plan designates this site for Service and Special Sales. 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 California Drive Mixed Use District. The California Drive Mixed Use District is described as follows: The Auto Row area is the area along California Drive between Burlingame and Peninsula Avenues. Automobile-related uses dominate in this area. Auto showrooms, hotel or retail uses are permitted on the ground floor, and housing, offices or hotel uses can be allowed on upper floors. Non-auto uses should be carefully considered to ensure compatibility with the area's traditional focus on automobile businesses; retail, personal and business services, and hotels require a conditional use permit, as do commercial uses greater than 5,000 square feet. Furthermore, the proposed project complies with all applicable zoning regulations, including building height, setbacks and build-to lines, ground floor ceiling heights, and off-street parking (with payment of parking in-lieu fee). Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 11 of 13 (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 0.26 acres and is surrounded by urban uses, including one and two-story commercial buildings across the railroad tracks and East Lane to the north, multi-story commercial buildings across California Drive to the south, a one-story commercial building to the east, and the Burlingame Train Station across South Lane 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 development. The project site is completely developed with a paved parking area and is currently used as a vehicle display area by an automotive dealership. 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. Traffic: Based on the ITE’s Trip Generation 9th Edition, the existing automobile sales site generates 371 total daily vehicle trips and the proposed project would generate 544 total daily trips, resulting in approximately 173 net new daily vehicle trips. Based on the proposed office and retail uses, the project would result in 27 net new AM peak hour trips and 32 PM net new 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 27 net new AM peak hour trips and 32 PM net new 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. 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/Howard Avenue/Highland Avenue, California Drive/Peninsula Avenue and California Drive/Lorton 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 27 net new AM peak hour trips and 32 PM net new peak hour trips, traffic impacts as a result of the project would be less than significant. Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 12 of 13 Noise: The area surrounding the project site has been developed with structures for 75-100 years. Since the use of the site will be primarily office, 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 use sound-rated construction materials established in the California Green Building Standards Code, which will provide noise attenuation. Construction of the proposed office building 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. Standard conditions of approval from the Downtown Specific Plan 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 mixed use office building to replace an existing automobile sales lot. The site is within walking distance of countywide bus and rail services. The site is zoned for commercial/office development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction and standard conditions of approval from the Downtown Specific Plan, the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Water quality: This project is a commercial infill development project and it is not located adjacent to a waterway. Currently, the entire site is impervious, consisting of paving throughout the site. The proposed project’s footprint would cover the majority of the site. 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 development which is served by utility and public services. The existing paved parking area will be replaced with a four-story building on the same lot and can be adequately served by required utility and public services. This space intentionally left blank. Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 250 California Drive Page 13 of 13 Planning Commission Action: 1. Design Review Study: The Planning Commission should comment on the design of the project as required by Chapter 25.57 of the Zoning Ordinance, Design Review, and to the following design criteria for commercial projects: a. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; and b. 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 c. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and d. 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 e. 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 f. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. 20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner MBH Architects, project architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Applications Letter of Support submitted by Emmett W. MacCorkle, dated January 24, 2018 Letter of Support submitted by Sam Malouf, dated January 28, 2018 Historic Memorandum, prepared by Page & Turnbull, dated August 7, 2017 5BY2 Automated Parking System Product Information Downtown Specific Plan Applicable Design Guidelines Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 2, 2018 Aerial Photo User Benefits & Features 5BY2 is the global leader in “automated puzzle parking” systems. Our systems have been installed and provided reliable service for over 20 years in high end residential, commercial and hotel developments. This is the most efficient space use of any fully automated parking system (robotic, automatic or mechanical parking system or garage). Our space saving technology requires as little as 13m2 per vehicle. This is up to a 60% saving over conventional car park space requirements and therefore a capacity gain of more than 200% in the same volume. Reliability and sustainability are the cornerstones of our business. By an integrated approach to design, installation and long term maintenance we can achieve availability in excess of the industry standard of 99.85%. All our systems are designed to operate without an attendant and are designed to give high availability over long periods with minimal intervention or maintenance. With the use of a remote management system with camera aid, we can resolve more than 80% of the issues, mostly derived from end user mistakes, from our offices, eliminating delays from engineers having to travel to site and offering speedy resolution. We consider all our installations to be bespoke, based on proven technology but adapted to give our clients maximum design flexibility. There are a number of other sustainable benefits that the 5BY2 System has over other conventional multi-storey car parking systems, which can assist in achieving a number of credits under the standards of BREEAM (British Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and Green Star. Potential reduction in operational energy consumption through: • Internal lighting not required for whole period of operation. • Simple ventilation strategy as only background aeration required for maintenance access. • Other energy consuming assets including passenger lifts, amenities and barrier control systems are not required. • Reduced vehicles emissions (CO2, NOx, PM10) as engines are switched off during parking and no manoeuvring is required. • Energy efficient automated machinery. • Ability for system to be powered by Low or Zero Carbon (LZC) emitting electrical generation, e.g. wind turbines, solar or biomass. • Low embodied energy content in materials. Independent assessments confirm the many sustainability benefits our solutions offer. The 5BY2 system has many benefits over other fully automated parking systems: • It is highly flexible and able to accommodate differing site shapes, sizes and immovable barriers, i.e. lift cores, blade wall and columns etc., without compromising efficiency. • The footprint of the car park can be varied over multiple floors. • It can be installed on concrete floor slabs, or on a steel frame or a combination of both. • It is infinitely scalable so the system can be designed for any number of car spaces. To date the smallest project completed has been for 4 cars, and the largest for 131 cars. • Smart phone Apps allow remote calling for parking and retrieving of vehicles. • Intelligent software ensures minimum waiting times. Internal view showing multi-level steel support structure Semi-submerged transfer cabin in lowered position Semi-submerged transfer cabin in raised position Direct volume comparison Internal view of a typical 5BY2 system Highly flexible and able to accommodate differing site shapes View of a typical 5BY2 system showing dual scissor lifts For details of our global offices please visit: www.5by2parking.com or email: info@5by2parking.com Head Office Melbournestraat 9 1175 RM Lijnden P.O. Box 9911 1006 PA Amsterdam The Netherlands T: +31 (0) 88 655 0707 F: +31 (0) 88 655 0717 E: info@5by2parking.com The 5BY2 fully automated car park operates on the puzzle not dissimilar in concept to a child's sliding tile puzzle. It uses individually controlled sliding pallets to independently to create a flexible and highly efficient parking and retrieval solution. A 5BY2 system is typically comprised of parking modules, carriers and pallets, elevators or lifts, turntables Parking The parking of the parking system. This is the room where the vehicle is driven on and off the parking pallet, where the vehicle dimensions are checked and where the user’s a also various forms of parking modules Drive through modules door, exit by using the module back door with no requirement for a turntable. *Typical dimensions but not fixed Combined entry/exit modules Variations include: either the car is turned in the garage such that the car can drive out easily, or the car is driving out backwards. For a turntable there stays at street level in the entrance while the elevator lowers into the garage; (ii) the turntable is car after lowering into garage (iii) turntable is placed within the system. Once it is turned the car moves into the parking system. Rectangular The 5BY2 fully automated car park operates on the puzzle not dissimilar in concept to a child's sliding tile puzzle. It uses individually controlled sliding pallets to independently to create a flexible and highly efficient parking and retrieval solution. A 5BY2 system is typically comprised of parking modules, carriers and pallets, elevators or lifts, turntables Parking Modules The parking module of the parking system. This is the room where the vehicle is driven on and off the parking pallet, where the vehicle dimensions are checked and where the user’s a also various forms of parking modules Drive through modules door, exit by using the module back door with no requirement for a turntable. *Typical dimensions but not fixed Combined entry/exit modules Variations include: either the car is turned in the garage such that the car can drive out easily, or the car is driving out backwards. For a turntable there stays at street level in the entrance while the elevator lowers into the garage; (ii) the turntable is car after lowering into garage (iii) turntable is placed within the system. Once it is turned the car moves into the parking system. Rectangular Combined Entry/Exit Module (with Access Door) Abu Dhabi T: +971 2 643 2223 The 5BY2 fully automated car park operates on the puzzle not dissimilar in concept to a child's sliding tile puzzle. It uses individually controlled sliding pallets to independently to create a flexible and highly efficient parking and A 5BY2 system is typically comprised of parking modules, carriers and pallets, elevators or lifts, turntables Modules module is the only area that can be accessed by users of the parking system. This is the room where the vehicle is driven on and off the parking pallet, where the vehicle dimensions are checked and where the user’s actions are monitored. There are also various forms of parking modules Drive through modules. Vehicles enter using the module front door, exit by using the module back door with no requirement for Drive Through Mod *Typical dimensions but not fixed Combined entry/exit modules (with or without an elevator). Variations include: either the car is turned in the garage such that the car can drive out easily, or the car is driving out backwards. For a turntable there are the following options: (i) the turntable stays at street level in the entrance while the elevator lowers into the garage; (ii) the turntable is placed on the elevator, turning car after lowering into garage (iii) turntable is placed within the system. Once it is turned the car moves into the parking system. Combined Entry/Exit Module (with Access Door) 6m* T: +971 2 643 2223 info@5by2parking.com The 5BY2 fully automated car park operates on the puzzle not dissimilar in concept to a child's sliding tile puzzle. It uses individually controlled sliding pallets to manoeuvre each car independently to create a flexible and highly efficient parking and A 5BY2 system is typically comprised of parking modules, carriers and pallets, elevators or lifts, turntables and a contr is the only area that can be accessed by users of the parking system. This is the room where the vehicle is driven on and off the parking pallet, where the vehicle dimensions are ctions are monitored. There are also various forms of parking modules. . Vehicles enter using the module front door, exit by using the module back door with no requirement for Drive Through Module (with or without an elevator). Variations include: either the car is turned in the garage such that the car can drive out easily, or the car is driving out backwards. are the following options: (i) the turntable stays at street level in the entrance while the elevator lowers into placed on the elevator, turning car after lowering into garage (iii) turntable is placed within the system. Once it is turned the car moves into the parking system. Combined Entry/Exit Module (with Access Door) 5BY2 Parking T: +971 2 643 2223 Amsterdam info@5by2parking.com The 5BY2 fully automated car park operates on the puzzle-system, not dissimilar in concept to a child's sliding tile puzzle. It uses manoeuvre each car independently to create a flexible and highly efficient parking and A 5BY2 system is typically comprised of parking modules, carriers and a control system. is the only area that can be accessed by users of the parking system. This is the room where the vehicle is driven on and off the parking pallet, where the vehicle dimensions are ctions are monitored. There are . Vehicles enter using the module front door, exit by using the module back door with no requirement for (with or without an elevator). Variations include: either the car is turned in the garage such that the car can drive out easily, or the car is driving out backwards. are the following options: (i) the turntable stays at street level in the entrance while the elevator lowers into placed on the elevator, turning the car after lowering into garage (iii) turntable is placed within the system. Once it is turned the car moves into the parking system. Combined Entry/Exit Module (with Access Door) 2.8 Parking System Information Amsterdam T: +31 20 5689689 info@5by2parking.com www.5by2parking.com © 5BY2 2011 system, not dissimilar in concept to a child's sliding tile puzzle. It uses manoeuvre each car independently to create a flexible and highly efficient parking and A 5BY2 system is typically comprised of parking modules, carriers is the only area that can be accessed by users of the parking system. This is the room where the vehicle is driven on and off the parking pallet, where the vehicle dimensions are ctions are monitored. There are . Vehicles enter using the module front door, exit by using the module back door with no requirement for (with or without an elevator). Variations include: either the car is turned in the garage such that the car can drive out easily, or the car is driving out backwards. are the following options: (i) the turntable stays at street level in the entrance while the elevator lowers into the car after lowering into garage (iii) turntable is placed within the system. Once it is turned the car moves into the parking system. Combined Entry/Exit Module (with Access Door) Entry only and exit only modules completely different location modules can be on the same or different levels of the system. This tends to be more applicable in situations where there is a constant flow and not in residential or commercial developments where demand for either exit of ent Parking modules can be above, on the same level or below the parking system and can be manufactured from any material the client requires. Previous modules construction materials include glass, steel, brick and concrete. Pallets The pallets are horizontally stored in of three different types of carriers: 2.8m* System Information T: +31 20 5689689 www.5by2parking.com Circular Entry only and exit only modules completely different location modules can be on the same or different levels of the system. This tends to be more applicable in situations where there is a constant flow and not in residential or commercial developments where demand for either exit of ent Parking modules can be above, on the same level or below the parking system and can be manufactured from any material the client requires. Previous modules construction materials include glass, steel, brick and concrete. Pallets and Carriers The pallets are horizontally stored in of three different types of carriers: • Lateral carrier. On which the pallets are moved laterally or sideways • Longitudinal carrier. On which the pallets are moved longitudinal • Pop-up laterally and longitudinally. Pallet London T: +44 20 7203 6731 www.5by2parking.com Circular Combined Entry/Exit Module Entry only and exit only modules completely different location modules can be on the same or different levels of the system. This tends to be more applicable in situations where there is a constant flow and not in residential or commercial developments where demand for either exit of ent Parking modules can be above, on the same level or below the parking system and can be manufactured from any material the client requires. Previous modules construction materials include glass, steel, brick and concrete. Carriers The pallets are horizontally stored in of three different types of carriers: Lateral carrier. On which the pallets are moved laterally or sideways. Longitudinal carrier. On which the pallets are moved longitudinally, or lengthways up carrier. On which the pallets can be moved both laterally and longitudinally. Pallet and Carrier T: +44 20 7203 6731 Combined Entry/Exit Module Entry only and exit only modules. The entry module is in a from the exit module and the modules can be on the same or different levels of the system. This tends to be more applicable in situations where there is a constant flow and not in residential or commercial developments where demand for either exit of entry can come in bursts. Parking modules can be above, on the same level or below the parking system and can be manufactured from any material the client requires. Previous modules construction materials include The pallets are horizontally stored in parking of three different types of carriers: Lateral carrier. On which the pallets are moved laterally Longitudinal carrier. On which the pallets are moved , or lengthways. carrier. On which the pallets can be moved both laterally and longitudinally. Pallet and Carrier Combined Entry/Exit Module . The entry module is in a from the exit module and the modules can be on the same or different levels of the system. This tends to be more applicable in situations where there is a constant flow and not in residential or commercial developments ry can come in bursts. Parking modules can be above, on the same level or below the parking system and can be manufactured from any material the client requires. Previous modules construction materials include parking levels and sit on top Lateral carrier. On which the pallets are moved laterally Longitudinal carrier. On which the pallets are moved carrier. On which the pallets can be moved both Carrier . The entry module is in a from the exit module and the modules can be on the same or different levels of the system. This tends to be more applicable in situations where there is a constant flow and not in residential or commercial developments Parking modules can be above, on the same level or below the parking system and can be manufactured from any material the client requires. Previous modules construction materials include levels and sit on top Lateral carrier. On which the pallets are moved laterally, Longitudinal carrier. On which the pallets are moved carrier. On which the pallets can be moved both Carrier The carriers are positioned adjacent to one another and are able to move pallets, with or without cars, from one carrier to the adjacent one in either X or Y directions. This enables the densest parking available and also allows pallets to be manoeuvred a structural columns or blade walls. The choice of which type of carrier is installed, in which location, is dependent on system requirements and the site layout. *Typical dimensions but not fixed The carriers can be fitted directly to concrete floors, steel frames or a combination of both. Steel frames are typically two or three levels ** variable height, The carriers are positioned adjacent to one another and are able to move pallets, with or without cars, from one carrier to the adjacent one in either X or Y directions. This enables the densest parking available and also allows pallets to be manoeuvred a structural columns or blade walls. The choice of which type of carrier is installed, in which location, is dependent on system requirements and the site layout. Typical Pallet & Carrier Dimensions *Typical dimensions but not fixed The carriers can be fitted directly to concrete floors, steel frames or a combination of both. Steel frames are typically two or three levels high and are secured on concrete floors. Carriers on ariable height, to Abu Dhabi T: +971 2 643 2223 The carriers are positioned adjacent to one another and are able to move pallets, with or without cars, from one carrier to the adjacent one in either X or Y directions. This enables the densest parking available and also allows pallets to be manoeuvred a structural columns or blade walls. The choice of which type of carrier is installed, in which location, is dependent on system requirements and the site layout. Typical Pallet & Carrier Dimensions *Typical dimensions but not fixed The carriers can be fitted directly to concrete floors, steel frames or a combination of both. Steel frames are typically two or three high and are secured on concrete floors. on Concrete and Steel Frame Example to client’s requirements. 5.1-5.3m* T: +971 2 643 2223 info@5by2parking.com The carriers are positioned adjacent to one another and are able to move pallets, with or without cars, from one carrier to the adjacent one in either X or Y directions. This enables the densest parking available and also allows pallets to be manoeuvred a structural columns or blade walls. The choice of which type of carrier is installed, in which location, is dependent on system Typical Pallet & Carrier Dimensions *Typical dimensions but not fixed The carriers can be fitted directly to concrete floors, steel frames or a combination of both. Steel frames are typically two or three high and are secured on concrete floors. oncrete and Steel Frame Example ’s requirements. 5.3m* 5BY2 Parking T: +971 2 643 2223 Amsterdam info@5by2parking.com The carriers are positioned adjacent to one another and are able to move pallets, with or without cars, from one carrier to the adjacent one in either X or Y directions. This enables the densest parking available and also allows pallets to be manoeuvred around structural columns or blade walls. The choice of which type of carrier is installed, in which location, is dependent on system Typical Pallet & Carrier Dimensions The carriers can be fitted directly to concrete floors, steel frames or a combination of both. Steel frames are typically two or three oncrete and Steel Frame Example 0.44mv** v** v** 2.1-2.3m* Parking System Information Amsterdam T: +31 20 5689689 info@5by2parking.com www.5by2parking.com © 5BY2 2011 The carriers are positioned adjacent to one another and are able to move pallets, with or without cars, from one carrier to the adjacent one in either X or Y directions. This enables the densest round structural columns or blade walls. The choice of which type of carrier is installed, in which location, is dependent on system The carriers can be fitted directly to concrete floors, steel frames or a combination of both. Steel frames are typically two or three Carriers are fitted with a number of sensors, motors, switches, wheels, belts and cams (depending on the type of carrier) which support and move the pallets in a con without a vehicle, from one carrier to another. This process is repeated until a pallet has reached its desired location. Carriers and pallets are typically spaced approximately 100m from one another or structural members but this is flexible. Elevators Elevators, or lifts, are use the 5BY2 system on different levels. The elevators can be either electrically or hydraulically operated and are typically l the parking module. The type and location of the elevator is dependent on the site and system requirements. 100mm* 2.1-2.3m* System Information T: +31 20 5689689 www.5by2parking.com Carriers are fitted with a number of sensors, motors, switches, wheels, belts and cams (depending on the type of carrier) which support and move the pallets in a con without a vehicle, from one carrier to another. This process is repeated until a pallet has reached its desired location. Carriers and pallets are typically spaced approximately 100m from one another or structural members but this is flexible. Elevators Elevators, or lifts, are use the 5BY2 system on different levels. The elevators can be either electrically or hydraulically operated and are typically l the parking module. The type and location of the elevator is dependent on the site and system requirements. 100mm* London T: +44 20 7203 6731 www.5by2parking.com Carriers are fitted with a number of sensors, motors, switches, wheels, belts and cams (depending on the type of carrier) which support and move the pallets in a con without a vehicle, from one carrier to another. This process is repeated until a pallet has reached its desired location. Typical Pallet Carriers and pallets are typically spaced approximately 100m from one another or structural members but this is flexible. Elevators, or lifts, are used when the vehicles are parked within the 5BY2 system on different levels. The elevators can be either electrically or hydraulically operated and are typically l the parking module. The type and location of the elevator is dependent on the site and system requirements. Hydraulic Scissor Lift Example T: +44 20 7203 6731 Carriers are fitted with a number of sensors, motors, switches, wheels, belts and cams (depending on the type of carrier) which support and move the pallets in a controlled manner, with or without a vehicle, from one carrier to another. This process is repeated until a pallet has reached its desired location. Pallet Clearances Carriers and pallets are typically spaced approximately 100m from one another or structural members but this is flexible. when the vehicles are parked within the 5BY2 system on different levels. The elevators can be either electrically or hydraulically operated and are typically l the parking module. The type and location of the elevator is dependent on the site and system requirements. Scissor Lift Example Carriers are fitted with a number of sensors, motors, switches, wheels, belts and cams (depending on the type of carrier) which trolled manner, with or without a vehicle, from one carrier to another. This process is repeated until a pallet has reached its desired location. Carriers and pallets are typically spaced approximately 100m from one another or structural members but this is flexible. when the vehicles are parked within the 5BY2 system on different levels. The elevators can be either electrically or hydraulically operated and are typically located in the parking module. The type and location of the elevator is dependent on the site and system requirements. Scissor Lift Example Carriers are fitted with a number of sensors, motors, switches, wheels, belts and cams (depending on the type of carrier) which trolled manner, with or without a vehicle, from one carrier to another. This process is Carriers and pallets are typically spaced approximately 100m from when the vehicles are parked within the 5BY2 system on different levels. The elevators can be either ocated in the parking module. The type and location of the elevator is Turntables The turntable in the parking module without having to reverse. Turntables can be installed in the parking modules, on a lift, or internally within the system. Sometimes the turntable is also used in situation where the entrance is perpendicular to Control System The control system typically comprises of a control PC connected to PLCs which in turn are connected to the 5BY2 system components, such as carriers, elevators, ancillary switches, etc. The software configurable to any system layout. The software provides the optimum performance of a 5BY2 system by ensuring the pallets are manoeuvred in the system in the most efficient way possible thus enabling ve time possible parking level which allows for the most efficient manoeuvring of pallets, due to the ability of the 5BY2 control software to direct different carrier movement of entire rows and/or columns. The location of every pallet and vehicle is stored in the control software at all times which ensures the correct vehicle is retrieved. The control software can be accessed by the maintenance helpdesk to allow remote access to every 5BY2 system. The software will automatically notify the helpdesk of any issues allowing maintenance personnel to rectify any issues immediately and remotely. exits, is written by the control software as a record. Client’s Supply Items Typically clients provide the following items in a 5BY2 system: Note: or a detailed proposal please contact Turntables turntable rotates the pallets so that a vehicle is delivered back in the parking module without having to reverse. Turntables can be installed in the parking modules, on a lift, or internally within the system. Sometimes the turntable is also used in situation where the entrance is perpendicular to Control System The control system typically comprises of a control PC connected to PLCs which in turn are connected to the 5BY2 system components, such as carriers, elevators, ancillary switches, etc. The software on the control PC is 5BY2’s bespoke software that is configurable to any system layout. The software provides the optimum performance of a 5BY2 system by ensuring the pallets are manoeuvred in the system in the most efficient way possible thus enabling vehicles to be parked and retrieved in the time possible. Typically there are two empty carriers on each parking level which allows for the most efficient manoeuvring of pallets, due to the ability of the 5BY2 control software to direct different carriers at the same time and allow for synchronous movement of entire rows and/or columns. The location of every pallet and vehicle is stored in the control software at all times which ensures the correct vehicle is retrieved. The control software can be accessed by the maintenance helpdesk to allow remote access to every 5BY2 system. The software will automatically notify the helpdesk of any issues allowing maintenance personnel to rectify any issues immediately and remotely. A log of all the faults, exits, is written by the control software as a record. Client’s Supply Items Typically clients provide the following items in a 5BY2 system: • Lighting. In the parking module (typ. minimum of 500 lux) and in the garage (typ. minimum of 50 lux). • Ventilation. Although no cars are running in the 5BY2 system a low level of ventilation is typically required to control humidity levels and for maintenance and service engineers. • Fire Protection. fire detection and extinguishing system depending on the specific requirements of the local fire authority and the type of location. The 5BY2 system is compatible with all relevant fire extinguishing systems and normally where such fire linked to the parking system, the 5BY2 parking system is switched off once fire occurs. • Drainage. It is lowest level of the 5BY2 system and it’s recommended that sump pumps are water. Note: This document is for guidance only. For full or a detailed proposal please contact Abu Dhabi T: +971 2 643 2223 rotates the pallets so that a vehicle is delivered back in the parking module facing the right direction for driving out without having to reverse. Turntables can be installed in the parking modules, on a lift, or internally within the system. Sometimes the turntable is also used in situation where the entrance is perpendicular to the orientation of the parking system. Control System The control system typically comprises of a control PC connected to PLCs which in turn are connected to the 5BY2 system components, such as carriers, elevators, ancillary switches, etc. on the control PC is 5BY2’s bespoke software that is configurable to any system layout. The software provides the optimum performance of a 5BY2 system by ensuring the pallets are manoeuvred in the system in the most efficient way possible hicles to be parked and retrieved in the Typically there are two empty carriers on each parking level which allows for the most efficient manoeuvring of pallets, due to the ability of the 5BY2 control software to direct s at the same time and allow for synchronous movement of entire rows and/or columns. The location of every pallet and vehicle is stored in the control software at all times which ensures the correct vehicle is retrieved. The control software can be accessed by the maintenance helpdesk to allow remote access to every 5BY2 system. The software will automatically notify the helpdesk of any issues allowing maintenance personnel to rectify any issues immediately A log of all the faults, exits, is written by the control software as a record. Client’s Supply Items Typically clients provide the following items in a 5BY2 system: Lighting. In the parking module (typ. minimum of 500 lux) in the garage (typ. minimum of 50 lux). Ventilation. Although no cars are running in the 5BY2 system a low level of ventilation is typically required to control humidity levels and for maintenance and service engineers. Fire Protection. The parking system fire detection and extinguishing system depending on the specific requirements of the local fire authority and the type of location. The 5BY2 system is compatible with all relevant fire extinguishing systems and normally where such fire detection and/or extinguishing system is linked to the parking system, the 5BY2 parking system is switched off once fire occurs. Drainage. It is possible lowest level of the 5BY2 system and it’s recommended that sump pumps are fitted to prevent a build This document is for guidance only. For full or a detailed proposal please contact T: +971 2 643 2223 info@5by2parking.com rotates the pallets so that a vehicle is delivered back facing the right direction for driving out without having to reverse. Turntables can be installed in the parking modules, on a lift, or internally within the system. Sometimes the turntable is also used in situation where the the orientation of the parking system. The control system typically comprises of a control PC connected to PLCs which in turn are connected to the 5BY2 system components, such as carriers, elevators, ancillary switches, etc. on the control PC is 5BY2’s bespoke software that is configurable to any system layout. The software provides the optimum performance of a 5BY2 system by ensuring the pallets are manoeuvred in the system in the most efficient way possible hicles to be parked and retrieved in the Typically there are two empty carriers on each parking level which allows for the most efficient manoeuvring of pallets, due to the ability of the 5BY2 control software to direct s at the same time and allow for synchronous movement of entire rows and/or columns. The location of every pallet and vehicle is stored in the control software at all times which ensures the correct vehicle is retrieved. The control software can be accessed by the maintenance helpdesk to allow remote access to every 5BY2 system. The software will automatically notify the helpdesk of any issues allowing maintenance personnel to rectify any issues immediately A log of all the faults, uptime, users, entries and exits, is written by the control software as a record. Typically clients provide the following items in a 5BY2 system: Lighting. In the parking module (typ. minimum of 500 lux) in the garage (typ. minimum of 50 lux). Ventilation. Although no cars are running in the 5BY2 system a low level of ventilation is typically required to control humidity levels and for maintenance and service The parking systems are protected by fire detection and extinguishing system depending on the specific requirements of the local fire authority and the type of location. The 5BY2 system is compatible with all relevant fire extinguishing systems and normally detection and/or extinguishing system is linked to the parking system, the 5BY2 parking system is switched off once fire occurs. possible that water will gather on the lowest level of the 5BY2 system and it’s recommended fitted to prevent a build This document is for guidance only. For full or a detailed proposal please contact 5BY2. 5BY2 Parking T: +971 2 643 2223 Amsterdam info@5by2parking.com rotates the pallets so that a vehicle is delivered back facing the right direction for driving out without having to reverse. Turntables can be installed in the parking modules, on a lift, or internally within the system. Sometimes the turntable is also used in situation where the the orientation of the parking system. The control system typically comprises of a control PC connected to PLCs which in turn are connected to the 5BY2 system components, such as carriers, elevators, ancillary switches, etc. on the control PC is 5BY2’s bespoke software that is configurable to any system layout. The software provides the optimum performance of a 5BY2 system by ensuring the pallets are manoeuvred in the system in the most efficient way possible hicles to be parked and retrieved in the shortest Typically there are two empty carriers on each parking level which allows for the most efficient manoeuvring of pallets, due to the ability of the 5BY2 control software to direct s at the same time and allow for synchronous movement of entire rows and/or columns. The location of every pallet and vehicle is stored in the control software at all times The control software can be accessed by the maintenance helpdesk to allow remote access to every 5BY2 system. The software will automatically notify the helpdesk of any issues allowing maintenance personnel to rectify any issues immediately uptime, users, entries and exits, is written by the control software as a record. Typically clients provide the following items in a 5BY2 system: Lighting. In the parking module (typ. minimum of 500 lux) in the garage (typ. minimum of 50 lux). Ventilation. Although no cars are running in the 5BY2 system a low level of ventilation is typically required to control humidity levels and for maintenance and service s are protected by fire detection and extinguishing system depending on the specific requirements of the local fire authority and the type of location. The 5BY2 system is compatible with all relevant fire extinguishing systems and normally detection and/or extinguishing system is linked to the parking system, the 5BY2 parking system is that water will gather on the lowest level of the 5BY2 system and it’s recommended fitted to prevent a build-up of This document is for guidance only. For full system details Parking System Information Amsterdam T: +31 20 5689689 info@5by2parking.com www.5by2parking.com © 5BY2 2011 rotates the pallets so that a vehicle is delivered back facing the right direction for driving out without having to reverse. Turntables can be installed in the parking modules, on a lift, or internally within the system. Sometimes the turntable is also used in situation where the the orientation of the parking system. The control system typically comprises of a control PC connected to PLCs which in turn are connected to the 5BY2 system components, such as carriers, elevators, ancillary switches, etc. on the control PC is 5BY2’s bespoke software that is configurable to any system layout. The software provides the optimum performance of a 5BY2 system by ensuring the pallets are manoeuvred in the system in the most efficient way possible shortest Typically there are two empty carriers on each parking level which allows for the most efficient manoeuvring of pallets, due to the ability of the 5BY2 control software to direct s at the same time and allow for synchronous movement of entire rows and/or columns. The location of every pallet and vehicle is stored in the control software at all times The control software can be accessed by the maintenance helpdesk to allow remote access to every 5BY2 system. The software will automatically notify the helpdesk of any issues allowing maintenance personnel to rectify any issues immediately uptime, users, entries and Lighting. In the parking module (typ. minimum of 500 lux) Ventilation. Although no cars are running in the 5BY2 system a low level of ventilation is typically required to control humidity levels and for maintenance and service s are protected by fire detection and extinguishing system depending on the specific requirements of the local fire authority and the type of location. The 5BY2 system is compatible with all relevant fire extinguishing systems and normally detection and/or extinguishing system is linked to the parking system, the 5BY2 parking system is that water will gather on the lowest level of the 5BY2 system and it’s recommended up of details Example Layouts System Information T: +31 20 5689689 www.5by2parking.com Example Layouts London T: +44 20 7203 6731 www.5by2parking.com Example Layouts (Level Example Layout 1 (Level Example Layout T: +44 20 7203 6731 (Level -1) Example Layout 1 (Level-1) Example Layout 2 Technical Details A 5BY2 system is typically comprised of transfer cabins, carriers and pallets, elevators or lifts, turntables and a control system. Transfer Cabin The transfer cabin is the only area that can be accessed by users of the parking system. This is the room where the vehicle is driven on and off the parking pallet, where the vehicle dimensions are checked and where the user’s actions are monitored. There are also various forms of transfer cabins. Drive Through Cabin: Vehicles enter using the Transfer Cabin front door, exit by using the Transfer Cabin back door with no requirement for a turntable. *Typical dimensions but not fixed Combined Entry / Exit Cabin (with or without an elevator): Variations include; either the car is turned in the garage such that the car can drive out easily, or the car is driven out backwards. For a turntable there are the following options: (i) the turntable stays at street level in the entrance while the elevator lowers into the garage; (ii) the turntable is placed on the elevator, turning the car after lowering into garage (iii) turntable is placed within the system. Once it is turned the car moves into the parking system. Entry Only and Exit Only Cabin. The entry Transfer Cabin is in a completely different location from the exit Transfer Cabin and the cabin can be on the same or different levels of the system. This tends to be more applicable in situations where there is a constant flow and not in residential or commercial developments where demand for either exit or entry can come in bursts. Transfer cabins can be above, on the same level or below the parking system and can be manufactured from any material the client requires. Previous cabin construction materials include glass, steel, brick and concrete. Pallets and Carriers The pallets are horizontally stored in parking levels and sit on top of three different types of carriers: • Lateral carrier, on which the pallets are moved laterally, or sideways. • Longitudinal carrier, on which the pallets are moved longitudinally, or lengthways. • Pop-up carrier, on which the pallets can be moved both laterally and longitudinally. Rectangular Combined Entry/Exit Transfer Cabin (with Access Door) Drive through Transfer Cabin Circular Combined Entry / Exit Transfer Cabin Pallet and Carrier The carriers are positioned adjacent to one another and are able to move pallets, with or without cars, from one carrier to the adjacent one in either X or Y direction. This enables the densest parking available and also allows pallets to be manoeuvred around structural columns or blade walls. The choice of which type of carrier is installed, in which location, is dependent on system requirements and the site layout. *Typical dimensions but not fixed The carriers can be fitted directly to concrete floors, steel frames or a combination of both. Steel frames are typically two or three levels high and are secured on concrete floors. ** variable height, to client’s requirements Carriers are fitted with a number of sensors, motors, switches, wheels, belts and cams (depending on the type of carrier), which support and move the pallets in a controlled manner, with or without a vehicle, from one carrier to another. This process is repeated until a pallet has reached its desired location. Carriers and pallets are typically spaced approximately 100mm from one another or structural members but this is flexible. Elevators Elevators, or lifts, are used when the vehicles are parked within the 5BY2 system on different levels. The elevators can be either electrically or hydraulically operated and are typically located in the transfer cabin. The type and location of the elevator is dependent on the site and system requirements. Turntables The turntable rotates the pallets so that a vehicle is delivered back in the transfer cabin facing the right direction for driving out without having to reverse. Turntables can be installed in the transfer cabins, on a lift, or internally within the system. Sometimes the turntable is also used in situation where the entrance is perpendicular to the orientation of the parking system. Pallet Carrier Typical Pallet & Carrier Dimensions Hydraulic Scissor Lift Example Typical Pallet Clearances Carriers on Concrete and Steel Frame Example V** V** V** 100mm* 2.1-2.3m* 5.1-5.3m* 0.44m 6m* 2.8m* For details of our global offices please visit: www.5by2parking.com or email: info@5by2parking.com System Weight Capacity A standard 5BY2 system has a maximum vehicle weight of 2500kg; this will accommodate the majority of standard SUV and 4WD vehicles. However, certain more specialist vehicles may exceed this weight and these can be accommodated, subject to discussion with our engineering team. The typical point load that is transferred to floor slab, based on a 2500kg vehicle is 1000kg per corner. Excavation Volume Savings An actual case study comparing a conventional multi-level garage against a 5BY2 system for the same number of spaces showed a volume of 10,230m3 for a conventional parking garage against a volume of 3,630m3, for a 5BY2 solution, saving 6,600m3 or 65%. Example Layouts Example Layout 1 Example Layout 2 Head Office Melbournestraat 9 1175 RM Lijnden P.O. Box 9911 1006 PA Amsterdam The Netherlands T: +31 (0) 88 655 0707 F: +31 (0) 88 655 0717 E: info@5by2parking.com 5by2 sustainability Assessment INTRODUCTION 1 5BY2 Sustainability Assessment september 2010 5by2 sustainability Assessment 2 5by2 sustainability Assessment 5by2 sustainability Assessment5by2 sustainability Assessment INTRODUCTION 3 5BY2 have requested Faithful + Gould to undertake a sustainability review of their fully automated parking system. The 5BY2 system provides the optimum parking solution for making the best use of available space above and/or below ground. One of the main benefits of the 5BY2 System is that the total volume required can be as little as 40% of a conventional multi-storey car park for the same number of spaces. This means that the 5BY2 System is able to accommodate up to 2-3 times more parking spaces in the same volume as conventional parking or save up to 60% in volume that can either increase development space or reduce construction time and costs. There are also a number of other sustainable benefits that the 5BY2 System has over other conventional multi-storey car parking systems, which can assist in achieving a number of credits under the standards of BREEAM (British Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). Some of the sustainability benefits are explored below: Introduction Carbon • Potential reduction in operational energy consumption through: -Internal lighting not required for whole period of operation; -Simple ventilation strategy as only background aeration required for maintenance access; -Other energy consuming assets including passenger lifts, amenities and barrier control systems are not required. • Reduced vehicles emissions (CO2, NOx, PM10) as engines are switched off during parking and no manoeuvring is required. • Ability for air tempering systems to utilise heat gains from stationary vehicles. • Energy efficient automated machinery. • Ability for system to be powered by Low or Zero Carbon (LZC) emitting electrical generation, e.g. wind turbines, solar or biomass. • Low embodied energy content in materials. Waste • Smaller building footprint reduces the need for excavation and groundworks, potentially reducing the amount of construction waste sent to landfill. • Minimisation of waste as standardised units constructed offsite using modern methods of construction. • Less hazardous waste being sent to landfill (fluorescent lamps in conventional multi-storey car parks). Materials • High levels of recycled content through the use of steel in the 5BY2 System equipment (steel has high levels of recycled content). • The 5BY2 System comes with a fully comprehensive maintenance system increasing the opportunity for ‘take back’ and closed loop resource systems. • Non toxic materials used (e.g. volatile organic compounds in paints). • Certified Sustainable Timber used in packaging material. • Biodegradable cleaners products. Water • Dramatic reduction in watercourse pollution risk as oil interceptors are used throughout the 5BY2 System on the parking pallets. • Minimising local flood impacts through reduced runoff velocity. 5by2 sustainability Assessment 4 5by2 sustainability Assessment Transport • Reduced risk of accidents to pedestrians as manoeuvring and parking carried out by automated machines. • Provision for cyclists as the parking pallets can contain bike racks. • Preferred parking for car sharing and low emission vehicles. • Electric vehicle charging facilities. Culture and Heritage • Small building footprint and discrete public entrance makes the 5BY2 System a possible solution for historic areas as impact on surrounding buildings is reduced. Health and Safety • Increased personal security and safety at night. • Reduced risk of accidents to pedestrians as manoeuvring and parking carried out by automated machines. • Reduced acoustic and vibration impacts. Equity and Fair Trade • Spaces accessible to all users (disabled or parents with children). 5by2 sustainability Assessment5by2 sustainability Assessment BREEAM 5 The 5BY2 System should contribute towards the following BREEAM credits. Man 8 – Security To recognise and encourage the implementation of effective design measures that will reduce the opportunity for and fear of crime on the new development. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit due to improved personal security and safety. As with conventional multi-storey car parks, the 5BY2 System does not need to ensure that there is adequate security provisions in place such as lighting, CCTV and security personnel. If the design team consult with and sought the advice of the local police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) or Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA) on designing out the opportunity for crime then this credit should be awarded. Man 14 – Inclusivity To encourage and reward development that promotes equality and diversity through good access to the built environment for all, through the application inclusive design principles. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit as one of the great benefits of the system is the inclusivity of the parking spaces. Unlike conventional multi-storey car parks, the 5BY2 System does not need to designate special ‘disabled’ and ‘parents with child’ parking spaces. The design of the entry/exit modules allows every space to be inclusive of all users as there is sufficient space to enable a disabled motorist or passenger to open the car door fully, to get in or out of the vehicle, and to manoeuvre around vehicle. The 5BY2 System is also in accordance with BS8300 ‘Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people’, as all the entry/exit modules can be on the same level as the main access route to and from the car park, thus relinquishing the requirements for passenger lifts and/or ramps. Hea 13 – Acoustic Performance To ensure the acoustic performance of the building meets the appropriate standards for its purpose. • The 5BY2 System will assist in the scoring of this credit as the acoustic impacts associated with the system are minimal. The system would be classified as an unoccupied space and if the measured levels are below the required threshold, the credit should be achieved. Ene 1 – Reduction of CO2 emissions To recognise and encourage buildings that are designed to minimise the CO2 emissions associated with their operational energy consumption. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit as it can minimise CO2 emissions associated with operational energy consumption. A recent environmental review compared an APS with conventional multi-storey car parks and concluded that the APS could reduce CO2 emissions by up to 80% for a basement car park. The review identified a number of energy savings associated with the 5BY2 System when compared with multi-storey car parks. Primarily, the greatest saving relates to lighting. Within conventional multi-storey car parks, uniform lighting is required on each floor throughout the whole period of operation for safety reasons, whilst the only requirement for lighting in the 5BY2 System is associated with the main entrance. Ventilation of below ground multi-storey car parks was also highlighted as having a high operational energy consumption compared when compared with 5BY2 System where only background ventilation is required as the main parking areas are unoccupied and the vehicle engines are not running. Other high operational energy consumption activities associated with conventional multi-storey car parks included the power required for fire alarm systems, lifts, pay station and barrier control systems. BREEAM 5by2 sustainability Assessment 6 5by2 sustainability Assessment Ene 2 – Sub-metering of substantial energy use To recognise and encourage the installation of energy sub-metering that facilitates the monitoring of inuse energy consumption. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit as separate energy sub-meters can be installed across the 5BY2 System to measure the end energy consuming use of the automated machinery and other areas including the entry/exit modules. Ene 4 – External lighting To recognise and encourage the specification of energy-efficient light fittings for external areas of the development. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit as the only external lighting required relates to the main entrance area as all the cars are parked within the system which isn’t normally lit. Tra 4 – Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety To recognise and encourage the provision of safe and secure pedestrian and cycle access routes on the development. • The 5BY2 System will assist in complying with this credit as the drop-off and pick-up areas are off access roads and provide direct access to pedestrian pathways avoiding the need for the pedestrians to cross vehicle access routes. Tra 5 – Travel Plan To recognise the consideration given to accommodating a range of travel options for building users, thereby encouraging the reduction of user reliance on forms of travel that have the highest environmental impact. • The 5BY2 System can contribute towards this credit as the system is designed to be fully inclusive of all users, including disabled users and parents with children (see inclusivity credit above). The system can also provide preferred parking for car sharers and dedicated cycle storage facilities. 5by2 sustainability Assessment5by2 sustainability Assessment BREEAM 7 Tra 8 – Deliveries & Manoeuvring To ensure that safety is maintained and disruption due to delivery vehicles minimised through wellplanned layout and access to the site. • The 5BY2 System can assist in achieving this credit as there is a separate parking area for vehicles waiting to enter the 5BY2 System. The entrance area is not accessed through parking areas and is easily accessible to building users and the general public. Mat 5 – Responsible Sourcing of Materials To recognise and encourage the specification of responsibly sourced materials for key building elements. • The 5BY2 System will assist in scoring this credit as the building elements can be predominately made of steel (90%). It this material is reasonably sourced then the credit can be achieved. Mat 7 – Design for Robustness To recognise and encourage adequate protection of exposed parts of the building and landscape, therefore minimising the frequency of use of replacement materials. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit as all internal vehicle movements are carried out by the automated machinery. The design measures of the automated machinery eliminate the risk of high pedestrian access in thoroughfares and internal vehicle/trolley movement within 1m of the internal building fabric. They also eliminate the risk of vehicle collision where vehicle parking and manoeuvring occurs. Wst 1 – Construction Site Waste Management To promote resource efficiency via the effective and appropriate management of construction site waste. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit through its design to minimise waste flows to landfill and incineration. The standardised units are manufactured offsite using modern methods of construction, thus reducing the amount of waste generated onsite during construction. LE 1 – Reuse of land To encourage the reuse of land that has been previously developed, and discourage the use of previously undeveloped land for building. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit due to the nature of the system, which can be installed within existing structures to upgrade parking facilities as part of a building refurbishment. The credit can be awarded if at least 75% of the development is on an area of land that has previously been developed for use by industrial, commercial or domestic purposes in the last 50 years. 5by2 sustainability Assessment 8 5by2 sustainability Assessment Pol 6 – Minimising Watercourse Pollution To reduce the potential for silt, heavy metals, chemicals or oil pollution to natural watercourses from surface water run-off from buildings and hard surfaces. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit as pallets are designed to reduce the risk of oil pollution reaching natural water courses. All parking pallets are designed with an oil interception trough that collects any oil given off by vehicles; the troughs are then cleaned on a quarterly basis thus reducing the potential for oil pollution to reach natural watercourses. Pol 7 – Reduction of Night time Light Pollution To ensure that external lighting is concentrated in the appropriate areas and that upward lighting is minimised, reducing unnecessary light pollution, energy consumption and nuisance to neighbouring properties. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit as there is minimal external lighting. Conventional multi-storey car parks are required to light all external areas during the whole period of operation for safety and security reasons. The lighting requirements of the 5BY2 System are minimal as the main entrance is the only area that needs external lighting. Providing it complies with the requirement, this credit should be achieved. Pol 8 – Noise Attenuation To reduce the likelihood of noise from the new development affecting nearby noise-sensitive buildings. • The 5BY2 System will assist in gaining this credit as there are likely to be minimal noise impacts associated with the operation of the system. The automated machinery that manoeuvres cars has a low noise impact and will not increase the background noise levels present. If this is confirmed by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant in a noise assessment the credit should be awarded. 5by2 sustainability Assessment5by2 sustainability Assessment LEED 9 LEED The 5BY2 System system should contribute towards the following LEED credits. SS Credit 1 – Site Selection To avoid the development of inappropriate sites and reduce the environmental impact from the location of a building on a site. • The 5BY2 System would assist in the scoring of this credit by reducing the building footprint and thus increasing the distance between the site and any sensitive receptors. When selecting the site, the design team should ensure that preference is given to sites that do not include sensitive receptors or restrictive land types. SS Credit 2 – Development Density & Community Connectivity To channel development to urban areas with existing infrastructure, protect greenfields and preserve habitat and natural resources. • The 5BY2 System will assist in the scoring of this credit as the nature of the system allows it to be installed into existing building structures. It can reduce building footprints as the total required volume is about half that of a conventional multi-storey car park. This makes it a more environmentally economical solution. The 5BY2 System can also be installed into areas that are unsuitable for multi-storey car parks due to limitations in space, height or depth as it is adaptable in terms of its form and shape. SS Credit 4.2 – Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms To reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use. • The 5BY2 System can achieve this credit through the adaptability of the parking pallets. The pallets are currently designed to store motor vehicles but could be tailored to provide storage solutions for motorbikes and bicycles for a percentage of system. The drop-off and pick-up points are located at the main entrance and providing that shower and changing facilities were provided, this credit should be achieved. SS Credit 4.3 – Alternative Transportation, Low emitting and fuel efficient vehicles To reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use. • The 5BY2 System will assist in achieving this credit as the system itself could be considered for ‘preferred parking’ as the vehicle drop-off and pick-up locations are located near the main entrance, with the car being stored elsewhere. The 5BY2 System could also comply with the credit as the system can apply discounted parking rates for low emitting/fuel efficient vehicles. A third compliance option for the system includes installing alternative refuelling points on the parking pallets. Charging points for electric vehicles could be installed in all parking pallets within the system, thus providing alternative refuelling for the whole parking capacity. 5by2 sustainability Assessment 10 5by2 sustainability Assessment SS Credit 4.4 – Alternative Transportation, Parking capacity To reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use. • Similarly for Credit SS 4.3, the 5BY2 System is able to achieve this credit as the system itself could be considered for preferred parking as the vehicle drop-off and pick-up locations are located near the main entrance, with the car being stored elsewhere. It can also achieve this credit if discounted parking rates were applied for carpools and vanpools. SS Credit 5.2 – Site Development, Maximise open space To promote biodiversity by providing a high ratio of open space to development footprint. • The 5BY2 System will assist in the scoring of this credit due to the reduced building footprint. The total required volume of the system is up to 40% that of conventional multi-storey car parks, resulting in up to 2-3 times more parking spaces in the same volume. The reduction in the building footprint provides an opportunity to use the additional space as open space and promoting biodiversity. SS Credit 6.1 – Stormwater Design; Quality Control To limit disruption of natural hydrology by reducing impervious cover; increasing on-site infiltration, reducing or eliminating pollution from stormwater runoff and eliminating contaminants. • The 5BY2 System will assist in scoring this credit by reducing the developed and impervious footprint, which will help to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces normally associated with conventional multi-storey car parks. This will also reduce the cost (and space requirements) of providing suitable attenuation of drainage. SS Credit 7.1 – Heat Island Effect, Nonroof To reduce heat island to minimise impacts on microclimates and human and wildlife habitats. • The 5BY2 System will assist with this credit by reducing the amount of roof area required to cover vehicles, thus reducing the heat absorption of exterior materials and causing an increase in the heat island effect. The system is designed to store vehicles underground, and providing all parking spaces are ‘undercover’ (defined as parking underground or under building), then an extra innovation credit could also be achieved. 5by2 sustainability Assessment5by2 sustainability Assessment LEED 11 SS Credit 8 – Light Pollution Reduction To minimise light trespass from the building and site, reduce sky-glow to increase night sky access, improve night time visibility through glare reduction and reduce development impact from lighting on nocturnal environments. • The 5BY2 System will assist in the scoring of this credit by reducing the amount of light pollution. The system requires a limited amount of light within the car park (significantly lower than conventional multi-storey car parks), and due to the smaller building footprint associated with 5BY2 System, it will be considerably easier to achieve the conditions of this credit. EA credit – Green Power To encourage the development and use of grid-sourced, renewable energy technologies on a net zero pollution basis. • The 5BY2 System will assist in scoring this credit as the system is operated by grid-sourced electricity. It is possible to source this supply from renewable sources, which makes it easy to comply with this credit. MR Credits 1.1 – Building reuse, Maintain existing walls, floors, and roof MR Credit 1.2 – Maintain Interior Nonstructural Elements To extend the life cycle of existing building stock, conserve resources, retain cultural resources, reduce waste and reduce environmental impacts of new building as they relate to materials manufacturing and transport. • The 5BY2 System will assist in the scoring of these credits as the nature of the system allows it to be installed within existing building structures (which are retained) to upgrade parking facilities as part of a building refurbishment. MR Credit 2 – Construction Waste Management To divert construction and demolition debris from disposal in landfills and incineration facilities. Redirect recyclable recovered resources back to manufacturing process and reusable materials to appropriate sites. • The 5BY2 System will assist in the scoring of this credit by reducing the amount of construction waste generated and sent for disposal in landfill and incineration facilities. The standardised units are manufactured offsite using modern methods of construction and assembled onsite creating minimal construction waste. 5by2 sustainability Assessment 12 5by2 sustainability Assessment MR Credit 4 – Recycled Content To increase demand for building products that incorporate recycled content materials, thereby reducing impacts resulting from extraction and processing of virgin materials. • The 5BY2 System could assist in achieving this credit as recycled content materials could be incorporated into the elements of the manufactured units. The standardised units are predominately made from steel, which if included a high recycled content, would easily achieve the credit and gain the extra innovation point if the value was greater than 30%. MR Credit 5 – Regional Materials To increase demand for building materials and products that are extracted and manufactured within the region, thereby supporting the use of indigenous resources and reducing the environmental impacts resulting from transportation. • The 5BY2 System could assist in scoring this credit as materials and products that have been extracted and manufactured locally could be incorporated into the standardised units. The units are predominately constructed of steel, which if sourced locally (within 500 miles), would easily achieve the credit and receive an extra innovation point. 5by2 sustainability Assessment5by2 sustainability Assessment LEED 13 www.fgould.com For more information on the content of this report, please contact: Sean Lockie Faithful+Gould Euston Tower, 286 Euston Road, London NW13AT Tel: +44 (0)207 121 3002 Fax: +44 (0)207 121 2868 Email: Sean.Lockie@fgould.com 5.0 Design & Character 5- In the commercial areas, there is a consistency and cohesion of archi- tectural styles. Many buildings utilize classical proportions, and are enriched with detailing such as pilasters, wood detailing, and embossed relief. There are also some fine modern buildings, which overall are compatible in scale and detail with more historical examples. The "core" area centered around Burlingame and Howard Avenues func- tions as a defined retail center. In the residential neighborhoods, styles are more varied. Cohesion is achieved by compatibility in building scale and massing, along with consistently lush landscaping. All buildings within each area of Downtown should contribute to the area’s identity as a part of Downtown Burlingame. The core commer- cial areas centered on Burlingame and Howard Avenues should have a lively mix of buildings at different heights and styles. Ground floor retail should relate to Downtown’s traditional storefronts by using large display windows, kickplates, and clerestory and transom windows. In the California Drive commercial areas, development may be lower in intensity but should continue to build on the Downtown core’s classic, restrained styling. In the residential areas, new projects should rein- force the fine-grained scale and quiet amenity that exists. The variety of architectural styles is an asset to Downtown, and both historically inspired and modern styles should be accommodated. Regardless of architectural style and approach, new buildings should exhibit fine-grained, pedestrian-friendly scale and details. 5.2 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE AREAS The commercial areas of Downtown Burlingame have historically been the most active, public places in the community. New commercial and mixed use buildings should contribute to the existing “Main Street” character. They should enhance the pedestrian nature of Downtown, defining the street as a public place, with active storefronts, windows, FIGURE 5-1: The core commercial areas centered on Burlingame and Howard Avenues features a range of architectural styles and periods. FIGURE 5-2: Commercial and mixed use development projects in the Downtown Specific Plan area are subject to the City of Burlingame’s Commercial Design Guidebook. 5.0 Design & Character 5- and doors at ground level. Architecture should include the type of well-crafted architectural details that are common to Burlingame, and convey that architectural heritage in terms of material, color, propor- tion, window type, and overall composition. Commercial and mixed use development projects in the Downtown Specific Plan area are subject to the City of Burlingame’s Commercial Design Guidebook. In addition, the following recommendations apply specifically to Downtown development: 5.2.1 PEDESTRIAN USE AND CHARACTER 5.2.1.1 Entrances Commercial entrances should be recessed from the façade, creating a small alcove. This establishes a more definitive sense of entry and affords an alternative view of merchandise in the display windows. Existing recessed entries should be retained. The doors of a commercial storefront typically contain large glass panels with vertical proportions that present a visual connection to the streetscape. Storefronts should continue to exhibit this pattern, whether a new project or the re-use of an existing space. 5.2.1.2 Ground-Level Corner Uses High activity-generating uses are especially encouraged at the Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue intersections with side streets. Store façades along side streets should be designed to help entice pedestrians onto the side streets. To achieve this, the façades should include windows and continuation of the architectural details from the main storefront extending across the sidestreet façade. Entries to elevator lobbies should not be located at these intersections where they would serve to diminish pedestrian activity at these highly visible locations. FIGURE 5-3: Commercial entrances should be recessed from the facade, creating a small alcove. FIGURE 5-4: Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate special features such as rounded or cut corners, special corner entrances, display windows, corner roof features, etc. but should avoid monumentally-scaled elements such as towers. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.1.3 Ground Level Treatment The unique community character created by the mixture of building ages and architectural styles should be maintained. All street-frontage establishments should provide primary access directly to the street. Particular attention should be given to craftsmanship and detailing within the pedestrian’s range of touch and view. For instance, the use of special storefront detailing and façade ornamentation such as plant- ers, flower boxes, and special materials can reinforce the pedestrian nature of the street. To ensure ease in caring for landscaping, major remodels and new projects should provide outdoor water spigots and electric sockets. When businesses have access to water, they can more easily care for their plants and trees, and keep the streets cleaned as well. 5.2.1.4 Site Access Curb cuts are prohibited on Burlingame Avenue and should be avoided to the extent feasible on Howard Avenue and California Drive. Any on-site parking garage should be accessed in a safe, attractive manner and should not significantly detract from pedestrian flow, nor interfere with the orderly flow of traffic on public streets and within parking lots. Where possible, parking garage access should be from the side streets or alleys. In some cases, access to on-site parking could be provided from city-owned parking lots. FIGURE 5-6: Downtown Burlingame is characterized by relatively narrow building increments, predominantly 15 to 50 feet in width. FIGURE 5-5: Particular attention should be given to craftsmanship and detailing within the pedestrian’s range of touch and view. 50' 25'25'15'15' 5.0 Design & Character 5-5 5.2.2 ARCHITECTURAl ComPATIBIlITy 5.2.2.1 Building Scale Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 specifies basic building standards such as setbacks and height. Beyond conforming to the basic building mass, new development should preserve the rhythm and fine- grained pedestrian scale of existing buildings within the commercial districts by respecting the relatively narrow building increments, which typically range from 15 feet to no more than 50 feet in width. To be consistent with the existing character of Downtown Burlingame, to provide a welcoming retail environment, and to accommodate a range of potential uses over the lifetime of the building, first floors should have a floor to finished ceiling height of at least 15 feet. New development should also be sensitive to the human scale of Downtown with sensitivity to building height. Buildings should not overwhelm the pedestrian experience on the street and should account for the relationship between building height and street width. Where building mass and height might overwhelm the pedestrian experience on the street, design strategies such as upper floor setbacks and articulated building mass should be considered to ensure comfortable human scale. FIGURE 5-7: Buildings should not overwhelm the pedestrian experience on the street and should account for the relationship between building height and street width. Wider Narrow FIGURE 5-8: Building scale should preserve he rhythm and fine-grained pedestrian character of downtown, particularly at the pedestrian level. Ground floor bays with narrow, pedestrian-scaled increments 15'-50'15'-50'15'-50' Upper floors may have wider bays as part of an overall composition Minimum 15' floor-to-ceiling height on ground floor 5.0 Design & Character 5- FIGURE 5-9: oN-SITE STRUCTURED PARKING IN CommERCIAl AND mIXED USE AREAS A. Wrapped on Ground Level An above-ground parking structure where non-parking uses such as retail spaces are integrated into the ground level of the building along the street frontage of the parcel. The parking structure may be exposed to the building street frontage on upper levels, with appropriate design and screening. Application: Municipal parking structure. B. Wrapped on All Levels An above-ground parking structure where non-parking uses are integrated into the building along the entire street frontage of the parcel on all levels of the building. The parking structure is totally hidden behind a "liner building" of non-parking uses. Application: Projects with relatively large amount of parking provided on-site. Typically requires a relatively large site to accommodate the parking structure and liner building. C. Underground A parking structure that is fully submerged underground and is not visible from the street. Depending on amount of parking provided, may also include a level of at-grade parking hidden behind non- parking uses such as retail. Application: Can be suitable for projects on relatively small sites, as well as larger sites. Could also be combined with in-lieu arrangement, where some parking is provided on-site (such as for residential uses) and other parking is provided off-site in a municipal facility through in-lieu fees. Parking Structure Retail Parking Structure Retail Residential/Office Residential/Office Residential/Office Underground Parking Upper-Level Courtyard Ground-Level Courtyard Parking Structure Retail Residential/Office Residential/Office Residential/Office Underground Parking Retail Residential/Office Residential/Office Residential/Office 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.2.2 on-Site Structured Parking Given the density and premium land values Downtown, new projects will likely provide on-site parking in enclosed garage structures or under- ground. However, the parking should not overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. Ground level enclosed parking should be fronted or wrapped with actively occupied spaces such as storefronts and lobbies. Access to parking shall be designed so that it is not prominent and ties into the adjacent architectural style. 5.2.2.3 Upper-Story Setbacks – Burlingame Avenue Frontages While the height limit allowed by conditional use permit is 55 feet on Burlingame Avenue, many existing buildings and in particular, many buildings with historic character, have façades of a smaller scale. New buildings and building additions should reinforce the historic pattern with heights and setbacks oriented to the many two- and three-story buildings. Where neighboring buildings are three stories or lower in height, newer taller buildings should consider matching lower façades to those of adjoining lower buildings and setting upper floors back at least 10 feet from the lower façade. 5.2.2.4 Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area The unique mix of residential and commercial uses in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use area offers an opportunity to create a niche district with its own style distinct from other parts of downtown. Recognizing the varied auto-related commercial character of the area, new development and redevelopment projects within the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area should be encouraged to feature a blend of both commercial and residential design features. Design features could include corrugated metal roofs and sidings, simple multi-paned metal rimmed windows, and recycled "green" building materials. Buildings may even draw inspiration from the style of utilitarian buildings found in such mixed use districts such as sheds and quonset huts. The creation of this commercial, live/work identity for the Myrtle Road area will allow it to be a unique subarea of Downtown Burlingame that accommodates infill while respecting existing uses. FIGURE 5-11: Design features such as corrugated metal roofs and sidings, simple multi-paned metal rimmed windows, and recycled "green" building materials can maintain the existing varied character of the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area. FIGURE 5-10: Where neighboring buildings are three stories or lower in height, newer taller buildings should consider matching lower facades to those of adjoining lower buildings with upper floors set back. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.3 ARCHITECTURAl DESIGN CoNSISTENCy 5.2.3.1 Facade Design To maintain the present scale and character of buildings in Downtown, large uninterrupted expanses of horizontal and vertical wall surface should be avoided. Building façades should respond to the relatively narrow increments of development (15 to 50 feet) with variation in fenestration, building materials and/or building planes. Facades should have generous reveals such as inset doorways and windows. Doors, windows, and details should be in keeping with pedestrian scale, as opposed to a monumental scale that is out of proportion to the surrounding context. Design details should be authentic and have purpose, rather than being applied or strictly decorative. Facades should have a variation of both positive space (massing) and negative space (plazas, inset doorways and windows). Facades on both new and rehabilitated buildings should include the elements that make up a complete storefront including doors, display windows, bulkheads, signage areas and awnings. New buildings need not mimic an “historic” architectural style (and in fact should avoid imitation that results in caricatures) but should include a level of archi- tectural detailing and quality of materials that complements existing buildings. Where older exiting buildings are renovated, preservation of existing architectural details and materials is encouraged. Even if separate businesses function within the same building, the overall design of the façade should be consistent. Individual businesses should not break the basic lines, material and concept of the façade. Storefronts can be demarcated from each other within the same build- ing by subtle variations in the color or pattern of surfaces of doors, tiling, signage or entries. Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate features such as rounded or cut corners, corner entrances, display win- dows, corner roof features, wrap-around awnings/overhangs, blade signs, etc. FIGURE 5-12: Facades on both new and rehabilitated buildings should include the elements that make up a complete storefront including doors, display windows, bulkheads, signage areas and awnings. Interesting Roofline or Profile Cornice and Ornamentation Recessed Windows Create Shade and Shadow Building Ornament Recesses in Facade Create Interest and Depth Transom Windows High Quality Storefront Glazing Awnings Within Building Bays Street Entrance Doors Every 50 Feet Maximum, 15-25 Feet Preferred Signage to be Integral with Building Design Ornamental Base, 18" to 30" Height Compositional Change in Facade Every 15 to 50 Feet FIGURE 5-13: Even if separate businesses function within the same building, the overall design of the façade should be consistent. Individual businesses should not break the basic lines, material and concept of the facade. Large Space Large Space Small Space Small Space 15'-50'15'-50'15'-50'15'-50'15'-50'15'-50' 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.3.2 Windows General Windows are important for providing "eyes on the street" and enliven- ing streetscapes. Building walls should be punctuated by well-propor- tioned openings that provide relief, detail and variation on the façade. Windows should be inset from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. The use of high-quality window products that contrib- ute to the richness and detail of the façade is encouraged. Reflective glass is considered an undesirable material because of its tendency to create uncomfortable glare conditions and a forbidding appearance. The use of materials that are reflected in the historic architecture pres- ent in the Downtown area is encouraged. Display Windows Display windows should be designed to enliven the street and provide pedestrian views into the interior of the storefront. Size, division and shape of display windows should maintain the established rhythm of the streetscape. Glass used in the display windows should be clear so it is possible to see inside, and display cases that block views into stores are strongly discouraged. Noticably tinted glazing is discouraged and mirrored/reflective glass is not permitted. 5.2.3.3 Awnings Awnings should be designed to be decorative, complimentary to the overall facade design, and provide effective weather and sun protec- tion. The placement of awnings should relate to the major architec- tural elements of the facade, avoiding covering any transom windows or architectural elements such as belt courses, decorative trim and simi- lar features. The position of awnings should also relate to the pedes- trian and provide a sense of shelter, with awnings situated to corre- spond to the tops of doorways and scale of pedestrians rather than high up on the facade with a monumental scale. Separate awnings should be used over individual storefront bays as defined by the col- umns or pilasters rather than placing a continuous awning across the FIGURE 5-15: Awnings should be designed to be decorative, complimentary to the overall facade design, and provide effective weather and sun protection. FIGURE 5-14: Size, division and shape of display windows should maintain the established rhythm of the streetscape 5.0 Design & Character 5-0 building frontage. Backlit awnings that visually appear as large light sources will not be permitted. 5.2.3.3 Materials Building materials should be richly detailed to provide visual interest; reference should be made to materials used in notable examples of his- toric Downtown architecture. Metal siding and large expanses of stuc- co or wood siding are also to be avoided, except in the Myrtle Mixed Use area. Roofing materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, and tile accents should also offer color variation. Character and richness in Downtown can be enhanced from the incor- poration of details and ornamentation into the design of the buildings. These elements can include elements that have been traditionally used such as cornices, brackets or moldings. 5.2.3.4 Rear and Side Facades Because the side streets and alleys in Downtown are highly visible and are used for both pedestrian access and vehicular access, rear and side façades that are visible from the public realm should exhibit sophisti- cated levels of design and materials. Rear and side façades of existing buildings should be improved with design features and quality materi- als where possible. Buildings should have windows and doors oriented to the alleys and side streets. Entry doors, garage doors and windows should be attractive and durable. Where buildings abut public parking lots, they are strongly encouraged to have rear entrances in addition to their principal street entrances. Rear facades may look like the back of a building, but still be pleasant and inviting. Service facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail. Roofs and trellises are recommended for screening views from above. Whenever possible, trash and recycling enclosures should be consolidated and designed to serve several adjacent businesses provided they do not become over- FIGURE 5-16: Rear and side facades that are visible from the public realm should exhibit sophisticated levels of design and materials of a quality similar to front facades. Buildings facing public parking lots are strongly encouraged to have rear entrances in addition to their principal street entrances. FIGURE 5-17: Service facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail. 8 0 Downtown Precise Plan A rea-Specific Standards, Guidelines and Pro t o t y p e s 8.Open Space Requirements For residential/mixed-use projects, a minimum of 30 percent of the site area must be devot- ed to open space.The Zoning Administrator may reduce the requirements for residential/mixed-use projects where it is found that such a reduction improves the quality of the project. 9.Development on Public Parking Lot A mixed-use development is allowed on one public parking lot in Area H. The development is subject to the requirements for Area H with these additional requirements or exceptions: a .Vehicular access shall be from Hope Street, Bryant Street or an adjacent alley; b .Existing public parking shall be replaced on-site; and c .Parking for private development shall be provided in accordance with Section II.C, except that the parking requirement cannot be met by paying in-lieu fees. See Guidelines: Development on Public Parking Lot. S e rvice facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the build - ing architecture in form, material and detail. 8 8 13.Guidelines for Rears of Buildings Because the alleys in downtown are highly visible and are used for both pedestrian access and vehicular service access, rear facades should exhibit high levels of design and materials qual- ity similar to front facades. Rear facades of existing buildings should be improved with design features and quality materials where possible. Buildings should have windows and doors oriented to the alley. Entry doors, garage doors and windows should be attractive and durable. Service facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail. Roofs and trellises are recommended for screening views from above. Where security devices are desired or warranted, designs should be artful with decorative grillwork that enhances the overall building design. Alley areas should be well lit but should be designed so as not to adversely impact adjacent properties. Downtown Precise Plan A rea-Specific Standards, Guidelines and Pro t o t y p e s Trash and loading areas should be well screened from view in structures that are consistent with the building design in both materials and detailing. 5.0 Design & Character 5- sized or too ungainly. Care should be taken to ensure refuse areas do not become noxious or smelly. Where security devices are desired or warranted, designs should be art- ful with decorative grillwork that enhances the overall building design. Alley areas should be well lit but should be designed so they are attrac- tive and do not adversely impact adjacent properties and detract from the ambiance of Downtown. 5.2.4 SITE DESIGN AND AMENITIES 5.2.4.1 Building Coverage In order to create well-defined street spaces consistent with the scale of Downtown Burlingame, side yards are generally discouraged in favor of contiguous building façades along the street. However, narrow mid-block pedestrian passages that encourage through- block pedestrian circulation and/or arcaded spaces that create wider sidewalk areas for cafés, etc. are encouraged. 5.2.4.2 Open Space Private open space within Downtown is not intended to provide recreational or large landscaped areas, since this is a more urban environment. However, open space is an important element and should be used to articulate building forms, promote access to light and fresh air, and maintain privacy for Downtown residents. In residential mixed-use developments, most open space should be used to provide attractive amenities for residents, including interior courtyards and perimeter landscaping. Balconies and rooftop terraces are encouraged. Commercial development should typically have less open space in order to maintain a direct pedestrian relationship and continuous storefront streetscape. Entry alcoves, courtyards, and employee open space are examples. Open space for nonresidential projects should provide a visual amenity for the development and an attractive buffer to adjacent residential uses where applicable. FIGURE 5-18: Open spaces such as retail plazas and outdoor seating areas should be located at building entries, or along or near well- traveled pedestrian routes to encourage frequent and spontaneous use. FIGURE 5-19: In residential mixed-use developments, most open space should be used to provide attractive amenities for residents, including interior courtyards and perimeter landscaping. 5.0 Design & Character 5- Open spaces such as retail plazas and outdoor seating areas should be located at building entries, or along or near well-traveled pedestrian routes to encourage frequent and spontaneous use. Amenities should be functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, tables, canopies and covering trellises. Plazas and open spaces should be generously landscaped with trees, planters and vines. Permeable paving and/or creative site planning elements such as rain gardens are encouraged to alleviate the impacts of paved areas on drainage. Low walls may be used to screen service and mechanical areas, create spatial definition and to provide seating. Low walls should be designed of quality materials that are complementary to the architecture of the primary structure(s) on the property. 5.2.5 RESIDENTIAl mIXED-USE DEVEloPmENTS WITHIN COMMERCIAL AREAS 5.2.5.1 Setbacks To reinforce the Downtown commercial character of Downtown Burlingame, mixed-use buildings with a residential component shall conform to the setback standards for commercial projects (outlined in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3). The Community Development Director may allow increased side and rear setbacks to enhance the residential portion of a mixed-use project provided the setbacks do not detract from the commercial storefront character of the Downtown district. Setbacks and overall building form should maintain the human scale of Downtown and be in keeping with the character of the surround- ings, with emphasis on mainintaining an active street edge and sidewalk boundary. 5.2.5.2 Noise and Ground Vibrations Projects with a residential component on California Drive should be designed to minimize noise impacts on residents from the Caltrain FIGURE 5-20: To reinforce the Downtown commercial character of Downtown Burlingame, mixed-use buildings with a residential component shall conform to the setback standards for commercial projects. 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. 250 California Drive, CAR 960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCDECEMBER 22, 2017250 CALIFORNIA DRIVE B U R L I N G A M E , C A L I F O R N I AA0.0.0PLANNING SUBMITTAL 3RD RESPONSE PROJECTLOCATIONBURLINGAME AVENUECALIFORNIA DRIVESOUTH LANEWEST LANEHIGHL A N D A VE N UE LORT O N A VE N UE HAT C H L A NE HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME AVENUEEAST LANEMYRTLE R O A D A0.0.1GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLLEGEND, & ABBREVIATIONSN/AXXXXXXAX.XAX.XXAX.XABC12FIFTH FLOOR+44' - 6"+44' - 6"FIXTURE(TYPE VARIES)EXTERIOR ELEVATIONINTERIOR ELEVATIONSECTION / DETAILGRID / COLUMN LINESNORTHARROWWORK / CONTROLOR DATUM LEVELSPOTELEVATIONSHEET NOTEDOORENLARGED PLANOR DETAILREVISIONREVISIONNUMBERPLAN OR DETAILNUMBERSHEET NUMBERPROJECT NORTHSECTION NUMBERSHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBERTRUE NORTHWINDOWELEVATIONNUMBERFINISH MATERIALWALL / PARTITION TYPESHEET NUMBERELEVATIONNUMBERNXXXXXXX?X-XX.XXAX.XSYMBOL LEGENDSSD See Structural DrawingsSED See Electrical DrawingsOFCI Owner Furnished - Contractor InstalledEntranceENTRV.I.F. Verify In FieldO/ OverWHInspectionINSPWater HeaterWeightWRWTInteriorInsulationINTINSULWaste ReceptacleInstallationINSTWP Work Point/WaterproofQuarterQTRRRadiusRADRBRCPR&SR RiserQuarry TileQTDoor/DrainDead LoadDownDown spoutDLDSDRDNDrawingDishwasherDrawerDWGDWDSPDWRDISP DisposalDry Stand PipeRubber-BaseBacker Rod and SealantReceptacleReceptionRectangularRoof DrainRDRECEPRECTRECEPTRequiredResilientReinforcedREQREINFRETRESREFRevisionRoomROREVRHRMRub RailRPRWLRRLROWExistingEachEBEAE/(E)ElevationElectricalElevatorELECELEVEJELEdge Of SlabEPEQEOSEquipmentETREQJEQUIPEWCEMERG EmergencyExisting To RemainElectrical Panelboard/End PanelEarthquake JointEqual/EarthquakeExpansion BoltExpansion JointElectric Water CoolerSanitarySANS&RSSolid CoreScheduleSCWSCSCHEDSCDSectionSecondSFSFCSECTSECSheetingSheetShowerSHTGSHTSHRSGENSDExteriorExistingExhaustExpansionEXSTEXTEXPEXHFahrenheitFAFFFloor DrainFiber BoardFlat BarFDFBFBDFoundationFFFDNFEFECFDCFAB FabricateFire Extinguisher CabFinish FloorFire Alarm/Forced AirFire Department ConnectionFire ExtinguisherEXC Excavate/ExcavationSRadius PointRainwater LeaderRight Of WayRough OpeningRobe Hook/Round Head/Right-HandRetaining/ReturnReference/RefrigeratorSquare FeetSemi gloss EnamelSpecial Floor CoatingSoap Dish/Soap DispenserSolid Core WoodSeat Cover DispenserShelf and RodSouth/ShelfSealerSMSSMRSIMSquareSQSSSSTSteelStandardStorageSTDSTORSTLSTCSurfaceSymmetricalSuspendedSURFSYMSUSPSUBFL Sub floorST StoneFlatheadFHMSFHWSFHFHCFinishFITFINFIOFICFlashingFluorescentFMFLASHFLOURFOCFOICFOFFOBCorporationFL FloorFace Of BrickFurnished by Owner Installed by ContractorFurnished and Installed by TenantFrom/Factory Mutual ResearchFace of ConcreteFace of FinishFire Hose CabinetFlathead Machine ScrewFurnished and Installed by OwnerFurnished and Installed by ContractorFlathead Wood ScrewT&BT>TDTELTDWTCCTBTerrazzoTFTGTERTEMPToiletTop of FinishThresholdTODT.0.F.TOILTHRThickTHKTelephoneFPFOIVFOSFOMFootingFTFTGFRFSFurringFutureFWPFUTFURRGasGalvanizedGaugeGAGALVGGFURNFreezer/Fire RetardantFurnace/FurnishFace of StudsFull-Size/Floor SinkFoot or FeetFurnished by Owner Installed by VendorFace of MasonryFireproof(ing)Flat Wall PaintFTIC Furnished by Tenant Installed by ContractorTSheet-metal ScrewsSIMILARService SinkSound-Transmission ClassStainless SteelTop of FootingTempered GlassTop of DeckTowel DispenserTempered/Temporary/TemperatureTowel Dispenser & WasteTop of Curb/Top of ConcreteTongue & GrooveTowel Bar/Tack BoardTop & BottomTop/Threshold/Tread/ToiletFG Float GlassSheet VinylSHVTOWTPDTOSTOPUBCUCUTYP TypicalUnfinishedUrinalUtilityUNFINURUTILUONVARVGrab BarGDGFRCGBGCGLGLAMGWBGFRPGFRGGypsumHinge/HighGYPHHHardenerHardboardHDBDHDNRHCWHCHB Hose BidGlass Fiber Reinforced ConcreteGlass/Glazing/GlazedGlue-Laminated WoodGypsum WallboardGeneral ContractorGarbage DisposalGlass Fiber Reinforced GypsumGlass Fiber Reinforced PlasterHandicap/Hollow CoreHot and Cold Water/Hollow-Core WoodVinyl TileVolumeVerticalVERTVOLVTVPVWCWWWainscotWithWithoutW/WCWAINW/OWindowWide FlangeWFWDWWGWD WoodHorizontalHardwoodHardwareHMHORIZHDWDHDWEHeightHeatingHTGHTHRHPHWRIDIIndicatedINDIGIEHW Hot WaterHollow MetalHorsepower/High Point/Heat PumpHot Water ReturnHour/HandrallInsulating GlassInvert ElevationInside Diameter/Inside DimensionHDR HeaderVCTTop of WallToilet Paper DispenserTop of SteelTop of PavementUniform Building CodeUnder Counter/UndercutUnless Otherwise NotedWater ClosetWire Glass/Wire GaugeVinyl-Composition TileVinyl Wall CoveringVeneer PlasterVariable/Varnish/VariesWest/Water/Clothes Washer/WATTEReflected Ceiling PlanJointJoistJanitorJTJSTJANJKick PlateKitchenKnock OutKOKPKITLaboratoryLABLLKAcousticalABACCACOUSAArea DrainAddendumACTADADDADJAggregateAluminumAGGAHUALALTAFFAnchor BoltAir-Handing UnitAlternate/AlterationAbove Finished FloorAdjustable/AdjacentAccording/AccordionAcoustical Ceiling TileLockerLeft HandLavatoryLKRLHRLHLAVLand LordLow PointLightLLLPLTLSGMachineMACHMM/SMasonryMaterialMaximumMAXMATMAINTMASLTWT LightweightApartmentAnodizedANODAPAPPROXAPTAsphaltAvenueAverageASPHAVEAVGAWPARCHBoardBCBDBBlockingBituminousBuildingBuilding LineBLBLDGBLKGBITUMAcoustic Wall PanelArchitect/ArchitecturalApproximateAccess Panel/Apron PanelBottom of CurbLaminatedLAMLeft-hand ReverseLeft/LengthLaminated Safety GlassMaintenance/MaintainMirror with ShelfABBREVIATIONSMembraneMechanicalMEMBMECHMDOMDFMezzanineMetalMGMTLMEZZMFRMirrorMIRMH ManholeBasementBottom ofBearingBMB.0BSMTBRGBetweenBURBTWNBWCAPCARPCABCCEM PLCBCEMCDCBuilt-Up RoofBeam/Bench MarkBottom of WallCelsius/CentigradeCHCHRLCGCIPCLCLGCJCLOCMUCLRCLSRCOLCONCCOMPCOCLKGCERManufacturer/ManufacturingMirror GlassMedium-Density FiberboardMedium-Density OverlayPush PlatePairPRE FABPPPRCONTCOORDCONNCONSTCTRCORRCRCTDCWCUDoubleDecibelDBLDdbdCTSKClothes DryerReceptaclePTDWPTDPartitionPavementQPTNPVMTDetailDepartmentDiameterDEPTDIADFDETDiffuserDiagonalDimensionDIMDIFFDICADIAGDrinking Fountain/Douglas FirDrilled In Concrete AnchorDECID DeciduousPT Preservative Treated/Point/Paper Towel Dispenser & WastePaper Towel DispenserPrefabricatePost-TensionedCONDBLVD BoulevardMCW Mineral Core WoodMODMOMSMullionMULNMTD MountedCapacityCabinetCementCarpetCeiling DiffuserCatch Basin/ChalkboardCement PlasterNumberNominalNO./#NOMNTSOn-CenterOverallOCODOAOOppositeOpeningOPPOSBOPNGPegboardPaint/PowerPBPPOFDCoat HookChair RailCast IronCenter LineCeilingClosetCloserClearConcreteClean OutColumnCaulkingCast In PlaceComposite/CompositionControl JointConcrete Masonry UnitsCorner GuardN NorthCeramicMirror with Shelf/Machine ScrewModule/ModifyMasonry OpeningNot-to-ScaleOriented Strand BoardOutside DiameterOverflow DrainPrecastPerforatedPERFPBDPCDPCPlatePhasePlate GlassPLPHPERPPGPlywoodPaintPanelPlasterPNTPNLPLASPLYWPolishPOLPLAMContinuousCoordinateCenterCold RolledCorridorCold WaterCubicPenny (nails)CountersunkConstructionConnect/ConnectionCeramic Tile/Curtain TrackPlastic LaminatePerpendicularPaper Cup DispenserParticleboardPBB Plaster BaseboardConditionBuilding PaperBP960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCSHEETNO.SHEET DESCRIPTIONARCHITECTURALA0.0.0COVER SHEET, PROJECT DIRECTORYA0.0.1GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOL LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONSA0.1.0APPLICABLE CODES, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, CODE ANALYSISA0.1.1 EXTERIOR WALL OPENING DIAGRAMS & TABULATIONSA0.2.0 EXITING PLANS & ANALYSISA0.2.1 EXITING PLANS & ANALYSISA1.0.0 SITE PLANA2.0.0 PARKING PIT PLANA2.0.1 CAR STORAGE LEVEL P2A2.0.2CAR STORAGE/BASEMENT LEVEL P1A2.0.2A CAR STORAGE LEVEL P1AA2.0.3 GROUND FLOOR PLANA2.0.4 SECOND FLOOR PLANA2.0.5 THIRD FLOOR PLANA2.0.6 FOURTH FLOOR PLANA2.0.7 ROOF PLANA3.1.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.1.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.2.1 BUILDING SECTIONSA8.1.1 WALL SECTION & DETAILSA9.1.1 ACCESSIBILITY DETAILSA9.1.2 ACCESSIBILITY DETAILSA9.1.3 ACCESSIBILITY DETAILSA9.2.1BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESA11.0 MATERIAL & COLOR BOARDPARKING CONSULTANTN/A5BY2 CAR LIFTN/A5BY2 PARKING DIAGRAMN/A5BY2 SECTION DIAGRAMCIVILALTAALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYC-4 CIVIL GRADING AND UTILITIES PLANLANDSCAPEL1.0.1PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANL2.0.1 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLANSHEET INDEXPRELIMINARY PLANNINGPACKAGE 01 MAY 17NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOSPHOTO KEY PLANPLOT MAPVICINITY MAPCALIF OR NIA DRIVESOUTH LANEHIG HL A N D A VE N UEHOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME AVENUEWEST LANELORT O N A VE N UE123EAST LANEBURLINGAME TRAINSTATION290 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPROJECT SITE250 CALIFORNIA DRIVEPIP MARKETING,SIGNS, PRINT220 CALIFORNIADRIVEHERIZ RUGCENTER218 CALIFORNIADRIVEDINNER-LICIOUS216 CALIFORNIADRIVEMUSEUM OFPEZ MEMORABILIA214 CALIFORNIADRIVEHERIZ MUSIC& ART210 CALIFORNIADRIVEHONDA200 CALIFORNIADRIVE45678PROJECTSITEGENERAL NOTES1 PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGON SITE TO ARRANGE JOB SCHEDULING WITH THE ARCHITECT AND CLIENT.2 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE WORK AND COORDINATE WITH THOSE DOING OTHER WORK TOAVOID DELAYS, INTERFERENCE AND UNNECESSARY WORK.3 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES, INCLUDING REMOVAL & REINSTALLATION OFMATERIALS AT HIS SOLE EXPENSE, IF HE FAILS TO CHECK WITH THOSE DOING OTHER WORK AND HISINSTALLED WORK IS LATER FOUND TO INTERFERE WITH SUCH WORK.4 WHERE WORK OF ONE TRADE JOINS, OR IS ON OTHER WORK, THERE SHALL BE NO DISCREPANCY WHENTHE WORK IS COMPLETED. IN ENGAGING ONE KIND OF WORK WITH ANOTHER, MARRING ORDAMAGING THE WORK WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SHOULD IMPROPER WORK OF ANY TRADE BE COVEREDBY ANOTHER WHICH RESULTS IN DAMAGE OR DEFECTS, THE WHOLE WORK AFFECTED SHALL BE MADEGOOD BY THE CONTRACTOR WITHOUT EXPENSE OR DELAY TO THE PROJECT OR PROJECT SCHEDULE.5 THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE BASED ON DRAWINGS PROVIDEDBY THE CLIENT. ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THESE DOCUMENTS AND THE ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONSSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK.6 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE STRICT CONTROL OF JOB CLEANING AND PREVENT DUST ANDDEBRIS FROM EMANATING FROM CONSTRUCTION AREA BY CONSTRUCTION OF DUST BARRIERS AS MAYBE REQUIRED BY THE SCOPE OF WORK AND/OR BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY.7 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PATCH AND REPAIR ALL FIRE PROOFING DAMAGE INCURRED DURINGCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIREPROOF ALL NEW & EXISTING PENETRATIONS THROUGHRATED ASSEMBLIES GENERATED BY THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS.8 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL MEASUREMENTS AND CONDITIONS AT THE BUILDING BEFOREORDERING MATERIAL OR DOING ANY WORK. IF ANY INCONSISTENCIES OCCUR, THE CONTRACTORSHALL REPORT TO THE ARCHITECT, ANY INCONSISTENCIES OR ERRORS IN THE WORK OF OTHERS,AFFECTING THE POSSIBLE PERFECTION OF HIS WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN CLARIFICATION.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING CLARIFICATION FROM THE ARCHITECT BEFOREPROCEEDING WITH THE WORK IN QUESTION, OR RELATED WORK. FAILURE TO OBTAIN CLARIFICATIONMAY RESULT IN THE WORK BEING REJECTED & CORRECTED AT NO COST TO THE PROJECT OR DELAY INTHE PROJECT SCHEDULE.9 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, FIELD CONDITIONSAND DIMENSIONS FOR ACCURACY AND CONFIRMING THAT THE BUILDING LAYOUT IS ACCURATE. IFTHERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE OR OTHER COORDINATION QUESTIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THEM TO THE ARCHITECT AND OBTAIN CLARIFICATION. THE CONTRACTORIS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING CLARIFICATION FROM THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THEWORK IN QUESTION, OR RELATED WORK. FAILURE TO OBTAIN CLARIFICATION FROM THE ARCHITECTBEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK IN QUESTION, OR RELATED WORK, MAY RESULT IN THE WORKBEING REJECTED AND CORRECTED AT NO COST TO THE PROJECT OR DELAY IN THE PROJECT SCHEDULE.10 CONTRACTOR SHALL MARK LOCATIONS OF PARTITIONS AND DOORS FOR REVIEW BY ARCHITECT PRIORTO INSTALLATION. REVIEW WILL BE FOR DESIGN INTENT. SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ANDVERIFY ALL CONDITIONS TO ENSURE COORDINATION.11 DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS GOVERN ALL PARTITION LOCATIONS. ALL DOOR ANDOPENING LOCATIONS SHALL BE SHOWN ON FLOOR PLAN. IN CASE OF CONFLICT, NOTIFY THEARCHITECT. FLOOR PLAN BY ARCHITECT SUPERSEDES OTHER PLANS. ALL DIMENSIONS MARKED "CLEAR"SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND SHALL ALLOW FOR THICKNESS OF ALL FINISHES.12 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THE WORK ALL EXITS, EXITLIGHTING, FIRE PROTECTION DEVICES AND ALARMS IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODESAND ORDINANCES.13 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING,FIRE-PROTECTION, DESIGN/ BUILD CONTRACTORS AND SUBMIT ALL DRAWINGS TO THE ARCHITECT FORREVIEW PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.PLANNING SUBMITTAL07 JULY 17ABCABCPLANNING SUBMITTALRESPONSE 08 SEP 172ND REVIEW PLANNINGRESPONSE 10 NOV 17 A0.1.0960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQC960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQC A1.0.0960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCSITE PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEAREA OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, N.I.C.SIDEWALKACCESSIBLE EXIT PATH OF TRAVEL TO PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAYSITE PLAN NOTES1. ELEVATOR IS GURNEY ACCESSIBLE WITH 7'-6" X 5' X 6" CABDIMENSIONS87'-3"PROPERTY LINE114'-5"PROPERTY LINE107'-0"PROPERTY LINE128'-0 1/2"PROPERTY LINE53'-5"MURAL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY EXTERIOR WALLVEHICULARENTRYVEHICULARENTRYMAINENTRYCALIFORNIA DRIVEWEST LANESOUTH LANEBURLINGAMECALTRAIN STATION250 CALIFORNIABURLINGAME CALTRAIN TRACKSADJACENTPROPERTY,N.I.C. 18'-0"(1) STORYREAR LOBBYENTRY(E) FIRE HYDRANT(N) DOMESTICWATERCONNECTION(N) FDCONE WAYONE WAY3 PARKING SPACES REMOVED(N) STREET TREES ANDTREE GRATES - TYP OF10, W/ CITY OFBURLINGAME STANDARDTREE GRATE. SEELANDSCAPE DWGS.TO BURLINGAMETRAIN STATIONTO BUS STOP ON CALIFORNIA DR.AND HOWARD AVECLOSUREPANELSCLOSUREPANELSCLOSUREPANELS(E) PGE VAULTRED CURB FRONTING REAR OF BUILDING ALONG WEST LANE(N) FIRE WATERCONNECTION(N) VAULT FOR UNDERGROUNDELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER(N) ELECTRICALCONNECTION(N) STORMWATERCONNECTION(N) EDGE OF CURBEXTENDED WEST INTORIGHT OF WAY BY 1'-3"LINE OF PREVIOUS CURBEDGE SHOWN DASHED A2.0.0PARKING PIT PLAN 1CALIFORNIA DRIVE ABOVE960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCFLOOR PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINECONSTRUCTION HOURSNOTE: AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED AS FOLLOWS."CONSTRUCTION HOURS"WEEKDAYS: 8:00AM - 7:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICAPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM - 5:00PM.1'-5"8'-6"8'-0"3'-5"6'-3"11'-3"6'-3"12'-10"4'-7"11'-5"4'-10"7'-3"7'-8"1'-2"1'-4"18'-5"1'-2"10"16'-10"1'-3"11"17'-1"1'-9"1'-5"13'-7"13'-8"7'-8"1'-0"WEST LANE ABOVESOUTH LANE ABOVE128'-1"106'-11"CAR LIFTPITCAR LIFTPIT3'-0"32'-0"1'-1"87'-8"40'-5"2A3.2.12A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTIONPL-00.81-00.81"2'-10"1A3.2.11A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION4'-0"1"1"1"PLPLPLB.O. SUMP PIT-02.81SUMP PITT.O. SUMP PIT-00.81 UPUP45678910empty15 17 18 19 20 2124 25 26 27 2832 33empty35 36 37 38163431211 12 13 1422 2329 30 3139 40ELEVATORPITELEVATORPITA2.0.1CAR STORAGE LEVEL P2 1CALIFORNIA DRIVE ABOVE960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCFLOOR PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINECONSTRUCTION HOURSNOTE: AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED AS FOLLOWS."CONSTRUCTION HOURS"WEEKDAYS: 8:00AM - 7:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICAPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM - 5:00PM.1'-5"8'-6"8'-0"3'-5"6'-3"11'-3"6'-3"12'-10"4'-7"11'-5"4'-10"7'-3"7'-8"1'-2"1'-4"18'-5"1'-2"10"16'-10"1'-3"11"17'-1"1'-9"1'-5"13'-7"13'-8"7'-8"1'-0"WEST LANE ABOVESOUTH LANE ABOVE128'-1"106'-11"CAR LIFTCAR LIFTSTAIR 1STAIR 23'-0"32'-0"87'-8"40'-5"2A3.2.12A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTIONPLCAR STORAGE(UNOCCUPIED SPACE)9,804 SFLINE OFBASEMENTLEVEL P1ABOVE2'-10"1A3.2.11A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION1"1"1'-1"1"4'-0"PLPLPL17'-5" TYP.7'-1" TYP.18'-10" X 18'-10"PARKING LIFTBAY 4344 45464748 49empty51 5354 55565758 59 60 61 6263 64empty66 67 68 695265UPDNUPDN50424118'-10" X 18'-10"PARKING LIFTBAYA2.0.2CAR STORAGE/BASEMENT LEVEL P1 1CALIFORNIA DRIVE ABOVE960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCFLOOR PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINECONSTRUCTION HOURSNOTE: AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED AS FOLLOWS."CONSTRUCTION HOURS"WEEKDAYS: 8:00AM - 7:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICAPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM - 5:00PM.8'-6"8'-0"3'-5"6'-3"11'-3"6'-3"12'-10"4'-7"11'-5"4'-10"7'-3"7'-8"1'-2"18'-5"1'-2"10"16'-10"1'-3"11"17'-1"1'-9"1'-5"13'-7"13'-8"7'-8"1'-0"WEST LANE ABOVESOUTH LANE ABOVE128'-1"106'-11"CAR LIFTCAR LIFTSTAIR 1STAIR 2ELEV 1SHAFT3'-0"32'-0"87'-8"40'-5"2A3.2.12A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTIONPLCAR STORAGE BELOW(UNOCCUPIED SPACE)HISTORICALSOCIETYSTORAGE831 SFELEVATORMACHINEROOM94 SFMECH.ROOM75 SFFIRE/WATER260 SF(N) FIRE/WATER CONNECTIONBIKESTORAGE313 SFELEV 2ELECTRICAL/ MPOEROOM339 SF2'-10"1A3.2.11A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION1'-5"1'-4"1"1"1'-1"1"4'-0"PLPLPL17'-5" TYP.7'-1" TYP. 72 7374 75767778empty80 82 83 84 85 8687 88 89 90 9192 93empty95 96 97 988194UPDNUPDN79717018'-10" X 18'-10"PARKING LIFTBAYA2.0.2ACAR STORAGE LEVEL P1A 1CALIFORNIA DRIVE ABOVE960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCFLOOR PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINECONSTRUCTION HOURSNOTE: AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED AS FOLLOWS."CONSTRUCTION HOURS"WEEKDAYS: 8:00AM - 7:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICAPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM - 5:00PM.8'-6"8'-0"3'-5"6'-3"11'-3"6'-3"12'-10"4'-7"11'-5"4'-10"7'-3"7'-8"1'-2"18'-5"1'-2"10"16'-10"1'-3"11"17'-1"1'-9"1'-5"13'-7"13'-8"7'-8"1'-0"WEST LANE ABOVESOUTH LANE ABOVE128'-1"106'-11"CAR LIFTCAR LIFTSTAIR 1STAIR 2ELEV 1SHAFT3'-0"32'-0"87'-8"40'-5"2A3.2.12A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTIONPLCAR STORAGE BELOW(UNOCCUPIED SPACE)HISTORICALSOCIETYSTORAGEBELOWELEVATORMACHINEROOMBELOWMECH.ROOMBELOWFIRE/WATERBELOW(N) FIRE/WATER CONNECTIONBIKESTORAGEBELOWELEV 2ELECTRICAL/ MPOEROOMBELOW2'-10"1A3.2.11A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION1'-5"1'-4"1"1"1'-1"1"4'-0"PLPLPL17'-5" TYP.7'-1" TYP. DNUPDNUPUPA2.0.3GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCFLOOR PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINELIGHT FIXTURE, FLUSH WITH CONCRETE-GROUND ALLEXTERIOR LIGHTS TO COMPLY WITH CITY OFBURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AND "BUG" (BACKLIGHT,UPPER AND GLARE) RATINGS.CONSTRUCTION HOURSNOTE: AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED ASFOLLOWS."CONSTRUCTION HOURS"WEEKDAYS: 8:00AM - 7:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM.1'-5"8'-6"8'-0"3'-5"6'-3"11'-3"6'-3"12'-10"4'-7"11'-5"4'-10"7'-8"1'-2"19'-7"10"18'-1"11"17'-1"1'-9"1'-5"13'-7"13'-8"7'-8"1'-0"128'-1"106'-11"2A3.2.12A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION1A3.2.11A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION1'-6"25'-1"87'-6"40'-6"ADJACENTPROPERTY, N.I.C.(1) STORYCALIFORNIA DRIVEWEST LANESOUTH LANEPLCAR LIFTCAR LIFTSTAIR 1STAIR 2ELEV 1ELEV 2SHAFTLOBBY 1474 SFRETAIL 4,994 SFHISTORICALSOCIETYOFFICE384 SFREFUSE/RECYCLEROOM237 SFWOMEN'SRESTROOMMEN'SRESTROOMC3112 SFJANITOR88 SFLOBBY 2312 SF1A3.1.12A3.1.12A3.1.21A3.1.24'-0"53'-5"MURAL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY EXTERIOR WALL14'-3"METAL CANOPY20'-0"4'-0"1"PLHISTORICALSOCIETYOFFICE336 SFMURALCOURTYARD397 SFMETAL CANOPYMETAL CANOPYMETAL CANOPYELEVATORLOBBY468 SF2'-10"1'-4"1"1'-1"1"PLPL1'-6"VIEW WINDOWSTO CAR LIFT7'-11"BSW+30.2537'-0"37'-0"+31.00BSWLOBBY 1474 SF+30.15BSW+30.79BSW+29.91BSWVEHICULARENTRYVEHICULARENTRYREAR LOBBYENTRYMAINENTRY+30.32T.O. F.+30.32T.O. SLAB+31.00T.O.F.+30.15T.O.F.+30.15T.O.F.+31.00T.O.F.+31.00T.O. F.+31.00T.O. SLAB+31.00T.O. SLAB+31.00T.O.F.UPLIGHTS @GROUND - TYP.UPLIGHTS @GROUND - TYP.UPLIGHTS @GROUND - TYP.UPLIGHTS @GROUND - TYP.(N) EDGE OF CURBEXTENDED WEST INTORIGHT OF WAY BY 1'-3"LINE OF PREVIOUS CURBEDGE SHOWN DASHED DNUPDNUP9,526 SFADJACENTPROPERTY, N.I.C.A2.0.4SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCFLOOR PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEFLOOR PLAN LEGENDNOTE: AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED ASFOLLOWS,"CONSTRUCTION HOURS"WEEKDAYS: 8:00AM - 7:00P,MSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM8'-6"8'-0"3'-5"6'-3"11'-3"6'-3"12'-10"4'-7"11'-5"4'-10"7'-8"1'-2"4'-0"19'-7"10"18'-1"11"17'-1"1'-9"1'-5"13'-7"13'-8"7'-8"128'-1"106'-11"2A3.2.12A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION25'-1"87'-8"40'-5"(1) STORY(1) STORYSTAIR 1STAIR 2ELEV 1ELEV 2SHAFTSHAFTSHAFTOFFICE8,685 SFWOMEN'SRESTROOMMEN'SRESTROOMELEC.ROOM /IT ROOM125 SFCALIFORNIA DRIVEWEST LANESOUTH LANE1A3.1.12A3.1.12A3.1.21A3.1.2PL14'-2"53'-5"MURAL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY EXTERIOR WALL2'-10"1A3.2.11A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION1'-5"1'-4"1"1"1'-1"1"PLPLPL1'-0"1'-6"1'-6" DNUPDNUPADJACENTPROPERTY, N.I.C.A2.0.5THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCFLOOR PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEFLOOR PLAN LEGENDNOTE: AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED ASFOLLOWS."CONSTRUCTION HOURS"WEEKDAYS: 8:00AM - 7:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE , SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM.8'-6"8'-0"3'-5"6'-3"11'-3"6'-3"12'-10"4'-7"11'-5"4'-10"7'-8"1'-2"4'-0"19'-7"10"18'-1"11"17'-1"1'-9"1'-5"13'-7"13'-8"7'-8"128'-1"106'-11"2A3.2.12A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION25'-1"87'-8"40'-5"PL(1) STORYSTAIR 1STAIR 2ELEV 1ELEV 2SHAFTSHAFTSHAFTOFFICE8,768 SFWOMEN'SRESTROOMMEN'SRESTROOMELEC.ROOM /IT ROOM125 SFCALIFORNIA DRIVEWEST LANESOUTH LANE1A3.1.12A3.1.12A3.1.21A3.1.27'-3"53'-5"MURAL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY EXTERIOR WALL2'-10"1A3.2.11A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION1'-5"1'-5"1"1"1'-1"1"6'-11"PLPLPL1'-0"1'-6"1'-6" DNDNELEV 2ELEV 1A2.0.6FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 1960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCFLOOR PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINECONSTRUCTION HOURSNOTE: AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED ASFOLLOWS."CONSTRUCTION HOURS"WEEKDAYS: 8:00AM - 5:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED.(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM.2A3.2.12A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTIONADJACENTPROPERTY, N.I.C.(1) STORYSTAIR 1STAIR 2SHAFTSHAFTSHAFTOFFICE7,500 SFWOMEN'SRESTROOMMEN'SRESTROOMELEC.ROOM /IT ROOM125 SFCALIFORNIA DRIVEWEST LANESOUTH LANE1A3.1.12A3.1.12A3.1.21A3.1.27'-8"8'-10"9'-7"11'-3"6'-3"12'-10"4'-7"11'-5"4'-10"7'-8"1'-2"4'-0"19'-7"10"18'-1"11"17'-1"1'-9"1'-5"13'-7"13'-8"7'-8"128'-1"106'-11"16'-7"87'-8"40'-5"PL14'-3"8'-7"BALCONY 632 SFBALCONY405 SF53'-5"MURAL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY EXTERIOR WALL2'-11"1A3.2.11A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION1'-5"1'-4"1"1"1'-1"1"PLPLPL1'-0"1'-6"1'-6"OSHA COMPLIANT ROOFACCESS LADDER WITHMIN. 16 SF ROOF HATCHCLEAR OPENING RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE 3/8":1'-0" 3/8":1'-0" RIDGE RIDGERIDGESHAFTSHAFTRIDGE ROOF ISNON-OCCUPIEDA2.0.7ROOF PLAN 1960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCROOF PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINE ROOF DRAIN3/8":1'-0"SLOPE TO DRAIN, 3/8" : 1'-0"CAR (CALIFORNIA DRIVE AUTO ROW) DISTRICT REGULATIONS EXCEPTIONS (A)UNDER SECTION 25.38.070AREA OF ELEVATOR OVERRUN: 169 SQ FTAREA OF STAIR #1: 260 SQ FTARTEA OF STAIR #2: 341 SQ FTTOTAL PERCENTAGE: 770 SQ FT / 8831 SQ FT ROOF = 8.7%ROOF AREA CALCULATION1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FINISH U.O.N.2. "TYP" MEANS THAT THE CONDITION IS REPRESENTATIVE OF SIMILARCONDITIONS THROUGHOUT, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, DETAILS AREUSUALLY KEYED AND NOTED "TYP" ONLY ONCE WHEN THEY FIRST OCCUR.3. "SIM" MEANS COMPARABLE CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE CONDITION NOTED,VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND ORIENTATION ON PLANS AND ELEVATIONS.4. "ALIGN" MEANS ACCURATELY LOCATE FINISHED FACES IN SAME PLANE.5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, WRITTEN DIMENSIONS GOVERN ALL PARTITIONLOCATIONS. IN CASE OF CONFLICT, NOTIFY ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING.FLOOR PLAN BY ARCHITECT SUPERSEDES OTHER PLANS. VERIFY EXACTLOCATIONS IN FIELD.6. OFFSET ALL DOOR OPENINGS 6" FROM PERPENDICULAR WALL U.O.N.7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MARK LOCATIONS OF PARTITIONS AND DOORS FORREVIEW BY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. REVIEW WILL BE FORDESIGN INTENT. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND VERIFY ALLCONDITIONS TO VERIFY PROPER FIT.8. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH STRUCTURAL,LANDSCAPE, AND ALL DESIGN/BUILD CONTRACTORS AND SUBMIT ALLDRAWINGS TO THE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.9. TRAFFIC PADS TO BE PROVIDED AT ALL MAJOR ROOF EQUIPMENT;COORDINATE LAYOUT WITH DESIGN BUILD M.E.P.ROOF PLAN NOTESWINDOW WASHING EQUIPMENTCLEARANCE ZONENOTE: AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED ASFOLLOWS."CONSTRUCTION HOURS"WEEKDAYS: 8:00 - 7:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM.CONSTRUCTION HOURSROOF SCREENADJACENTPROPERTY, N.I.C.(1) STORY2A3.2.12A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION1A3.1.21'-4"7'-8"8'-9"9'-7"11'-3"6'-4"12'-10"4'-7"11'-5"4'-10"7'-8"1'-2"4'-0"18'-5"10"16'-10"11"17'-1"1'-9"1'-5"13'-7"13'-8"7'-8"128'-0"106'-11"16'-7"1'-2"87'-6"40'-6"PL14'-2"8'-7"CALIFORNIA DRIVEWEST LANE1A3.1.12A3.1.12A3.1.2SOUTH LANEELEVATOROVERIDE53'-5"MURAL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY EXTERIOR WALLLINE OF CANOPYBELOWLINE OF CANOPYBELOWLINE OF CANOPYBELOWLINE OF CANOPYBELOW2'-10"1A3.2.11A3.2.1BUILDINGSECTION1'-0"1'-6"1'-6"1'-2"1'-3"1'-4"1"PLPLPLSOLARPANELSSOLARPANELSEQIPMENTDUNNAGEDAVIT ANDEQUIPMENTARMOSHA COMPLIANT ROOFHATCH WITH MIN. 16 SFCLEAR OPENINGSTAIR 1 -IS BELOWELEVATION+85.22'STAIR 1 -TOP OFSTAIRWAYELEVATION= +85.22'SOLARPANELSSTAIR 2 - ISBELOWELEVATION+85.22'+85.22T.O. RIDGE A3.1.1NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1(CALIFORNIA DRIVE)(WEST LANE)960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCPLFROM TO FACE OF BUILDINGPL1'-6"PLMAIN LOBBY ENTRY+31.00T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9215'-11"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"FROM TO FACE OFBUILDING1'-6"PLA D J .P R O P E R T YN . I . C .A D J .P R O P E R T YN . I . C .S O U T HL A N ES O U T H L A N EROLL-UP GARAGE DOORWITH PERFORATED METALPANELS - TYP. OF TWO.PAINTED METAL ROLL-UPDOOR AND STOREFRONTSYSTEM WITH INFILLALUMINUM METAL PANELSSLATE STONE BASE CAPRIBLACK WITH NATURALCLEFT FINISHBRICK VENEERPAINTED METAL CLOSUREPANELMETAL CANOPY, TYP. OF 3PAINTED METAL DOOR ANDPANEL ABOVEDRAWN AT OBLIQUE ANGLESEE EXT. ELEV. 2/A3.1.2FROM TO FACE OFBUILDING3'-0"PLS O U T HL A N EBRICK VEENERALUMINUM & GLASS WINDOW WALL SYSTEM-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEALUMINUM & GLASSWINDOW WALL SYSTEMMETAL CANOPY WITHMETAL ADDRESS NUMBERSMETAL BRISE SOLEIL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEMETAL CAP REVEAL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEBRUSHED STAINLESS STEELENTRY DOORSLATE STONE BASE -COLOR: CAPRI BLACKNATURAL CLEFT FINISHBRICK VEENERPLPLT.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22TOP OF CURB+3O.53T.O. ROOF DECK+83.921'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-7"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22T.O. RETAIL SLAB+30.32T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-7"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22METAL BRISE SOLEIL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEMETAL CAP REVEAL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEALUMINUM & GLASS WINDOW WALL SYSTEM-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEREAR LOBBY ENTRY+30.15T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-9"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"LIGHT FIXTURE - UP/DOWN ILLUMINATION TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY OFBURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE "BUG", BACKLIGHT, UPLIGHT, AND GLARERATINGS.DOWN LIGHTS - TYP. @UNDERSIDE OF ALL THREECANOPIESDOWN LIGHTS TYP.UNDERSIDE OF ENTRYCANOPIESLIGHT FIXTURE - UP/DOWNILLUMINATIONLIGHT FIXTURE - UP/DOWNILLUMINATIONEXTERIOR ELEVATION LEGENDT.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.24T.O. ELEV. OVERRIDE+87.96T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22T.O. ELEV. OVERRIDE+87.96AVG TOP OF CURB+29.84AVG. TOP OF CURB+30.71ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHTSEE SOUTH ELEVATIONBUILDING HEIGHTMEASURING POINT55'-0"TO ROOF RIDGE, SEE SOUTHELEVATION FOR ACTUALBUILDING HEIGHT PERPLANNINGBUILDING HEIGHTMEASURING POINT55'-0"TO ROOF RIDGE, SEE SOUTHELEVATION FOR ACTUALBUILDING HEIGHT PERPLANNING A3.1.2SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCC A L I F O R N I AD R I V EW E S TL A N EW E S TL A N EC A L I F O R N I AD R I V EPLPLPLPL4'-0"FROM TO FACE OF BUILDINGPLW E S TL A N EBRICK VEENERBRICK VENEERLINE OF ADJACENTBUILDING WITH HISTORICMURAL FACING COURTYARDELEVATIONH I S T O R I C M U R A L C O U R T Y A R DSLATE STONE BASE WITHCLEFT FINISHSLATE STONE BASE WITHCLEFT FINISHLINE OF HISTORIC MURAL -ADJACENT BUILDING WALLA D J .P R O P E R T YREAR LOBBY ENTRY+31.00T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.24SECOND FLOOR+46.9215'-11"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.224'-2"REAR LOBBY ENTRY+30.15T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-9"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.224'-2"METAL CAP REVEALCOLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEALUMINUM & GLASSWINDOW WALL SYSTEM-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEALUMINUM & GLASSWINDOW WALL SYSTEM-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEMAIN LOBBY ENTRY+31.00T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.9215'-11"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"4'-2"METAL CAP REVEALCOLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEALUMINUM & GLASSWINDOW WALL SYSTEM-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUERETAIL FLOOR+30.32SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-9"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"1'-4"1'-4"T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.24EQ.EQ.METAL BRISE SOLEIL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUEMETAL BRISE SOLEIL-COLOR: PRUSSIAN BLUELIGHT FIXTURE - UP/DOWNILLUMINATIONEXTERIOR ELEVATION LEGENDLIGHT FIXTURE - UP/DOWN ILLUMINATION TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY OFBURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE "BUG", BACKLIGHT, UPLIGHT, AND GLARERATINGS.T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22T.O. ELEV. OVERRIDE+87.96T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22T.O. ELEV. OVERRIDE+87.96AVG TOP OF CURB+ 30.34+ 30.22AVG TOP OF CURB(SOUTH LANE)METAL PANEL INFILLBUILDING HEIGHTMEASURING POINTBUILDING HEIGHTMEASURING POINT55'-0"TO ROOF RIDGE, SEE SOUTHELEVATION FOR ACTUALBUILDING HEIGHT PERPLANNING RECYCLE/REFUSEROOMOPEN OFFICEOPEN OFFICEOPEN OFFICEHISTORICALSOCIETYROOMELEV.LOBBYELEV.LOBBYELEV.LOBBYELEV.LOBBYC3 ROOMEXT.TERRACEELEV.LOBBYBIKE AREAELECTRICAL/MPOEROOMCAR STORAGEBEYONDAUTOMATED CARLIFTAUTOMATED CARLIFTOFFICESOFFICESOFFICESHISTORICALSOCIETY ROOMHISTORICALSOCIETY ROOMRETAILHALL-WAYFIRE/WATERBICYCLE AREA / LVL P1 LOBBYSTAIRBEYONDSTAIRBEYONDSTAIRBEYONDCAR LIFT PITSprink l e r s Sprink l e r sLVL P1LVL P1ALVL P2A3.2.1960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCREAR LOBBY ENTRANCE+30.15T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22T.O. ROOF SCREEN+88.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.92THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.52PLPLA D J .P R O P E R T YN . I . C .S O U T HL A N EC A L I F O R N I AD R I V EW E S TL A N EPLPLLEVEL P2+04.09BRIS SOLEILCAR LIFT PIT-00.8113'-11"12'-2"4'-11"LEVEL P1+16.2510'-4"3'-0"3'-0"42" GUARD RAIL1'-6"T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92REAR LOBBY ENTRY+30.15T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22SECOND FLOOR+46.9216'-9 1/4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-5"LEVEL P2+04.09T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.24LEVEL P1+16.25MAIN LOBBY ENTRY+31.00T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22SECOND FLOOR+46.9215'-11"12'-4"THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.5212'-4"12'-5"LEVEL P2+04.09T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.24LEVEL P1+16.25AVG. T.0. CURB+30.32T.O. ROOF RIDGE+85.22T.O. ROOF SCREEN+89.241'-4"SECOND FLOOR+46.92THIRD FLOOR+59.22FOURTH FLOOR+71.52LEVEL P2+04.09CAR LIFT PIT-00.8130'-4"14'-1"12'-2"4'-11"LEVEL P1+16.25T.O. ROOF DECK+83.92T.O. ELEV. OVERRIDE+87.96T.O. ELEV. OVERRIDE+87.96 A11.0.0960 Atlantic AvenueAlameda, CA 94501510 865 8663mbharch.comused or disclosed without written consent of the Architect.and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated,Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute originalc MBH ARCHITECTS - 2017Drawing TitleProject No.ScaleNo. Date IssueDrawing No.QAQCBURLINGAME STATION250 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BURLINGAME, CAPAINTCOLOR "PRUSSIAN BLUE" ATSTOREFRONT SYSTEM, DOORS, & METALBRIS SOLEIL1SLATE STONE BASECOLOR "CAPRI BLACK" W/ CLEFT FINISH3NORMAN BRICK MODULE 11-1/2" X 2 -1/2" WIDECOLOR "CALIFORNIA ROSE"6STOREFRONT SYSTEMCOLOR "PRUSSIAN BLUE"5WINDOWSCLEAR GLASS2BRUSHED STAINLESS STEEL41123465 PRECEDENT IMAGESTREE GRATETREE GRATE TO BE CITY OF BURLINGAME STANDARD: URBAN ACCESSORIES OT TITLE-24 4’-0” SQUARE DARK GREEN POWDERCOATED GRAY IRON GRATEPLANTERS AND WOOD BENCHESFESTOON LIGHTINGBANDED PAVING PATTERNEXISTING MURAL TO REMAIN STREET TREESHRUBS & GROUNDCOVERCITY STANDARD TREE PLANTING DETAILNTSAcer buergerianumAspidistra elatior ‘Variegata’ Polystichum munitumCarex oshimensis ‘Everillo’ Heuchera ‘Santa Ana Cardinal’Liriope muscari ‘Silvery Sunproof’ Echeveria derenbergii