Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2020.10.19
City of Burlingame BURLINGAME F, Meeting Agenda - Final City Council Monday, October 19, 2020 6:00 PM STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Online BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 To login into the Study Session click on the below link. Note that the link is (1) a hyperlink even though it doesn't look like it and (2) is the same link for the Regular meeting that will begin at 7 p.m. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83876389253? pwd=ROIUQU92NO95QzFQMXJMdONiNXpZUT09 Meeting ID: 838 7638 9253 Passcode:806255 One tap mobile +16699006833„83876389253# US (San Jose) +13462487799„83876389253# US (Houston) Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 929 436 2866 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) Meeting ID: 838 7638 9253 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kuaKxtf4Q Online a. Study Session: Review of the City's Pension and Other Post -Employment Liabilities and Current Pre -funding Strategies Attachments: Staff Report Presentation City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 1011512020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 19, 2020 On March 17, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodes to conduct their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order N-33-20 issued on March 19, 2020, and the CDC's social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the October 19, 2020 City Council Meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the Consent Calendar. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that your comment is received and read to the City Council for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 19, 2020. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record, will be provided to the City Council after the meeting. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted on the record. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 1011512020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 19, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Online To Join the Zoom Meeting (note that the link below doesn't look like a hyperlink but it is) City Clerk Hassel -Shearer is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83876389253? pwd=ROIUQU92N095QzFQMXJMdONiNXpZUT09 Meeting ID: 838 7638 9253 Passcode:806255 One tap mobile +16699006833„83876389253# US (San Jose) +13462487799„83876389253# US (Houston) Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 929 436 2866 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) Meeting ID: 838 7638 9253 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kuaKxtf4Q 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1011512020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 19, 2020 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion. Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar. a. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2020 Attachments: Meeting Minutes b. Adoption of an Ordinance to Remove an Exemption for Collective Bargaining Agreements from the Burlingame Minimum Wage Ordinance Attachments: Staff Report Proposed Ordinance C. Adoption of Resolutions Supporting the Submission of Grant Applications for the California Drive Bicycle Facility Project and the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project under the San Mateo County Transportation Authority Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs Attachments: Staff Report Resolution for the California Drive Bicycle Facility Project Resolution for the Burlinaame Station Pedestrian Improvements Proiect California Drive Bicycle Facility Project Location Map Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project Location Map California Drive Bicycle Facility Project Grant Application Packet Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Protect Grant Application Packet d. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Procure Landscape Structures Playground Equipment and Installation for the Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant J-Lot Playground Renovation in the Amount of $148,544.09, City Project Number 79450 and to Change Playground's Name from J-Lot Playground to Primrose Playground Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Primrose Mural Photo Playground Design View 1 Playground Design View 2 Purchase Agreement for Landscape Structures, Playground Equipment, and Ins City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 1011512020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 19, 2020 e. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map (PM 20-01), Lot Split of 3.195 Acre Portion of Parcel A as Filed in Book 68 of Parcel Maps, Pages 5-6, Office of the San Mateo County Recorder at 30 Ingold Road Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Parcel Map f. Informational Report Regarding Minimum Wage Impacts on Recreation Programming Attachments: Staff Report 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code (Off -Street Parking) to Reduce the Office Parking Ratio for Properties Located in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) Zone; Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for Mechanical Parking Stackers for a New Seven -Story, Mixed -Use Development with Retail, Office and 60 Residential Units with Below Grade Parking at 1766 El Camino Real Attachments: Staff Report Resolution - CEQA Resolution - Entitlements PC Meeting Minutes - August 24, 2020 PC Staff Report - Entitlements - August 24, 2020 PC Staff Report - Zoning Code Amendment - August 24, 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration CEQA - Response to Comments Project Plans b. Introduction of an Ordinance Amendina Burlinaame Municipal Code Section 18.07.110 to Modify Construction Hours and the Exception Process for Work Conducted Outside of Legal Hours Attachments: Staff Report Draft Ordinance June 1, 2020 Meeting Minutes City of San Mateo Municipal Code Section 23.06.060 City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 1011512020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 19, 2020 C. Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District to Remove the City Of Palo Alto from the District, and Remove the Palo Alto Representative Seat to the District Advisory Board Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance Ordinance 1648 Resolution (Palo Alto) 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) a. Consideration of Two Appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission Attachments: Staff Report b. Approval of Additional Funding in the Amount of $59,000 to Commission an Independent Arborist to Inspect City Park Trees and Large Stature Eucalyptus Trees Attachments: Staff Report Resolution C. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizina the Citv Manaaer to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Saratoga to Purchase Rule 20A Credits for Utility Undergrounding Work on El Camino Real Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Draft Memorandum of Understanding 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. a. Councilmember Colson's Committee Report Attachments: Committee Report 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and the Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 1011512020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 19, 2020 Notice: Any attendees who require special assistance or a disability -related modification to participate in this meeting and wish to request alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, October 19, 2020 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday November 2, 2020 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection via www.burlingame.org or by emailing the City Clerk at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203. City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 1011512020 Study Session: Pension and Other Post -Employment Obligations October 19, 2020 BURLINGAME To: Date: From: Subject: STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council October 19, 2020 AGENDA NO: STUDY SESSION MEETING DATE: October 19. 2020 Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Study Session: Review of the City's Pension and Other Post -Employment Liabilities and Current Pre -funding Strategies BACKGROUND The City's OPEB liabilities, which are composed of retiree healthcare benefits only, continue to be funded from a surcharge on each payroll. The cost of the City's former retiree medical benefits program is charged to all operations as a percentage of payroll, calculated to yield the actuarially determined contribution (both normal and accrued liability costs) of the plan. The proceeds of this surcharge are used first to pay actual retiree medical costs on a pay-as-you-go basis; remaining funds are deposited to a § 115 trust account established in 2013 for the purpose of funding the OPEB liabilities. As of the end of fiscal year 2019-20, there was a balance of nearly $22.4 million in the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust, serving to offset the total liability. As there will be no new members added to this benefit plan — the City now offers a defined contribution plan for retiree health costs to its employees — this liability will be fully funded in 15 years. As of June 30, 2020, the net OPEB liability for the City was computed to be $27.0 million. The City's financial statements also reflect unfunded pension liabilities. Governmental accounting standards require the City to compute its unfunded liabilities by ascertaining "net pension liability," or the difference between a plan's total pension liability and the assets available to pay for such liability at a specific time. As of June 30, 2020, the net pension liability for the City was computed to be $69.6 million. Concerned over growing pension liabilities and in response to the sharply increasing employer rates to support the pensions provided by CalPERS, the City implemented a plan, beginning in fiscal year 2017-18, to annually set aside additional funding in a § 115 Trust, at a rate that would smooth the projected increased employer contributions to CalPERS over the next 10-15 years. The balance in the pension trust fund as of June 30, 2020, was nearly $12.6 million. Unlike contributions to the OPEB trust fund, these contributions are not shown as expenditures, and cannot be used to offset the liability as shown in the financial statements. Rather, amounts in the pension trust fund are reflected in each operating fund as restricted cash and investments. A detailed explanation of the changes in the pension liabilities associated with the City's Safety and Miscellaneous Employee pension plans are provided in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), in the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements under Notes 9 and 10, respectively. 1 Study Session: Pension and Other Post -Employment Obligations October 19, 2020 The City's books for the 2019-20 fiscal year are currently undergoing independent audit and will be available by the end of the calendar year. This study session will provide a review of the City's Pension and Other Post -Employment Obligations, the various assumptions inherent in the actuarial valuation of these long-term liabilities, and the current strategies in place to fund them. The session will also include an examination of the status/effectiveness of the funding mechanisms currently in place, and options to address current and future funding issues. DISCUSSION Pre -funding Other Post -Employment Benefits — OPEB The City has long provided retiree healthcare benefits to eligible retirees and their dependents, with medical coverage provided through the CaIPERS healthcare program (PEMHCA). The City paid retiree healthcare premiums that vary by bargaining unit and length of service according to bargaining agreements. Beginning in fiscal year 2012-13, these benefits were replaced for new employees with City contributions to a Post -Employment (Retiree) Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA). However, the City continues to honor its obligations to retirees and employees hired prior to this major change in its retiree healthcare benefits plan. These benefits are the only OPEB obligations held by the City. Funding the City's retiree medical benefits liability has been a part of Burlingame's budget considerations for many years. In 2013, and in support of the Council goal of sustaining the City's long-term financial strength, staff procured an updated actuarial study and valuation of retiree medical benefits. Given that both the financial investment return and the overall cost to the City would be less than if the City were to manage its own retiree medical benefits funding program, staff recommended establishing a trust account to begin pre -funding of the liability. The CaIPERS California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Program was selected for investment of the funds; this selection was evaluated and confirmed with respect to OPEB trust fund providers in October, 2016. Placing the funds in a qualified trust significantly decreased both the City's unfunded liability and its ongoing normal (annual) costs by increasing the yield assumption earned within the fund. Currently, it is the City's policy to make contributions to the CERBT based on the Annual Required Contribution (ARC), less the amount disbursed for medical premiums for current retirees. The ARC had been actuarially determined (in 2013) to be approximately $5 million each fiscal year, but has dropped to below $4 million in recent years. To the extent contributions are made to the trust, and investment performance is maintained in the future, these liabilities will be more fully funded, strengthening the City's financial position. For accounting purposes, an internal service fund (ISF) for retiree medical benefits was established for the purpose of recovering the on -going normal costs of the benefits plan via a "surcharge" on payroll costs. This surcharge is reflected as a budgeted operating expense in the City's financial records. As such, the entire ARC is expensed in each fiscal year. 2 Study Session: Pension and Other Post -Employment Obligations October 19, 2020 CERBT offers three choices of funds, utilizing differing investment (asset allocation) strategies with distinctly different expected long term rates of investment return and investment return volatility. Because the City was in the early stages of funding its OPEB plan, the City chose to utilize asset allocation strategy 1 when establishing its trust fund in 2013. Strategy 1 had the highest expected long term rate of return at that time (7.61 percent). The long term expected rates of return for the three strategies have evolved since 2013. The CERBT undertakes an extensive investment policy review every four years with a two-year check -in. The table below presents CERBT's expected rates and risks based on 2018 Capital Market Assumptions (CMA). CERBT Expected Rates of Return & Risk 1116 2018 CapitalAssumptions rStrategy 2 Expected Time -Weighted Return, 5 85% 5.22% 4.41 % Near Term Expected Time -Weighted Blended Return, 7 59% 7.01 % 6.22% Longer Term Standard Deviation of Expected Investment Returns L83.0/6 9.24% 7.28% N—ter. s10 years.L gvtem is611 years. EKp 4d realms U.—M.M. cERBTtMkPsarelohps_ Shad dd..h...10years_ The City has used a more conservative discount rate (7.0 percent) in its bi-annual actuarial determination of future contributions to the trust fund to protect against shortages in the trust in later funding years. Now that the City's OPEB plan is approximately 42.85 percent funded, the Council may wish to consider moving the trust portfolio to a pool with a slightly more conservative investment strategy. CERBT Strategy Risk Levels CaIPERS offers employers the choice of one of three investment strategies. Projected risk levels among strategies vary, depending upon the target asset class allocations. Generally, equities carry more risk than fixed income securities. r Global E ui 59% 401A 22% Fixed Income 25% 4314 49% Treasury Inflation- Protected Securities 51A 5% 16% Real Estate InvestmeN Trusts 81A 8% 81A Commodities 31A 4% 5% CERBT Strategy 1 More conservative V Less conservative CERBT Strategy Z More conse"at,w Less conservative CERBT Strategy 3 More co--t, Less conservative 'Since June NIB SSGA has passively managed all CERBT asset classes. Previously Fixed Income, TIPS and Commad4 asset classes were managed internally by CalPERS. 3 Study Session: Pension and Other Post -Employment Obligations October 19, 2020 Strategies for Funding Pension Liabilities The City of Burlingame has two pension trusts within the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS): one to fund public safety employees, and one for miscellaneous employees. Pension benefits are funded by employer and employee contributions and by investment earnings on those contributions. Numerous assumptions, including actuarial assumptions about employee and retiree populations and assumptions about investment returns, are used to determine the funding required for payment of pension benefits. The most critical assumption in attaining full funding goals is the rate of return on investments in the trusts. If the assumed rate of return is not realized, then contributions from employers will have to increase, as employee contribution increases are currently limited by Public Employee Retirement Law. During the financial crisis and stock market crash, the California Public Employees Retirement System investment fund plunged from about $260 billion in 2007 to $160 billion in 2009, with overall returns down by around 25 percent, bringing the overall funded level of 101 percent down to 61 percent. The first of four CalPERS employer rate increases after the 2008 crash did not come until 2012, when the discount rate was lowered from 7.75 to 7.5 percent. Five years later, as a result of past performance, the long low -interest rate environment, and a movement towards a more risk - averse investment portfolio, the CalPERS Board approved a plan to reduce the assumed rate of return from 7.5 percent to 7.0 percent over a three-year period. This reduction triggered an increase of about 50 percent in projected local government employer (contribution) rates over the next seven years. The chart below shows investment returns through fiscal year 2018-19; the preliminary return for fiscal year 2019-20 is 4.3 percent. History of Investment Returns (2000 - 2019) 25 9% 20.7% 20 °6 18.6% 15.4% 16b°b 15 % \ � t 2.245 17.996 12.596 10.7Rfi 2.495 Q1 Cr o% m 3 z9� fi.796 Q 7.196 GRAPH KEY -10 % -X.X% ActualAnnualReturn (Grossof Administrative Expenses) -15 % O - - -O Rolling 5 Year Return Discount Rate/Expected Return -20 % (Net of Administrative Expenses) -23.696 -25 % 2000 2001 2002 2003 204 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2613 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Fiscal Year Ending Because the reduction in the discount rate to 7 percent is phased in, the full impact of this assumption change will not be included in the employer rates until fiscal year 2024-25. Changes !r Study Session: Pension and Other Post -Employment Obligations October 19, 2020 to other critical assumptions needed to attain CaIPERS' funding goals have also resulted in higher contribution rates for both employers and employees, and have exacerbated existing pension funding challenges. In addition to lowering the discount rate in 2017, a new CalPERS investment allocation increased holdings of predictable bonds or fixed income vehicles from 19 percent to 28 percent of the portfolio. And a third cost -saving reform was implemented that shortens the payment period for new debt or "unfunded liability" from 30 to 20 years. (The additional debt is usually the result of below -target investment earnings, the adoption of a lower discount rate, and/or longer expected life spans.) As a maturing pension system, CalPERS faces another funding difficulty: the pension fund has become much larger than the payrolls on which rates are based. So a larger employer rate increase is needed to replace any investment shortfalls. In recent years, the funded status of the Public Employees' Retirement Fund has hovered at around 70 percent. In an effort to help governmental agencies manage pension costs, the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) was enacted at the state level in 2013; the law required contracting agencies to implement a new pension formula for new hires that are new CalPERS members. PEPRA included new restrictions of pensionable compensation that are designed to limit the accrual of unfunded liabilities over time. To comply with PEPRA, the City implemented a second pension tier for all employees. As these newer formulas only apply to more recent hires, there has been little immediate impact on the City's total pension costs. However, such changes will reduce future liabilities and costs over the long-term. For its part, the City negotiated pension cost -sharing agreements with each bargaining group. Under a cost -sharing arrangement, employees agree to pay a portion of the City's required pension contributions, in addition to the standard employee contribution required by CalPERS. Currently, Classic employees contribute an additional 1.5 percent towards the City's Miscellaneous Plan contribution, and 4.0 percent towards the Safety Plan. All told, employees pay between 7.25 and 13.0 percent of their salary toward their pension benefits, depending on bargaining unit and pension tier. Although these cost -sharing agreements assist the City in paying the required annual payments to CalPERS, such arrangements do not provide any additional payment toward the City's unfunded liabilities. In response to the prospect of alarmingly high future employer contribution rates, City staff engaged the help of an actuarial in 2017 to model the actuarial valuations of the City's pension plans over the next 30 years. The models showed that the required employer rate for the Miscellaneous Plan was projected to peak at 42 percent of covered payroll in fiscal year 2027-28; the maximum rate projected for the Safety Plan (86.2 percent) would not be reached until FY 2031-32. Based on these analyses, staff recommended that instead of merely funding at the current required employer rate for each fiscal year, the City set aside funding at a rate that would smooth the projected increased contributions to CalPERS over the next 10-15 years. To the extent that the amount expensed at the higher (threshold) rate exceeds the required contribution to CalPERS each year, the funds would be set aside to support funding required when rates climb above the threshold rate. The threshold rates established, based on the average projected rates from the current fiscal year until rates fall to the then -current levels, were 37.7 percent for the Miscellaneous Plan and 76.9 percent for the Safety Plan. Again, this method of funding was recommended only to provide funding for the higher employer contribution rates anticipated in future fiscal years. In July 2017, 5 Study Session: Pension and Other Post -Employment Obligations October 19, 2020 the City Council approved the establishment of a § 115 Trust for this purpose in order to optimize the interest earnings on the fund, while still allowing flexibility in the timing and sources to be used to fund the trust. (Funds placed in an irrevocable pension supplemental § 115 Trust are restricted in use solely for pension obligations.) The City selected Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS), partnered with Highmark Capital Management, to manage the § 115 portfolio and, in October 2017, deposited an initial contribution of over $3.7 million, per the 2017-18 fiscal year budget, into the trust account. Over the past few years, as required employer contributions to CalPERS have predictably risen, amounts set aside as part of each fiscal year's budget have decreased. The current fiscal year budget provided for a contribution of slightly less than $2.8 million for the pension trust. As of September 30, 2020, the trust had an ending market balance of over $15.8 million. Unlike the OPEB § 115 trust fund, contributions to the pension trust fund with PARS are not included as pension expenses in the City's operating budget. Only payments to CalPERS will be reflected as expenses on the City's books. The contributions are instead shown as "restricted fund balance" in the various (contributing) operating funds for financial statement purposes. Other options to pre -fund the City's considerable liabilities with CalPERS have been discussed in the past, and are still available as alternate or additional mechanisms to minimize the future impacts of rising pension costs on the City's ability to meet ongoing service obligations. The most viable alternatives include additional pension payments directly to CalPERS. Staff will of course pursue any options of interest to the Council in the context of ongoing budget discussions. Exhibit: • Presentation 0 City of Burlingame Pension & OPEB Funding October 19, 2020 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. 1 Govinvest Insights to your financial future Agenda / Govinvest Team • PENSIONS • CalPERS Investment & Returns • Current Pension Funding Policy • Next Steps • OPEB • CERBT Investment & Returns • Current OPEB Funding Policy • Next Steps Team Max Stoff Director of Customer Success Max@Govinvest.com (213) 460-3387 Charles D. Francis Government Finance Consultant Email: Charlie@govinvest.com Phone: +1 (818) 572-3965 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Gov' nvest 2 71,1h, .0 your financial future Pension Funding Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Gov1 tweet I-igMu to your financial future CaIPERS Investment Retu FA MAMk 4e7 CaIPERS assets earned 4.7% for the 12-month fiscal year ending June 30, 2020 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � Govinvest IV -io-1 Your financial future 4 Agency Impact • One Time Event How does this year's return affect UAL and contributions? • ry 2020 as the New Normal What if CaIPERS continues to get a 4.7% rate of return? 5 One Time Event How big of an impact does this year's investment return have on the City's UAL and contributions? Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � GovI nvest V I-igMu to your financial future 6 Funded Status Funded Status as of June 30, 2020* *"CAPERS and Employers: Fiscal Year Returns, Cost Impacts and Our Path Forward", 7/21/2020 Plan Projected (7.0%) Actual (4.7%) Total employer contributions from 2019 to 20A-3 increase relative to your baseline by a total of $9.15M on a cash basis $12.5M $10M $7.5M $5M $2.5M $0 1 2018 2020 2022 2024 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. 2026 2028 2030 2032 Fiscal Year Beginning July 1 !� Govi nvest Insights to your financial future In FY 2020: ,otal Cf `i;;loye` Con r. budor o $S.45M F-om. $8.45M so 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 $75M $50M $25M i[TI!yffmSi ,, The graph shows the �—sion liability and how it's being funded overtime_ 2020 2025 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. In FY 2020: o $b9.72M �rom $65.dd�1 . s�or}ra 2030 Year (As of June 30) !� Govi nvest Insights to your financial future 2035 2040 FY 2020 As the New Normal What is the impact on the City's UAL and contributions if CaIPERS continues to get a 4.7% rate of return? Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � GovI nvest V I-igMu t. your financial future 10 $15M S10M $5M $0 2018 2020 ienuired Emnic 01111916191HO As Total employer contributions from 2019 to 2043 increase relative to your baseline by total of $110.73M on a cash basis 2022 2024 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. 2026 2028 2030 2032 Fiscal Year Beginning July 1 ^Govi nvest Insights to your financial future In FY 2020: Total Em sic; - Dutior. o $8.45M -•mn $8.45 M so 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 $75M $50M $25M $0 0Pqrxl!remTXs ■9F1i711iu11v1i The graph shows the pension liability and how it's being funded overtime - In FY 2020: J-if ur:de I o $6s.72M . ga-D61�t 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year (As of June 30) Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � Govinvest Insights to your financial future Changing Discount Rate to 6% What is the impact on the City's UAL and contributions if the discount rate and rate of return is lowered to 6%? Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � GOVI nvest V I-igMu to your financial future 13 515M 510M 55M $0 2020 Z16111 19ZIS mail]$] If 01111916191119 Ah Total employercontributions from 2019 to 2049 increase relative to your baseline by a total of $89.20M on a cash basis 2025 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. 2030 2035 Fiscal Year Beginning July 1 ^Govi nvest Insights to your financial future 2040 In FY 2020: iota! c, ; Conti:bu=ior 0 $8.45M to 2045 ':l,75M $50M $25M $0 $(25)M 2020 2025 aiccrupd The graph shows the pension liability and hove it's beingfunded overtime. In FY 2020: Ufifunded Accrued Liaoiiity o $103.46M -rom,$69.72M r $33.74M 2030 Year (As of June 30) 2035 2040 2045 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Govl nvest Insights to your financial future Current Pension Funding Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Policy !� Govl nvest Insights to your financial future Funding Policy • Provides guidance in making annual budget decisions • Demonstrates prudent financial management practices • Reassures bond rating agencies • Shows employees and the public how pensions will be funded Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Vk Gov nvest 17 Insights :o your fnancial future 64% Projected Contribution Rate - Miscellaneous ti4 50% e, Threshold Rates//�.1,�� 0 �4l'+4 • .jp }1Si ,a ti41' .i 1ft Average: 37.7% • Smooth the projected increased •l }}!F, � � 5 F4` 'fit. �.. y4�';4}•¢� contributions to CalPERS over the next -a'yy � ;y p ��xKs .[. lm 10-15 years. _ • To the extent that the amount expensed at the higher (threshold) rate exceeds the required contribution to; C a I P E R S each year, the funds would be set aside to support funding required 75th Pe cmtile s 111L 11cFeentile 751h Prroeutile when rates climb above the threshold rate. iYaaa Projected Conlribution Riles - Safety • This method of funding merely smooths out the rate (as a percentage of payroll)` for the employer pension expense that Average: 76.9% �m will be included in each fiscal year's •= budget.�iry 30`la ,t t �'1'Sy�y�bYtwai ,• Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. !� Govl nvest Insights to your financial future 0% 75%hPa,mirile %thpwantilc 25thPercmide Contributions into Section 115 Trust FY17-18 Mid -Year FY18-19 Budget FY19-20 Budget Approved by CC Initial Contribution Budget Review Adoption Adoption Contribution made in... Fund: 101- General Fund 526 - Water Enterprise 527 - Sewer Enterprise 528- Solid Waste Enterprise 530 - Parking Enterprise 531- Building Enterprise 532- Landfill Fund 619 - Facilities 620- Fleet/Equipment 621- Admin/IT Actual Balance as of June 30,2020 Contribution for FY 20-21 October 2017 March 2018 August 2018 July 2019* Accumulated Contributions as of 6/30/2020 3,139,920.00 1,000,000.00 $ 2,838,000 $ 2,957,000 9,934,920.00 86.19% 205,573.00 - $ 188,300 $ 143,000 536,873.00 4.66% 169,791.00 - $ 158,200 $ 117,700 445,691.00 3.87% 30,101.00 - $ 28,000 $ 20,000 78,101.00 0.68% 19,122.00 - $ 17,500 $ 13,200 49,822.00 0.43% 82,011.00 - $ 75,900 $ 57,900 215,811.00 1.87% 4,752.00 - $ 4,600 $ 3,490 12,842.00 0.11% 56,212.00 - $ 51,900 $ 39,300 147,412.00 1.28% 36,669.00 - $ 30,100 $ 23,460 90,229.00 0.78% 5,641.00 - $ 5,200 $ 3,950 14,791.00 0.13% 3,749,792.00 1,000,000,000 3,397,700.00 * Council added $800,000 to the contribution in recongnition of CCFD rising pension costs. 2,579,000,000 11,526,492.000 12,562,820.46 2,770,000.00 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Govinvest 19 1-0-1-your financial future PARS Annual Returns Jun-18 1.66/* Jun-19 7.29% Jun-20 4.63 *Based on 9 months Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Govinvest Insights to your financial future 115 Trust Asset Allocation As of 10/12/2020 Equities 51% Real Estate Other Cash Equivalents ■ Cash Equivalents ■ Fixed Income ■ Equities ■ Real Estate ■ Other Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � Govinvest Insights to your financial future Fixed Income 45% Pension Policy Next Steps Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Gov1 tweet I-igMu to your financial future Additional Discretionary Payments (ADP) Advantages • Offset GASB Net Pension Liability on CAFR • Ability to pay off select amortization base(s) Disadvantages • Loss of flexibility with investment • Contribution is irreversible I Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � GovI nvest V Insights to your financial future 23 Section 115 Trusts • Section 115 Trusts are irrevocable and designed to prefund retirement plan obligations • Once contributions are placed into a Section 115 Trust, assets may only be used for retirement plan purposes: • Reimburse agency for retirement system contributions • Assets can be transferred to the retirement system Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Govl nvest I-igMu to your financial future Projected Contribution Rate — Miscellaneous 6% Assumed Rate of Return 40.0% Average: 32.6% 32.6% Threshold Rates 35.0% 30.0% Smooth the projected increased 25.0% contributions to CalPERS over the 20.0% next 10-12 years. 15.0% • To the extent that the amount 10.0% expensed at the higher (threshold) 5.0% rate exceeds the required 0.0% � °''W contribution to CaIPERS each year, the funds will be set aside to Projected Contribution Rate Average support funding required when Projected Contribution Rate —Safety rates climb above the threshold 6%Assumed Rate of Return rate. ° I 75.5/ Average:75.5% 80.0,° • This method of funding merely smooths out the rate (as a 70.0% percentage of payroll) for the 60.0% 50.0 employer pension expense that 40.0% will be included in each fiscal 30.0% year's budget. 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% vo titi p # 00 do , 3) 3� ,,3 3) 30 3� 3� ,,c, do do do do do do ,yo do ,yo do ,yo do ,yo ,�o ,yo ,�o ,yo ,�o ,yo ,�o Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. VI ^_5 Gov'nvestProjected Contribution Rate Average Ins,ght, .o your financial future Threshold Rate Summary Miscellaneous 37.7% Safety 76.9 34.6% 75.5% Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Gov' nvest Insights ;. your financial future CAPERS Fresh Start Full Fresh Start This would re -amortize the entire UAL over a shortened time period. Once the payment schedule with CaIPERS is implemented it cannot be reversed. Soft Fresh start Simulating an accelerated payment schedule without formally adopting a new payment schedule with CaIPERS. Partial Base Consolidation This would re -amortize certain specified bases over a shorter time period. Baseline Daten 2018-06-30 Date Establishedo 2012-06-30 Plan Esource E miscellaneous (GAIN)/LOSS Amortization ME level % pay 2020 Balance ($a 2,029,808.52 2018-06-30 2013-06-30 miscellaneous (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 16,897,640.21 2018-06-30 2014-06-30 miscellaneous (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 (12,846,716.60) 2018-06-30 2015-06-30 miscellaneous (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 4,192,261.97 2018-06-30 2016-06-30 miscellaneous (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 7,700,473.74 2018-06-30 2017-06-30 miscellaneous (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 (3,640,637.32) 2018-06-30 2018-06-30 miscellaneous (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 (1,351,737.42) 2018-06-30 2013-06-30 safety (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 11,000,615.05 2018-06-30 2014-06-30 safety (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 (7,668,080.35) 2018-06-30 2015-06-30 safety (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 4,528,950.84 2018-06-30 2016-06-30 safety (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 5,492,656.21 2018-06-30 2017-06-30 safety (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 (2,627,899.08) 2018-06-30 2018-06-30 safety (GAIN)/LOSS 5 year ramp 30 (775,386.20) Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � Govinvest IV -io-1 Your financial future 27 Evergreen Pension / OPEB Policy Review Your agency is updated on the annual CalPERS investment return Analyze ilk Present JA Model investment return scenarios Development and adjustment of funding policy Formally adopt and implement funding policy Continue to monitor funding policy to ensure fiscal stability and growth Evaluate_JJ 6 Revisit funding policy with annual budget process Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Govinvest 28 Insigir-1- your financial future Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � GOVI nvest Insights to your fnancial future OPEB Refresher • OPEB = Retiree Medical Benefits • 282 current retirees/surviving spouses • 217 active employees Tier 1— 85 Tier 2 — 20 Tier 3 — 112 (HRA benefit) • Considered a "closed" system • Trust fund established in October, 2013 • Full amount of ARC (Annual Required Contribution) now part of the City's annual operating budget (expensed) Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Gov' nvest 30 111-1h, .o Your financial future OPEB Contributions — Current Policy Date • FY 2013-14 transferred $6.6 million to the CERBT from the City's OPEB Internal Service Fund • Future contributions to the trust will be determined by the actuarially determined Annual Required Contribution (ARC), offset by the amount the City pays out in actual benefits to retirees. • The unfunded portion of the liability is fully amortized, in approximately 20 years. Investment Name FY 2020 CERBT Startegy 1 FY 2019 CERBT Startegy 1 FY 2018 CERBT Startegy 1 FY 2017 CERBT Startegy 1 FY 2016 CERBT Startegy 1 FY 2015 CERBT Startegy 1 FY 2014 CERBT Startegy 1 Balance at June 30, 2020 Descriptions Contributions Contributions Contributions Contributions Contributions Contributions Contributions Amount for FY $1,828,009.34 $2,299,178.63 $1,588,644.62 $1,959,571.48 $1,758,551.70 $1,714,269.73 $6,600,000.00 $17,748,225.50 $22,832,869.41 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Gov' nvest 31 I��-1h, .0 your financial future OPEB UAL Actuarial Liability $55.37M 2020 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. 2025 Valuation Assets 20.83M 2030 As of Jul i !^ Govl nvest Insights to your financial future 2035 Unfunded Actuarial Liability $34.54M 2040 2045 OPEB Assets 60M 40M $20M 20-2 1 Assets - Beginning of Year 20.s3M 25-26 Investment Return l,60M Employer Contributions $4.39M 50-51 65-56 Year Ending June 30 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � GOV1 nveSt W Insights to Y-, in.-W future Benefit Payments $(3.83M) 40-41 45-46 OPEB Cost $5M $4 M $3M $2M 1M $O Total Actuarial Determined Contribution 20-21 $4MM 25-26 Employer Formal Cost $1.07M Annual Amortization Payment 3.32M 30-31 35-36 4-0-41 45-46 Fiscal Year Ending ,lane 30 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � GOVI nveSt Insights to your financial future OPEB Investment Strategies Strategy 1— (Current) Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. 7.59 7.01 6.22 V Stock 0 Bonds Cash !� Govl nvest Insights to your financial future OPEB Modeling Investment Returns - Cost Stay. With Strategy 1- 7.59% Switch to Strategy 2 - 7.01% Assumed Rate of Return Assumed Rate of Return $4.39M $4.55M SGM +.����r �+rrrr,rr.f �r�� atiyK��w� M I I I 3M I I I 2 lVII I I 1m I 1 I � I 20-21 25-26 30-31 35-36 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. ^ Govinvest Insights to your financial future 40-41 Default $4.60M 45-4G OPEB Next Steps • Policy Review • Revisit Investment Guidelines • Consider a More Moderate Strategy? Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. Gov' nvest Insights ;o your financial future Max Stoff y Customer success Director max@govinvest.com Charlie Francis Seninr public Finance Expert Charlie@govinvest.com Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. !� Govl nvest Insights to your financial future Disclaimer While tested against actuarial valuation results, the software results will not necessarily match actuarial valuation results, as no two actuarial models are identical. The software offers financially sound projections and analysis; however, outputs do not guarantee compliance with standards under the Government Accounting Standards Board or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The software and this presentation are not prepared in accordance with standards as promulgated by the American Academy of Actuaries, nor do outputs or this presentation constitute Statements of Actuarial Opinion. Govinvest has used census data, plan provisions, and actuarial assumptions provided by Customer and/or Customer's actuary to develop the software for Customer. Govinvest has relied on this information without audit. Proprietary and Confidential © 2020 Govinvest Inc. � Govinvest IV -io-1 Your financial future 39 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 C17Y O BURLINGAME $AaiEo JLNE � O BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on October 5, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date online at 7:04 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by the Youth Advisory Committee. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None Mayor Beach began the meeting with the following statement on behalf of the City Council: As we're gathering together tonight, all of our hearts are heavy in the wake of a tragic accident in Washington Park two weekends ago when a tree limb unexpectedly fell, took one person's life, and injured others. On behalf of Vice Mayor O'Brien, Councilmembers Ortiz, Brownrigg, Colson, myself, and our entire City staff, we offer our deepest sympathy to the victims and their families and friends. We will also be taking a moment of silence to honor all the victims at the closing of our meeting tonight. 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION a. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957) TITLE: INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY/CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney Kane stated that her last work day with the City would be November 6, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail would be appointed Interim City Attorney in her place. She added that Council authorized hiring a recruiter to assist with obtaining a permanent City Attorney. Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 b. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIORS (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8) PROPERTY: CITY PARKING LOT E, APN 029-204-230 AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY KATHLEEN KANE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR KEVIN GARDINER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SPANSAIL NEGOTIATING PARTY: SARES REGIS GROUP OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS City Attorney Kane stated that direction was given, but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Beach reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. UPDATE FROM THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE (YAC) Parks and Recreation Coordinator Nicole Houghton stated that the Youth Advisory Committee is comprised of 13 teenagers ranging from 7th to 12th grade, who go to school and/or live in Burlingame. She stated that the following students are on this year's Youth Advisory Committee ("YAC"): Shareen Ahmad, Dylan Aguinaldo, Carina Husain, Pamela Xiang, Maddie Gillette, Christiana Carroll, Pierce Schuman, Taylor Roe, Ethan Wan, Sylvie Olson, Zach Wong, Cameron Leung, and Kylie Holzman. YAC representative Dylan Aguinaldo stated that YAC held its first meeting of the new term on September 8. He explained that they discussed their by-laws and determined that no changes were needed. YAC representative Maddie Gillette stated that at this meeting, YAC also discussed possible initiatives for the group to focus on for the year. She added that YAC discussed how to involve the Youth Advisory Board in more activities and noted that they would be having a Zoom mixer for the two groups later in October. YAC representative Carina Husain reviewed the Facebook Workshops that members of YAC attended. She explained that they met with individuals from Facebook on how to utilize their programs to promote YAC and increase outreach to the community Ms. Gillette discussed YAC's Halloween event, which is called "Eggtober" and allows families to register for goody bags that will be delivered to their children. YAC representatives Pierce Schuman and Dylan Aguinaldo discussed future YAC activities to reach out to teen and senior communities via Zoom. 2 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 Councilmember Colson asked if YAC's Mills Canyon clean-up was successful and whether they would be doing more clean ups. Mr. Aguinaldo replied in the affirmative. He noted that there was a lot of work that still needed to be done in Mills Canyon. He added that YAC is always open to suggestions. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she liked the idea of YAC working with the senior community. She noted that seniors are at high risk when it comes to COVID-19, and it has made them isolated in their homes. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked YAC for their service to the City. He stated that he was interested in what initiative YAC chooses and would like to hear more about it. He added that he worries about people's mental health right now due to COVID-19 and asked YAC to think about what the City can do to help the community. Councilmember Ortiz thanked YAC for their service. He noted that he was also concerned with the senior community and how isolated they are. Mayor Beach stated that the YAC is very inspiring and loved that they were thinking about green initiatives, mental health, and intolerance. She extended an invitation to YAC to work with the City on "Burlingame Stands United Against Hate." 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Beach asked her colleagues and members of the public if they would like to pull any item off the Consent Calendar. No items were pulled. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve of the City Council Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2020. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (DONNELLY AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR ON PROPERTIES LOCATED NORTH OF DONNELLY AVENUE THAT HAVE SOLE FRONTAGE ON DONNELLY AVENUE AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DONNELLY AVENUE AREA), MAKING FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE CALIFORNIA Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND LOT COMBINATION FOR A PROPOSED FOURTEEN (14) UNIT MIXED USE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 1214-1220 DONNELLY AVENUE CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Ordinance 1983, Resolution Number 124-2020, Resolution Number 125-2020, and Resolution Number 126-2020. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT NO. 11 BY STOLOSKI AND GONZALEZ, INC., CITY PROJECT NO.85130 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 127-2020. 9. PUBLIC HEARING a. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.07.110 TO MODIFY CONSTRUCTION HOURS AND THE EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR WORK CONDUCTED OUTSIDE OF LEGAL HOURS CDD Gardiner stated that in 2016, the City Council amended the City's construction hours. He noted that originally, the City's construction hours were from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The 2016 amendment revised the start time to 8 a.m. on weekdays and prohibited construction on Sundays and holidays. CDD Gardiner stated that in June 2020, Council discussed amending the City's construction hours to accommodate some particular needs of construction applicants. He noted that at that meeting, the Council provided direction and that the proposed ordinance reflects that direction. CDD Gardiner stated that the proposed amendment seeks to provide more latitude for allowing exceptions for unusual and unavoidable circumstances such as large concrete pours, timelines from other agencies, and environmental matters that can't be controlled or mitigated by the developer. He explained that staff recommends amending the Code to specifically recognize these common exceptions so that developers will be able to pursue projects in Burlingame without fear of delays that could conflict with time -sensitive construction operations. CDD Gardiner stated that the proposed ordinance amends construction hours in certain zones to allow an additional hour during weekday mornings. He noted that this would eliminate the need for exceptions in many instances. The Bayfront Commercial, Innovative Industrial, and Rollins Road Mixed Use are all zones where staff believes the start time could be amended to 7 a.m. with only minor disruption to residents. He explained that developers have informed staff that a majority of their construction crews commute from areas outside the Peninsula, and that the City's current construction hours require them to drive during peak traffic 4 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 times. He added that allowing a 7 a.m. weekday start time in the above listed commercial zones may at least partially alleviate that issue. CDD Gardiner stated that the proposed ordinance attempts to balance the concern of excessive construction noise with the builders' need for an earlier start time by prohibiting inherently loud construction activities, such as jack -hammering and pile -driving, during the first hour. He noted that the proposed ordinance requires that all work during the 7 a.m. hour be approved by the Chief Building Official, who will balance the need for additional time with the needs of the community. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the proposed ordinance would affect the construction hours in residential neighborhoods. CDD Gardiner stated that the change to 7 a.m. would be only for the commercial districts. However, the exception process that allows for more latitude could occur in a residential zone. He noted that the exceptions in residential areas would be for a much more limited scope. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked who is determining what can and can't be allowed at the 7 a.m. hour. CDD Gardiner stated that the 7 a.m. hour is only in the commercial zones. He noted that there has been discussion with the stakeholders that inherently loud activity such as pile driving and jack -hammering shouldn't be allowed at this hour. He stated that staff received feedback after the agenda was published that it might be easier if the ordinance specified what are classified as loud activities. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran suggested specifying what isn't allowed in the ordinance so that it is clear to the public. Assistant City Attorney Spansail stated that when you list the specific activities, it will be important to list every activity that the City doesn't want to have happen during that hour. He explained that how the proposed ordinance is currently written, the City has a little more wiggle room to determine what can and can't be allowed at 7 a.m. He noted that by specifying what isn't allowed, the City will lose some discretion. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with the feedback staff received. She stated that consistency is going to be essential, and therefore she thought it would be better to specify in the ordinance what is not allowed. Councilmember Ortiz asked if staff is proposing a change to the process of requesting an exception. CDD Gardiner stated that the process would be similar to what is currently done. However, he explained that the current Code allows exceptions only "in the case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety." He noted that the staff was trying to expand the definition to better reflect the type of requests that the Chief Building Official receives. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the exception process applies both to residential and commercial areas. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the title of the ordinance. 5 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. SummerHill Senior Vice President Elaine Breeze stated that she reached out to staff after the agenda packet was published regarding the need to have clear language about what activities would not be allowed at 7 a.m. She noted that SummerHill's project on Adrian Court would be the first residential project in the Rollins Road Mixed Use area. She explained that residents would have a disclosure notice about construction and loud activities that are a part of living in a commercial area. Mayor Beach closed the public hearing. Mayor Beach asked if her colleagues had thoughts or support for requiring more specificity about what activity won't be allowed at 7 a.m. in commercial districts. Councilmember Colson stated that her inclination is always to go with more specificity. She noted that projects can take years, and if staff turns over, it is important to have consistency with what is allowed and what is not allowed. Therefore, she thought it should be spelled out in the Code. Councilmember Ortiz stated that if the Council gets overly prescriptive and lists everything, then it is difficult for staff to use discretion. He noted that he didn't remember hearing a lot of complaints except for the pile driving at Burlingame Point when it comes to construction noise. He explained that he wanted to make sure some discretion was left to staff. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Ortiz. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she thought specification should be added to the ordinance. She discussed how the commercial areas would have more building over time, and therefore the City could hear more complaints. She added that it would help developers to know exactly what is and isn't allowed at 7 a.m. She stated that the specifications could be written in a way to allow staff some discretion. Councilmember Colson concurred with the Vice Mayor. Mayor Beach stated that she was leaning towards more specificity. Councilmember Colson suggested amending the proposed ordinance to call out the specifics that the Vice Mayor stated of not allowing pile -driving, jack -hammering, and other loud activities. She noted that the important part of the proposed ordinance was the change from an 8 a.m. start time on weekdays in commercial areas to 7 a.m. She explained that this would allow people to commute in and keep Burlingame competitive. 6 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 Mayor Beach asked if amending the proposed ordinance would require the ordinance to be re -introduced. Assistant City Attorney Spansail replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz asked about the Assistant City Attorney's point that listing every activity could lead to a lack of discretion for staff. He suggested listing pile -driving, jack -hammering, and then stating "and any other excessively loud activity". He thought this would give staff discretion. Assistant City Attorney Spansail stated that staff would work on the language to be specific and allow staff discretion. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she thought it depended on what is added. She noted that there might be three to five things that need to be listed that are not allowed at the 7 a.m. hour. She explained that she was not expecting a long, detailed list. Councilmember Colson stated that she was okay with the interior construction portion of the proposed ordinance. This portion of the proposed ordinance would allow work to take place outside of construction hours within fully enclosed buildings as it would have little impact on residents and would allow builders to finish a project in a more expedient manner. Councilmember Colson discussed a project in the Downtown Area. She noted that it is in a mixed -use area and wondered if an 8 a.m. start time would be an issue. CDD Gardiner stated that the City used to have a 7 a.m. start time citywide. However, due to complaints from residents, the City amended the start time to 8 a.m. He noted that the Downtown project does have some residential neighbors within a block or two, while the commercial zone's closest neighbors are .25 to .50 miles away. CBO Caro stated that staff could amend the ordinance to state that anything that requires a compressor to operate would not be allowed during the 7 a.m. hour. Mayor Beach asked her colleagues if there was consensus to bring the proposed ordinance back with amendments to list specifications of what is not allowed during the 7 a.m. hour. The Council agreed, b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REMOVE AN EXEMPTION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS FROM THE BURLINGAME MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE City Attorney Kane stated that the Council recently adopted a minimum wage ordinance. She explained that during the Council's discussion, it was brought out that the model ordinances that the City's ordinance was based on included an exemption for certain collective bargaining agreements. She stated that Council directed staff to remove this exemption. She explained that Council determined that the best course of action was to adopt the minimum wage ordinance and bring back an amendment to remove the exemption for collective bargaining agreements. She noted that if adopted, this proposed ordinance would be effective prior to January 1, 2021 when the City's minimum wage ordinance would be effective. Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the title of the ordinance. 7 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Mayor Beach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to bring the ordinance back for adoption; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 10 STAFF REPORTS a. DISCUSSION OF AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION BUSINESSES CDD Gardiner stated that in 2018, the City Council adopted an ordinance that added regulations to the Code regarding cannabis. The City's ordinance, in compliance with State law, allows for the indoor cultivation of up to six cannabis plants. He explained that the City's ordinance prohibits commercial cannabis activities. He stated that the ordinance specifically prohibits the manufacture, processing, laboratory testing, labeling, storing, wholesale, and retail distribution of cannabis. CDD Gardiner stated that recently staff was approached by a business interested in establishing a cannabis sales and delivery facility in Burlingame. Allowing such a business to operate in Burlingame would require an amendment to the City's cannabis ordinance. He explained that a sales and delivery operation would most typically be located in an industrial area and would not include a retail storefront. He stated that the facility would process sales, which would then be delivered to customers in Burlingame and neighboring cities. He added that it is currently legal to make deliveries to residents in Burlingame. CDD Gardiner stated that while this facility would not have a public facing retail component, there would be sales transactions, and those would be subject to ordinary sales tax. He explained that the City could put a cannabis tax on the ballot for voter approval. This tax would be on top of the regular sales tax. CDD Gardiner stated that if the Council chooses to consider allowing cannabis sales and delivery operations, it could consider limiting the number and location of operations. He explained that Redwood City has limited facility permits to six, and Mountain View limited it to three permits. He stated that staff could research regulations from other jurisdictions and identify potential approaches that would address community concerns and objectives. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the staff report doesn't specify where in Burlingame these facilities would be allowed. She noted that she wouldn't want to see these facilities in the Downtown Area but would be okay with them on the Bayfront. She added that she would like to get crime statistics from the cities that have allowed these facilities and find out what security measures were put in place. She stated that she had 8 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 questions about how many trucks would be used, high volume hours, and what Brisbane's experience has been. CDD Gardiner stated that staff would look into the Vice Mayor's questions. Mayor Beach asked if the City would have any additional liability if Council allowed these facilities in Burlingame since cannabis remains illegal at the Federal level. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. She explained that the City is not partnering with the use and is instead permitting it. She stated that she believed any Federal actions that were taken would be directed at the State level versus at specific municipalities. Mayor Beach asked if the City could incur liability if the voters approved a cannabis tax. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. She explained that what is illegal under the Federal law is the behavior related to sale and possession of cannabis itself and not the governmental function of taxing and providing general City services. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. Eaze's Senior Governmental Affairs Manager Rashad Johnson began by discussing Eaze's background. He explained that Eaze is a web -based cannabis delivery company that has been operating since 2014. He reviewed the process by which customers pick out products for delivery. He noted that the company had to obtain a State license and must abide by the State's rigorous regulations of cannabis sale and delivery. He stated that deliveries are done in unmarked vehicles and that there have been zero incidents in Burlingame. Mr. Johnson discussed the potential for the City to implement a cannabis tax. He explained that the tax would likely be 5% in order to ensure that customers still preferred to obtain their products via Eaze, or a similar company, instead of illegally. He stated that Eaze estimates that if the City implemented a cannabis tax it would collect approximately $1 million in the first year from Eaze. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if Eaze had a problem with being limited to a certain industrial area to keep their business more remote from schools and businesses. Mr. Johnson replied in the negative. He discussed the State's requirements for buffer zones around areas like parks and schools. He stated that Eaze prefers to be in industrial zones because there is more parking for their drivers and to keep their business discreet Councilmember Brownrigg asked if he was correct that Eaze already delivers to Burlingame. Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. He noted that their company typically uses vehicles for deliveries and not trucks. Councilmember Colson explained that if the City amended the Code to allow these facilities, the Council would probably want to cap the number of facilities that would be allowed. She asked if Mr. Johnson had any thought as to the number of facilities that the City should allow. Mr. Johnson noted that Mountain View capped it at three, and Redwood City capped it at six. 9 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 Councilmember Colson asked how many deliveries Eaze is making in Burlingame. Mr. Johnson stated that in 2019, Eaze made 11,000 deliveries in Burlingame. He added that if Eaze had a facility in Burlingame, they would be making 250,000 deliveries a year on the Peninsula. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked Mr. Johnson to discuss security measures that Eaze implements at their facility. Mr. Johnson stated that there are a lot of State regulations as to the number of cameras, the need for roll -up doors, and 24-hour security. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked about signage on the building. Mr. Johnson stated that there is no signage on the building. He added that the public wouldn't know if they were repairing a car engine or selling cannabis in the building. He discussed the discretion they use when selling cannabis. Mayor Beach asked Mr. Johnson to discuss the different taxes that the City could receive if Council approves allowing these facilities in the city. Mr. Johnson stated that under State law, there is a sales tax on every order, and then the additional transaction fee would be a City cannabis sales tax. Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that the City is currently receiving sales tax off the 11,000 deliveries in Burlingame. Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that the only other potential tax revenue the City could get from these facilities would be if the voters approved a cannabis tax. Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. He explained that then the City would collect taxes on the estimate 250,000 deliveries that Eaze predicts it will do by operating a facility in Burlingame. Mayor Beach asked how many cities that have allowed these facilities have a cannabis tax. Mr. Johnson replied that he believed that all of them have a cannabis tax. San Mateo County Health Department representative Edith Cabuslay discussed the assessment that her organization conducted on cannabis delivery in San Mateo County. She noted that several concerns were raised including ensuring that the customer is at least 21 years old and who's responsible when products are delivered to underage individuals. Mr. Johnson stated that to even look at the products that Eaze offers on their website, you have to enter your driver's license information to confirm that you are at least 21. He added that then when the driver is delivering the product, they have to first scan the individual's license prior to handing over the product. He noted that if an operator was to give an underage individual cannabis, it would be the operator's fault. He added that he understands Ms. Cabuslay's concerns. However, he explained that Eaze takes care to ensure that their delivery staff understand the requirements. Mayor Beach closed public comment. Councilmember Ortiz stated that when the Council discussed legislating cannabis a few years ago, he was adamantly against allowing facilities in the city. However, he explained that he believed the Council now 10 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/19/2020 needed to explore this issue. He noted that he thought it would be important for the City to not allow a retail store front and for the facilities to be restricted to industrial areas. Mayor Beach asked Police Chief Matteucci if he had any thoughts on this topic. Chief Matteucci stated that he reached out to other cities that allow similar facilities. He noted that they didn't report any real problems with the facilities. He added that he would want to make sure the facility has proper security. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the question before the Council was whether to permit delivery from a central location in Burlingame to the entire Peninsula. He explained that in an era of COVID, he would be further inclined to move forward with this proposal. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that would like staff to further research this issue. She added that her main concern was security and that she wanted to see Chief Matteucci's questions answered. Councilmember Colson stated that she was willing to consider amending the City's cannabis ordinance. Mayor Beach echoed her colleagues and thought it was important to further explore this issue. She added that she would like to discuss a cannabis tax. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. COUNCILMEMBER BROWNRIGG'S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlin-a�g. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Beach adjourned the meeting thinking of those impacted by the Washington Park tree accident at 9:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 11 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Unapproved Minutes BUR— IN�AAGENDA NO: 8b STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: October 19, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 19, 2020 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance to Remove an Exemption for Collective Bargaining Agreements from the Burlingame Minimum Wage Ordinance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider adopting the attached proposed ordinance amending Chapter 6.10 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to remove an exemption for collective bargaining agreements from the local minimum wage. The Council may adopt the ordinance by motion. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Following public outreach and consideration in multiple meetings, the Council adopted a local minimum wage requirement for Burlingame. Under the ordinance, which is codified in Chapter 6.10 of the Municipal Code, businesses in the City are required to pay $15.00/hour beginning on January 1, 2021. That ordinance contains certain limited exceptions to the minimum wage requirement, including one covering instances in which a wage below the local minimum has been negotiated as part of a collective bargaining agreement that meets certain notice conditions. At its meeting on September 21, 2020, Council directed that staff return with an ordinance removing this exemption from the local minimum wage requirement. The proposed ordinance attached to this report would make that change. It was introduced and a public hearing was held at the Council's October 5, 2020 meeting. Council directed that the ordinance be brought back for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact to the City from this action. Exhibit: Proposed Ordinance 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 6.10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REMOVE AN EXEMPTION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS FROM THE LOCAL MINIMUM WAGE WHEREAS, the Burlingame City Council held multiple meetings, conducted public outreach, and considered the implications of adopting a local minimum wage; and WHEREAS, at its meetings of September 8, 2020 and September 21, 2020, the Council held a public hearing on and then adopted a local minimum wage ordinance; and WHEREAS, under that ordinance, businesses in Burlingame will be required to pay fifteen dollars per hour, with certain limited exceptions, beginning on January 1, 2021; and WHEREAS, the minimum wage ordinance that was adopted contains an exemption for certain collective bargaining agreements; and WHEREAS, in the interest of time and providing certainty to businesses, Council determined to adopt the ordinance as presented in September 2020; and WHEREAS, Council simultaneously directed that an immediate amendment to the minimum wage ordinance be brought back to remove the exemption for collective bargaining agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: DIVISION 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 6.10 is amended as follows: The text and section heading for Section 6.10.060 Waiver Through Collective Bargaining is deleted in its entirety. In its stead, the codified version of Section 6.10.060 shall be noted as [Reserved]. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. DIVISION 3: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect 30 days after adoption. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of October, 2020, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk �e Avovwi To: Date: From: STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council October 19, 2020 AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: October 19. 2020 Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Supporting the Submission of Grant Applications for the California Drive Bicycle Facility Project and the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project under the San Mateo County Transportation Authority Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Programs RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions supporting the submission of grant applications for the California Drive Bicycle Facility Project, and the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project, under the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Programs. BACKGROUND On August 7, 2020, the SMCTA issued a Call for Projects (CFP) under the Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs, with an application submittal deadline of September 21, 2020. Under the Measure A & W Programs, an agency can submit up to a maximum of three projects, in a total amount up to $5,000,000, for grant funding. Large infrastructure applications are limited to $2,000,000 per request, and small infrastructure projects are limited to $700,000 per request, with a minimum 10% local funding match requirement. In addition, the program requires that the sponsoring agency provide a governing board resolution supporting each project grant application, along with meeting the eligibility criteria. The deadline for submitting the governing board resolution is November 2, 2020. DISCUSSION Staff reviewed the grant application criteria and eligibility requirements, identified two projects as strong candidates, and submitted applications as follows: 1. California Drive Bicycle Facility Project The proposed project will, at a minimum, create 0.75 miles of a Class II or better bicycle facility along California Drive, between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue. This segment of California Drive is a major uninterrupted north — south commuter corridor. The project aims to enhance bike connectivity across the city while improving the safety, comfort, and 1 SMCTA Measure A & W Grant Applications October 19, 2020 attractiveness of bicycling for people of varying ages and abilities. As the City has recently completed construction of dedicated Class II bike lanes on California Drive from Murchison Avenue to north of Broadway, this project will extend the continuation of the newly improved Class II bikeway south, linking surrounding residential areas, local businesses, schools, parks, and existing as well as planned housing projects to the Millbrae BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Intermodal Station, Broadway Caltrain Station, the Burlingame Caltrain Station, Downtown Burlingame Avenue, and Broadway Commercial District. Initial outreach for this project was conducted as part of the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan effort. This project is recognized by the Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), and the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission (TSPC) as a high -priority location. Additionally, this project was identified as a high -priority project for bicycle improvements during the outreach efforts for the City's General Plan Update in 2019. California Drive currently has two lanes in each direction between Broadway and the Burlingame Avenue downtown area. Currently, the roadway is shared by bicyclists and motorists through the provision of sharrows (Class III bicycle facility), which presents concerns from members of the bicycling community. The roadway is increasingly used by bicyclists traveling between the transit stations and commercial and residential areas, schools and parks, and is in need of improved bicycle facility infrastructure. This project will create a Class II or better bicycle facility along a high -stress corridor, reconfigure the roadway with traffic calming elements to improve accessibility, and enhance safety through the provision of improved signage and striping along the corridor. The estimated total project cost of the California Drive Bicycle Facility Project is approximately $1,070,000. This includes project development, community outreach, design, and construction completion. The City is requesting up to $800,000 of the Measure A & W funds under the Large Capital Project category of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program for the construction phase of the project. The City will provide matching funds of $270,000 for project development, community outreach, design, and a portion of construction. 2. Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements The proposed project prioritizes creating a safe, attractive, and accessible pedestrian network to and from the Burlingame Caltrain Station to the nearby Burlingame Community Center, schools, tennis courts, the Burlingame Aquatic Center, parks, as well as the neighboring communities. The proposed project includes the enhancement of pedestrian accessibility such as construction of new crosswalks, extended sidewalks, curb ramps, curb extensions, and bio-retention areas at the intersection of East Lane and Burlingame Avenue. Through a robust community outreach process, this project was identified, recommended, and approved by the City Council as part of the Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Report. The project goals are to address concerns of traffic speeds, pedestrian access and connectivity, sight distance, and visibility of this unique intersection layout. The project is located adjacent to the east side of the Burlingame Caltrain Station and within 200 feet of a railroad crossing, and connects to Washington Park, Burlingame 2 SMCTA Measure A & W Grant Applications October 19, 2020 High School, the Burlingame Community Center, the tennis courts and the Burlingame Aquatic Center. The existing site conditions include a long crosswalk with controlled stops at only two of the three offset approaches. The proposed improvements aim to increase awareness and visibility of pedestrians, slow vehicular speeds at intersections, shorten pedestrian crossing distance, and promote walking. The estimated total project cost of the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project is approximately $890,000. This includes project development and community outreach, both of which have been completed, as well as design and construction completion. The City is requesting up to $600,000 of the Measure A & W funds under the Small Capital Project category of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program for the construction phase of the project. The City will provide matching funds of $290,000 for the project. Both the Community BPAC and TSPC have provided letters of support for both grant applications. Staff has reviewed the grant funding agreement and program requirements, including but not limited to the City's commitment to complete the project scope within the required time frame of five years (two years for pre -construction activities and three years for construction). In addition, staff certifies that the San Mateo County Transportation Authority Measure A & W funds awarded in this cycle (Fiscal Year 2021 and 2022) will be used to supplement existing funds, and will not replace existing funds per the non -supplantation of funds requirement in this grant program. FISCAL IMPACT The preliminary estimated cost of both projects is approximately $1,960,000, and staff has applied for $1,400,000 in grant funds. The remaining $560,000 is required as a local match from the General Fund upon approval of the grant. Exhibits: • Resolution for the California Drive Bicycle Facility Project • Resolution for the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project • California Drive Bicycle Facility Project Location Map • Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project Location Map • California Drive Bicycle Facility Project Grant Application Packet • Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvement Project Grant Application Packet 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE BICYCLE FACILITY PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame (Sponsor) has identified California Drive as an important major north -south commuter corridor; and WHEREAS, California Drive, between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue, is a roadway with two lanes in each direction currently shared by both bicyclists and motorists through the provision of sharrows (Class III bicycle facility); and WHEREAS, California Drive is increasingly used by bicyclists traveling between the transit stations and commercial and residential areas, schools and parks, and is identified as a high - priority location in need of improved bicycle facility infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the Sponsor has developed the California Drive Bicycle Facility Project (Project) to address the bicycle facility infrastructure needs by creating 0.75 miles of a Class II or better bicycle facility along California Drive between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue in an effort to achieve the following goals: 1. Improving the safety, comfort, and attractiveness of bicycling for people of varying ages and abilities along a high -stress corridor; and 2. Extending the continuation of the newly improved Class II bikeway south, linking surrounding residential areas, schools, parks, local businesses, and existing and planned housing projects to the Millbrae BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Intermodal Station, Broadway Caltrain Station, the Burlingame Caltrain Station, Downtown Burlingame Avenue, and Broadway Commercial District. WHEREAS, it will cost $1,070,000 to implement the Project scope; and WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $800,000 for the Project; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) issued a Call for Projects for the Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on August 7, 2020; and WHEREAS, the TA requires a governing board resolution from the Sponsor for the following items: 1. Supporting the Project and application for $800,000 in TA Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for the Project. 2. Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $270,000 needed for implementation. 3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources. 4. Authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to sign a funding agreement with the TA, if funds are awarded, for TA pedestrian and bicycle program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame: 1. Directs staff to submit an application for TA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $800,000 for the California Drive Bicycle Facility Project. 2. Authorizes the City Manager or her designee to execute a funding agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to encumber any TA Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds awarded. 3. Commits to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of $270,000 of matching funds needed for implementation, if awarded the requested TA funds. 4. Certifies that any funds awarded by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources. 5. Take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 191" day of October, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING THE BURLINGAME STATION PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame (Sponsor) has identified the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and East Lane as a high -activity pedestrian access between the Burlingame Caltrain Station and the nearby Burlingame Community Center, schools, tennis courts, Burlingame Aquatic Center, parks, and neighborhood communities; and WHEREAS, the intersection is located adjacent to the east access of the Burlingame Caltrain Station and within 200 feet of a railroad crossing; and WHEREAS, the existing site conditions include a long crosswalk with controlled stops at only two of the three offset approaches, with concerns of traffic speeds, sight distance, and visibility; and WHEREAS, the Sponsor has developed the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project (Project) to enhance pedestrian accessibility, increase awareness and visibility of pedestrians, slow vehicular speeds at intersections, shorten pedestrian crossing distance, and promote walking; and WHEREAS, it will cost $890,000 to implement the Project scope; and WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $600,000 for the Project; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) issued a Call for Projects for the Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on August 7, 2020; and WHEREAS, the TA requires a governing board resolution from the Sponsor for the following items: 1. Supporting the Project and application for $600,000 in TA Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for the Project. 2. Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $290,000 needed for implementation. 3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities and will not replace existing funds or resources. 4. Authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to sign a funding agreement with the TA, if funds are awarded, for TA pedestrian and bicycle program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame: 1. Directs staff to submit an application for TA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $600,000 for the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project. 2. Authorizes the City Manager, or her designee, to execute a funding agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to encumber any TA Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds awarded. 3. Commits to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of $290,000 of matching funds needed for implementation, if awarded the requested TA funds. 4. Certifies that any funds awarded by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities and will not replace existing funds or resources. 5. Takes any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19t" day of October, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk California Drive Bicycle Facility Project Project Location Map Sky Hiqh Sports ►i 1. }i1-1 1F,1 Ttfsx�rly ck , _J ,r; x: elr� - i�i I lon S art Francisco-.. op Crowns PEaza San 8ys;de Parrs } �� - Hinon San F FrancFsra'Airparl Icrnporwiiv lai!� AirportBa IN Valero .' -. :.� A,nza Parking SFG �B U R L I N G A M E Audf'--_ rdingam -- —� - ... GATE - + 18t Cafe Figaro 4�7RE �� � � I*elian rrrtairart � �*OAK GROVE ALIALINGAME fM AN0R TERRACEW, O N { 4 B U FI L I N G A Utifashinc�tan Park TERRAr,15 wr Burlingame® fc s ,' �Lo- DOWNTOW14 � a ` {� Putn 4 #park ..� ���� T i ourt•� `� 01. r ` a r _ _ /J • �r �flf .� =.4 fff, �i frf ff is - - � � l {• `!iJ Jf .r/f r+�•rr rrl,• ~ '�•� ' T� SAN MATED COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATION CHECKLIST REQUIRED - SEE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR DETAILS Application Form Attachment A: Cover Letter aAttachment B: Letters of Support/Community Engagement Documentation aAttachment C: Site Photos Attachment D: Project Location Map (Must use mapping tool in Application Instructions) aAttachment E: GHG Emission Reduction and VMT Impact aAttachment F: Cost Estimates Attachment G: TIMS ATP Maps and Summary Data Printout OPTIONAL Attachment H: Letter of Partnership Intent (if applicable) aAttachment I: Other Documentation Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 12 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT APPLICATION FORM PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Sponsor Agency Name: City of Burlingame Sponsor Agency Address: 501 Primrose Road Burlingame 94010 City: State: CA Zip: Contact Name: Andrew Wong, P.E. Contact Title: Senior Civil Engineer Contact Phone: 650-558-7230 Contact E-mail: awong@burlingame.org Are you partnering with another agency? O Yes O No If YES, please provide Partnering Agency information: Partnering Agency Name: Partnering Agency Address: City: State: CA Zip: Contact Name: Contact Title: Contact Phone: Contact E-mail: If YES, please submit Attachment H: Letter of Partnership Intent from each agency outlining roles, responsibilities, and respective funding contributed. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Forn. Page 13 Am SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS 2. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: California Drive Bicycle Facility Project Type (choose from drop down): Large Infrastructure Project Location/Limits. City of Burlingame, California Drive between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue Project Scope: Example: Construction of 4 curb extensions and pedestrian -scale lighting will provide added safety for pedestrians and/or bicyclists at this busy intersection. Note: Maximum 500 characters (approximately 100 words) Construct approximately 0.75 miles of bicycle network along California Drive, between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue, to enhance north/south connectively across the City while improving the safety, comfort, and attractiveness of bicycling for people of varying ages and abilities. For planning & budgeting purposes, a Class II or better bicycle facility is proposed. Details of final design will be analyzed and vetted through the project design process involving community outreach and input. 3. PROJECT DETAILS Note: Do not double count infrastructure that serves both pedestrians and bicyclists. Select the category that best serves the primary intended user of the project. List linear feet or number of each item in the total scope of work as specified in the respective category. Do not count the number of intersections. For example, if a project is upgrading eight curb ramps at one intersection, enter 8 in the form. BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE New Bikeways (in centerline linear feet) Class I Shared Use Paths: Class II Buffered Bicycle Lanes: Class IV Separated Bikeway: Class II Bicycle Lanes: Class III Bicycle Routes: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 14 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE Upgraded Bikeways (converting an existing bikeway to a new classification or widening/paving Class I Shared Use Path) (in centerline linear feet) Class I Shared Use Paths: Class II Bicycle Lanes: 3,800.00 Class II Buffered Bicycle Lanes: Class III Bicycle Routes: Class IV Separated Bikeway: Signalized Intersections (number) New Bike Boxes: Timing Improvements: Un-Signalized Intersections (number) New RRFB/Signal: g Crossing -Surface Improvement: 3 Mid -Block Crossings/Driveways (number) New RRFB/Signal: Crossing -Surface Improvement: Lighting Roadway for Facility Segments Intersection (number): (linear feet): Bike Parking (number of bicycle spaces) New Racks: New Lockers: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 15 T SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE Describe and quantify any Other Bicycle/Trail Improvements not listed already 8 Class III Sharrow at beginning of side streets, replace 10 existing storm drain inlets with bicycle approved grates and adjust storm drain apron to address ride comfort. PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE Sidewalks (linear feet) New (4' to 8' wide): Widen Existing: New (over 8' wide): Reconstruct/Enhance Existing: New Barrier Protected (Barrier, parking, functional -planter, etc.): Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 16 Am SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE ADA Ramp Improvements (number) New Ramp (none exist): Reconstruct Ramp to Standard: Signalized Intersections (number) New Crosswalk: Enhanced Existing Crosswalk: 2 Ped-Heads: Shorten Crossing: Timing Improvements: Un-Signalized Intersections (number) New Traffic Signal: New Roundabout/Mini Traffic Circle: New RRFB/Signal: Crossing -Surface Improvements: 2 Shorten Crossing: Mid -Block Crossing (number) New RRFB/Signal: Crossing -Surface Improvements: Lighting Intersection (number): Roadway Segments (linear feet): Pedestrian Amenities (number) Benches: Trash Cans: Shade Trees: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 17 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE Describe and quantify any Other Pedestrian Improvements not listed already Curb extension (bulb -out) at 1 mid -block crossing. 4. PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY Funding Request: $ 800,000.00 Total Project Cost: $ 1,070,000.00 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 18 Am IfIF SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS PART B: EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. PROJECT READINESS (0-15 points) COMMUNITY SUPPORT Describe the community outreach effort for the project and summarize feedback received. Please consider the following questions in your response: • How has community feedback been incorporated into the project? • What is the level of interest in the project? • Have any specific concerns been raised? • List all non -sponsor stakeholders that have taken a formal position on the project. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Initial outreach for this project have been introduced as part of the City's Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan effort. This project is recognized by the Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission as a high priority location. In addition, this project was identified as high priority during the outreach for the 2019 General Plan Update. During the GP update, the community desired improved bicycle facilities along the California Drive. For this project, the community will develop and finalize design through workshops (in -person or virtually) and meetings with stakeholders; then go straight into PS&E. Concerns raised about the existing roadway conditions include its wide right-of-way with high traffic speeds and bicycle facilities consisting of only sharrows . Communities want a low -stress bikeway that calms traffic & provide/increase separation from vehicles, connects communities, and serves its transit dependent population. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 19 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS RIGHT-OF-WAY Pick one: Project is entirely within the Implementing Agency's right-of-way and/or is within their Ocontrol at the time of this application submittal. (This includes temporary construction easements) Project will likely require right-of-way in fee ownership, permanent easements and/or O temporary construction easements from private owners and/or will require utility relocations from utility companies outside that implementing agency's governmental control. PERMITS, AGREEMENTS, AND/OR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE List all permits, agreements and environmental clearance (both CEQA and NEPA) approved and/or needed, to date. Permit/Agreements/Environmental Clearance Status (Approved/Needed) Date Approved (or leave blank) CEQA Categorical Exemption Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Forn. Page 1 10 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS PROJECT SCHEDULE Indicate the anticipated beginning and end date for each phase of the project. • If a phase is not applicable for this application, write "N/A". • If the PS&E phase is currently underway at the time the application is submitted, indicate the percent complete to date: 35%, 65%, or 90%. Month and Year Phase Phase Start Phase End Pre -Project Planning Dec-20 Aug-21 Project Approval (PA) & Environmental Document (ED) Sep-21 Nov-21 Current Percent plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E) Dec-21 Apr-22 Complete ROW Acquisition and Utilities Coordination Construction and Procurement Jul-22 Oct-22 OVERALL PROJECT FUNDING Project Scope Phases Total Cost A+B ( ) Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Request (A) Other Matching Funding (B) Pre -Project Planning $ 120,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 120,000.00 PE/Environmental $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Design (PS&E) $ 90,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 90,000.00 Right -of -Way $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Construction $ 860,000.00 $ 800,000.00 $ 60,000.00 TOTALS $ 1,070,000.00 $ 800,000.00 $ 270,000.00 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 11 Am SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS PROJECT FUNDING Discuss any potential funding shortfalls or risks associated with any of the listed funding sources, and how they will be addressed. If the project is a large capital infrastructure project with a funding gap, as defined in section 7.c. of the Call for Projects Guidelines, what is the plan to close the funding gap within the allotted one-year period? Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) The City of Burlingame foresees no potential funding shortfalls or risks associated with any of the listed funding source. Overall project funding accounts for standard increase in labor and material cost. Since this is a high priority project with overwhelming City wide community support to improve bicycle safety and accessibility, if this project was not selected for Measure A & W funds, the City will continue with the design process with community input and PS&E phases and will plan accordingly to allocate local City funds for the construction phase at a later time. However, if this project was selected, the Measure A & W funds will guarantee construction of this project as planned. Can the project be divided into phases or segments if full funding is not available? ONo O Yes If YES, describe the different phases/segments and costs associated with each. Note: Maximum 1,500 characters (approximately 250 words) With the strong community support and regional significance of this project, the City will complete this project at some point in the future. If full grant funding is not available, the City consider these funds in conjuction with additional Clty funds to be applied towards the construction phase. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 12 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS 2. FUNDING LEVERAGE (0-10 points) FUNDING LEVERAGE Using the table below, indicate the sources of funding as well as the percentages that have been secured for the proposed Measure A & W project work scope. Attach separate documentation if additional rows are needed. • If other Measure A & W funds are involved, be specific about the program. • If any of the match is from the private sector, specify the source (e.g. development impact fees, developer contribution, easement or donated land value). • A ten percent match, at a minimum, is required. Funding Source Total Value Source Type Measure A & W Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Request $ 800,000.00 Public Local City Match $ 270,000.00 Public $ Public $ Public $ Public $ Public $ Public $ Public $ Public TOTAL PROJECT COST $ Total matching funds to be provided: $ 270,000.00 Total project costs: $ 1,070,000.00 Local match percentage (must be equal to or greater than 10%): 25.23 (total matching funds provided _ total project cost) Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 13 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS 3. PROJECT NEED (0-19 points) CURRENT CONDITIONS Describe the existing site conditions and active transportation need that this project aims to address. Support narrative with relevant site photos and photo captions in Attachment C: Site Photos. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) California Drive, between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue is a multilane, 63-ft wide roadway consisting of four vehicle travel lanes with some left -turn lanes. This major uninterrupted north/south corridor, identified as a high stress roadway by the SMCo 2020 Bikeway Network. Currently there are Class III (sharrows) bicycle facilities along the whole segment, with on -street parking on both sides, but no sidewalks along the eastern side. The project would utilize the existing roadway width and adjust existing vehicle travel lanes and parking lanes to accommodate the improved bicycle facility. This project would connect to the newly improved Class II bikeway to the north, linking surrounding residential areas and local businesses to the Millbrae BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Intermodal Station, Broadway Caltrain Station, and the Burlingame Caltrain Station. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 14 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS CURRENT CONDITIONS Describe the documented safety conditions in the project area. Support narrative with results of Attachment G: TIMS ATP Maps and Summary Data Printout. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Bicycle safety is a major concern for bicyclists riding along California Drive as it is a high-speed roadway with an 85th percentile speed of 39 mph (posted 35 mph). A summary of documented pedestrian and bicycle collisions report generated by UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System, included as Attachment G, indicates between the 2009 and 2019 were a total of 14 collisions involving bicycles and total 2 collisions involving pedestrians. 29% of the bicycle collisions and 50% of pedestrian collisions were severe or worst. The total number of collisions along the project area account for 10.4% and 1.3% of total the City-wide bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions, respectively. The collision map in Attachment G shows that bicycle collisions occurred throughout the length of the project limits, supporting concerns of bicycle facilities consisting of only "sharrows" along a high-speed roadway. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 15 T SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED WALKING AND BICYCLING Which users will benefit from this project? Check all that apply. ❑� Bicyclists aPedestrians �✓ Public transit riders (bus and rail) Other micromobility users (e.g. e-scooters) What is the primary purpose of the facility? Check one. WTransportation (access to employment, school, or other destinations) ❑ Will serve both purposes equally Recreation and Health PLAN CONSISTENCY Is Project recognized in adopted or draft statewide, regional, county or local planning and fund programming documents (e.g. San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, City Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Plan, Vision Zero Plan, Specific Plan, Climate Action Plan)? OYes ONo Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 16 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS PLAN CONSISTENCY List up to five (5) planning documents or policies with the publication date and the page upon which the project can be found. If your project is identified as a high priority project, indicate that in the table below. Document or Policy High Priority Draft or Adopted Publication Year Page Numbers Burlingame General Plan Yes Adopted 2019 M-13, M-24 Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan Yes Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan Yes Adopted 2004 C-15 SMC Bike/Pedestrian Plan No Adopted 2011 22 Burlingame Downtown Specific No Adopted 2010 7-4 If the project is not specifically identified in a planning or policy document, describe how it supports or is consistent with state, regional, or local plan and policy goals. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 17 Am IfIF SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS 4. PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS (0-42 points) How does the project provide new or improved transportation options in an area with a mix of residential, employment, transit, or other high -density activity centers? Support narrative with Attachment D: Project Location Map. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) The project improves the north & south connectively in the City for bicyclists of varying abilities, especially those accessing the City's high -density activity centers from our upcoming Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) (see Attachment D). To the north of the project are approximately 10 high -density activity centers within a 1/2 mile radius, including Broadway Station, banks, churches, schools, and the Broadway Downtown Area of local shops businesses, usually low -profit margin establishments that employ a fair number of minimum wage workers. To the south of the project are 20 high -density activity centers within a 1/2 mile radius, including the Burlingame Caltrain Station, the Main Library, parks, high school, and elementary school. The project also provides a continuation of the newly implemented low -stress bikeway network north of Broadway, linking the Millbrae BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Intermodal Station to Burlingame communities. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 18 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS PROXIMITY TO ACTIVITY CENTERS For a definition of activity centers, see application guidelines under Attachment D: Project Location Map. Number of Activity Centers located within % mile from proposed project: 9 Number of Activity Centers located between % and Y miles from proposed project: 21 What are the features of your project and/or project area that will encourage more people to walk or bike? Consider addressing how the proposed project: • Fills in a gap or extends the active transportation network • Upgrades the existing active transportation network to better accommodate users of all ages and abilities • Eliminates a physical or high -stress barrier (e.g., highway, major arterial, rail line, other safety issue) in the active transportation network • Reduces or eliminates out of direction travel to local or regionally -serving employment, housing, and/or amenities resulting in travel time savings Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 The project will create a Class II or better facility along a major high stress corridor, reconfigure the roadway with traffic calming elements to improve accessibility and enhance safety. A Class II or better bicycle facility will encourage and attract bicycling for people of varying ages and abilities. This project fills a gap in the bike facilities between San Mateo and and our Class II facility north of Broadway. The project will also connect bicyclists to the California Drive roundabout at California Drive and Lorton Avenue/Bellevue which was designed to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. This project will reinvent California Drive as a fully multimodal corridor and create a "backbone" for our future improvements from our soon to be finalized Bike/Ped Master Plan. Improvements include enhanschools, parks, Caltrain, and commercial areas. separate bike lane and improved pedestrian connections. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 19 Am SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS 5. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY (0-14 points) Describe how the project serves high density/affordable housing (e.g. Priority Development Areas) in proximity to high quality transit service (high ridership & frequent service). Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Through the 2019 General Plan Update, community feedback included a strong desire to accommodate growth in targeted areas well -served by transit. This includes 2,951 new housing units and 9,731 new jobs (see in Table CX-1 of the 2019 General Plan). Also discussed in Chapter 4 of the 2019 General Plan, growth will be targeted in areas providing opportunities for TODs close to transit (BART and CalTrain), services, and the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway commercial districts. California Drive bridges the gap between these areas. For this reason, California Drive is identified as a focus in Mobility chapter of the 2019 Updated General Plan in fulfilling State requirements for the Circulation Element and outlining policies to improve all modes of travel throughout Burlingame, with an emphasis on improvement for cyclists and pedestrians. Describe how the project serves low income, transit dependent and/or other vulnerable populations. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) The project is close to high -density apartment buildings located between California Drive and El Camino Real, and it is situated along a TOD corridor. This project would serve a low income and transit- dependent population with its proximity to transit, including the Burlingame Caltrain Station and SamTrans stops. In addition, the project site has various small retail, automotive repair -related businesses, small restaurants and cafe establishments, along the west side of California Drive. These shops and businesses are low -profit margin establishments that employ a fair number of minimum wage workers. Many employees cannot afford to drive and pay for parking; instead, they rely on transit and bicycling to commute to their place of employment or business. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 120 Am IfIF SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY Does the project meet any of the following criteria? (Mark all that apply) Note: If the answer is yes to any of these questions, include documentation and the census tract numbers in Attachment 1: Other Documentation. ❑The project is located in or crosses through a census tract with a school where 75% or more students are eligible for Free or Reduced Priced Meals. ❑The project is located in or crosses through a census tract with a CalEnviroscreen 3.0 score above 25% most disadvantaged (score greater than 39.34). ❑The project is located in or crosses through a census tract with a Healthy Places Index percentile less than 25%. ❑The project is located in or crosses through a census tract with a Median Household Income of less than $56,982. The project is located in or crosses through an MTC Community of Concern. Describe any elements of the project that include low environment impact/green infrastructure. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Increasing bicycling activity, whether for commuting or recreational purposes, translates to decreases in automobile trip lengths and can have a significant effect on both emissions and fuel consumption. Within the Sustainable Development section of the City's 2019 General Plan, it is one of the City's goals to create walkable and bike -friendly neighborhoods with higher -density, mixed -use, infill development around transit stations to reduce vehicle trips and associated pollutant emissions. The environmental benefit is a by-product of this project includes reduced fuel and natural resource consumption, while limiting the emission of greenhouse gas. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 121 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS Describe the long-term operations and maintenance needs for the project and how this will be funded. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words After project completion, the City will monitor and gather data through the use of Streetlight Data application to confirm the effectiveness of the improvements. Through the City's new joint subscription of Streetlight Data with C/CAG members, the City can compare existing (pre -Shelter In Place) traffic analysis and bicycle metrics with new data being collected following the improvements. Data supporting the effectiveness the improvements will be used to promote future bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the City. Long-term maintenance of the project improvements include regular maintenance of bicycle facility and lane sweeping, which will be performed by City staff. Any adjustments needed overtime to accommodate, improve and better safety and comfort, adjustments will be done by either City staff or contract with the City. The above operation and maintenance plan, including joint subscription to Streetlight Data will all be funded by local City funds. Describe how the project supports existing economic activity and/or new economic development in the immediate vicinity (e.g. new housing production, job access, outdoor recreation industry). Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Planned, at the south end of the project limits, is a new five -story, 24-unit live/work project at 509-511 California Drive and a a new five -story, 26-unit live/work development at the corner of California Drive and Floribunda Avenue. Both of which will served by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 122 CITY Rporxwr City of Burlingame PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD CORPORATION YARD (650) 558-7230 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 (650) 558-7670 Attachment A Subject: PEDESTRIAN AND BICYLE PROGRAM Cycle 5 — Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022 To: San Mateo County Transportation Authority Officials Thank you for the opportunity to submit an application for the Cycle 5 - Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program- Call for Projects. The City of Burlingame (City) is pleased to submit the California Drive Bicycle Facility Protect for your consideration. The City of Burlingame's Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan identifies the California Drive Bicycle Facility project as a high priority bicycle improvements project connecting the surrounding residential areas and local businesses to the Millbrae BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Intermodal Station, Broadway Caltrain Station, Burlingame Caltrain Station, Downtown Burlingame and Broadway Commercial District. The planned bicycle improvements along California Drive will connect the regional bicycle route system along San Mateo Drive in the City of San Mateo to Burlingame, and continue through the City of Millbrae. In addition, the proposed bicycle improvement project serves students, youths, and parents commuting to many schools, parks, playgrounds, historic sites and the Burlingame Community Center to residential areas. The proposed project will at a minimum, create 0.75 miles of a Class 11 bicycle facility with a potential to be further enhanced to a Class IV facility along California Drive, between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue. This segment of California Drive is a major uninterrupted north — south commuter corridor, enhancing connectivity across the City while improving the safety, comfort, and attractiveness of bicycling for people of varying ages and abilities. The estimated total project cost of the California Drive Bicycle Facility is approximately $1,070,000. This includes project development, community outreach, design, and construction completion. The City is requesting up to $800,000 of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Cycle 5 - Measure A & W funds for the construction phase of the project. The City will provide matching funds of $270,000 for project development, community outreach, design, and portion of construction. The Licensed Engineer in `responsible charge' of the application has reviewed all information presented in the project cost estimates, included as Attachment F, and certifies the values are consistent with the corresponding information in the application. The City has reviewed the grant funding agreement, and will be pleased to comply with all the grant program requirements, including but not limited to our commitment to complete the project scope within the required time frame and follow the requirements of the grant. In addition, the City certifies that the San Mateo County Transportation Authority Measure A & W funds awarded in this cycle (Fiscal Year 2021 and 2022) will be used to supplement existing funds, and will not replace existing funds per the non-supplantion of funds requirements in this grant program. As part of the application requirements, the City will also provide the San Mateo County Transportation Authority with a City of Burlingame City Council resolution no later than November 2, 2020. Please let us know if you have any questions, otherwise we look forward to hearing back from you. Very truly yours, ;45— Syed Murtuza Public Works Director City of Burlingame September 21, 2020 r< .� .:,1, 4 1 . ~ l i City of Burlingame BURL1iVGAME Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission September 17, 2020 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Attn: Ms Jennifer Williams 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 RE: Support of City of Burlingame Pedestrian & Bicycle Program, Cycle 5 Grant Application for the California Drive Bicycle Facility Improvement Project Transportation Authority Board Members: On behalf of the Burlingame Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, I am pleased to write this letter in support of the City of Burlingame's California Drive Bicycle Facility Improvements Project. The City of Burlingame (City) is seeking an infrastructure grant is to improve and promote bicyclist safety by improving the existing Class III bicycle facilities along California Drive from Broadway to Oak Grove Avenue. This project along with Burlingame's California Drive Roundabout Project will significantly improve San Mateo County's North -South County Bicycle Route. Options for improving the existing facility include enhancing it to a Class II facility or better. Options and initial outreach for this segment have already been introduced as part of the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan effort which is currently wrapping up We strongly support this project as it embraces our goal and vision to improved safety, health, and residential quality -of -life through transportation network improvements that prioritizes walking and bicycle improvements near schools, parks, Caltrain, commercial areas, and other major destinations. The project will significantly improve approximately 0.75 miles of the existing network with options such as buffered bicycle lanes or separated bikeways along California Drive, between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue, including better signage and pavement markings. We, as a Commission, fully support this project because it will expand transportation options in the City and improve the use of active transportation by providing the critical biking infrastructure that will benefit our community. Sincerely, /1-,_14 Lynn Israelit Chair Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission t September 20th, 2020 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Attn: Ms. Jennifer Williams 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 Re: City of Burlingame Cycle 5 Grant Application for California Drive Transportation Authority Board Members: Burlingame's BPAC offers support for the City of Burlingame — California Drive bicycle facility enhancement with conditions. California Drive is a critically important piece of our bicycle network within Burlingame. This stretch provides a link between Burlingame's two downtowns as well as access to both Burlingame's Caltrain stations. In Burlingame's recent bikelped master plan process, BPAC has highlighted this stretch of road as having the very highest strategic level of importance. Since CCVIC, we see cyclists of all ages and abilities on this stretch of California Drive, which is currently not safe enough to accommodate them. VVe support a class 4 bike facility with a road diet that keeps cyclists protected from traffic on the road itself and from cars turning in and out of the businesses along California Drive. We would not support a project that squeezes in a bike facility without calming traffic. The City of Burlingame has indicated its support for the former, however it must be noted that either option is a possible outcome. We hope that this critical stretch of road can be made much safer for all cyclists. Sincerely, Lesley Beatty Chairperson Burlingame BPAC Alr,.Vr.IF Z TP n7a rhe, rawh nkV Community Workshop #21 r--1 Wednesday, November 20,2019 1111rP=30�M Burlingame Rec. Center Please join us for an update of the planning process and to view draft network recommendations. P O R A T`, C • 1 For •re informationPT www= 1 ci��a7 .wal kbike u rl i ngame.com Wr I MEMORANDUM 304 1211 Street, Suite 2A Oakland, CA 94607 (510) 540-5008 www.altaplanning.com To: Michael Tsai — City of Burlingame From: Otto Melara —Alta Planning + Design Date: June 24, 2019 Re: Public Outreach Summary [Last update: 6/18/19] Comments gathered from: 1. Burlingame Parks and Recreation Workshop- 4/24/19 2. Farmer's Market Pop up — 5/25/19 3. Burlingame Intermediate School: BPAC hosted engagement activity — 5/30/19 4. Walkbikeburlingame.com online interactive comment map — 4/24/19 to present Summary Public outreach for Burlingame's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update kicked -off with two events in Spring 2019: A kick-off public workshop held at Burlingame Parks and Recreation (4/24) and a pop up at the Burlingame Farmer's Market (5/12). The public workshop was held at the Burlingame Recreation Center, a location well -utilized and familiar to Burlingame residents, and was attended by over 35 people. The Burlingame Sunday Farmer's Market is a year-round, weekly market with both foods and local crafts, located in downtown Burlingame. Alta project members tabled at each of these events and engaged with over 50 residents of Burlingame, who were able to offer helpful comments on biking and walking conditions throughout the city. A majority of the comments from the kick-off workshop focused on improving active transportation safety and connectivity and safety around key areas at or near major thoroughfares. The Farmer's Market comments focused on connections to and improvement of the Bay Trail, as well as better street and sidewalk conditions. With the help of Burlingame's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), comments were gathered from over 100 students of Burlingame Intermediate School. Their comments focused on safety and intersection treatments around the schools, as well as active transportation connectivity to downtown from the school area. Lastly, the public entered over 450 comments into the project's interactive web -based map survey, walkbikeburlingame.com. Many of the sentiments from the events were repeated, such as safety around schools. Web comments also included a desire for improvement of existing bike facilities. Corridors receiving Burlingame Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 11 Public Outreach Summary the greatest number of comments were Broadway Avenue, El Camino Real, California Drive, and the downtown area. Below is a list of the aggregated feedback gathered from all comment sources, organized by common and major theme. This is not a complete list of every public comment, rather a summary of key comment themes, synthesized from the kick-off workshop, Farmer's Market, school survey, and interactive webmap. Bicycle Specific Comments Bicycle Network o Expand the bicycle network to connect to more locations. o Enhance the existing bicycle network by increasing separation from vehicle traffic; provide wayfinding. • Support Facilities: o Add additional bicycle parking. o Install bicycle detection loops along major bike routes. • Ensure maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian Specific Comments • Improve crossings to enhance pedestrian safety, particularly: o North Burlingame near Burlingame Intermediate School, Lincoln Elementary School and Spring Elementary School, where parents and children have concerns about driver behavior when arriving and leaving school. o Larger Downtown Area, where residents are concerned with the speed of cars on and off of California Drive impeding access to the library, Burlingame High School and Washington Park. o Broadway Avenue and nearby areas, and El Camino Real, where light signalization and driver behavior are a cause of concern. o West Burlingame/Bayshore, where current facility conditions could be improved. • Support Facilities o Increase and improve pedestrian experience on California Drive, El Camino Real, Broadway Avenue and Downtown. o Install and/or improve pedestrian actuated signalization at major intersections. Corridor Specific Comments • Bay Trail: Wayfinding to and extension of the trail and crossings. • Broadway Avenue: Received many comments about improving safety for both bicyclists and pedestrians. • Downtown Access: Residents would like to be able to walk to downtown area, including the Library and Burlingame Avenue, not just along the downtown area. • California Drive: Received a large number of comments; both pedestrians and bicyclists do not feel safe along and crossing it due to driver behavior. • El Camino Real: Traffic leaving El Camino Real creates safety hazards for pedestrians at several local streets. Pedestrian facility improvements are needed along the corridor. City of Burlingame 12 Public Outreach Summary • Caltrain Stations: Protected bike lane desired between Burlingame Caltrain Station to Millbrae Caltrain Station to improve connectivity. • School Safety: Traffic calming and intersection treatment needed to mitigate car congestion and behavior around multiple school locations. Website Feedback Locations as of 6/8/2019 This map shows the location of each commented point and route from the online interactive webmap. Comments have been incorporated in the summary and themes above. City of Burlingame 13 Public Outreach Summary Outreach Events Map Summary: Color coded by event can Hills Country Club Fn-N`OUI Rurgvr h Mlllhr �q - INGOLD - MILLDALE a Hv'tt Regency Si,, r-onr.miln Airpc:rr � ave Jc� URL ME Sta I L L � _.. URLIN a` ARK GATE E_.. m B U R L I N G A IV E Haysh a rwy ARDENS gays h� �o Mercy Center Burlingame Q B U R L I N G A A K GROVE MILLS ESTATES EASTON TERRACE MANOR ADDITION Washington Park Yro�d�re Y O N A G Mills n Park C\..B W N T O yy N Sari Mate HILLSBOROUGH Rurlir•^anne eOAKSBRIDGELINGAME RYAN TRACTBURI'NGAMEHILLS Hillsborough IRK rr NORTH C E N 5 plRSa y Burlingame Country Club y'n a'� p �r SAN MA7E6 PARK Purple: Burlingame Intermediate School Survey Maroon: Feedback from 4/24 Kick-off Workshop at Burlingame Recreation Center : Feedback from 5/12 Farmer's Market Pop-up City of Burlingame 14 SLIRLINGAME r h� VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE 4N Opens on Thursday, August 27, 2020 until Thursday, September 17, 202 Virtual Open House Link: walkbikeburlingame.com View the Virtual Open House Tutorial for helpful navigating tips. This Virtual Open House provides an opportunity for public input on draft recommendations; including several bicycle "Study Corridors" where you can provide feedback on potential roadway design 'Aalternatives and on Citywide Pedestrian Improvements. eta PLANNING + DESIGN � CITqTY �� � a i T CITYOFBURLINGAME I0RO WHATwELEARNED FACIIJTY TYPES RIKEPRDTECrs PEDESTRIANPRGJICiS BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN �' 1f� Virtual Open House for Revised Recommendations Thankyouforvisitingthe Burlingame Virtual Open House. The Open Housewas open between8/27/20and 9/17/20 and is now dosed. Please revisit the site on November 8th for new updates to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan based on the comments received during the Virtual Open House period - The City of Burlingame is updating its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. This plan will focus on enhancing Burlingame s bicycle and pedestrian network induding on -street bike facilities, Bay Trail connections, pedestrian facilities, and street and highway crossings. Pursuant to the Shelter -in -Place Order issued by the San Mateo County Health Officer origin€ly on March 16, 2020, the statewide Shelter -in -Place Order issued by the Governor in Executive Order N-33-20 on Mare 19, 2020, and the CDC's social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, A public workshop will be held in the form of a V rtual Open House. Presented in this Virtual Open House are revised bicycle and pedestrian recommendations. This Virtual Open House provides an opportunity for pubbe input on these draft recommendations; including several bicycle 'Study Corridors'where you can provide feedback on potential roadway design alternatives Previous online and in -person outreach efforts asked for help identifying corridors and locations that need improvements and feedback on the initial draft recommendations. HELP US CREATE A SAFER & MORE VIBRANT BURLINGAME 1 Exanib-the Plan'sgoalsand progresstaward—repletion 2 ReWmwhatwe've learned about the needs of Burlingame reslderdssa far 3 Prwi iefeedbadc on the revised bicyce and pedestrian networks 4 learn about the Plan's next steps and how you can remain im Kmd. How to use this open house B Burlingame Virtual Open Htl-Al-orial 2co—cn=,ons Open in newwindow LNTLR VIRTUALOPEN 14OL SE INTRO MATWELEARNED FACIUTYTYPES RIIEPROJECTS PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS We made progress with your help! We received hundreds of comments from many Burlingame residents and stakeholders. through the existing mndktions and first phase of draft recommendations, there have been over 1,000 online interactions (comments, likes, dislikes, responses, etc) in addition to two community open houses, pop-up events, tours, and multiple Bicycle and Pedestrian AdvisoryCommittee meetings to gather information and feedback for the continued development of the Plan Several Key themes emerged as important for Burlingame residents and the BPAC through outreach efforts to date: Improve Sate Routes to Schools Improve amass to parka Create low -stress, onn—led blWways Enhance ao—to the BayT it Impnweand prinritimpedestrian crossingsnear community, destinations and high wlume pedestrian Enhance east to west connectivity arross the City Establish a network of neghbohoad bicycle boulevards PREVIOUS SEEP I NEXTSTEP Improve Safe Routes to Schools We Heard: Not enough crosswalks and lowstress bicycle fadilltles around schools Crossings at larger multilane streets, higtn ys, and railroad tracks are barriers for students and families Takeaways: Prorifl crossingrecommendations around schools Bicyde fadlities amend schools should be krw-stress where feasible and conned to the larger network What we learned Improve access to parks We Heard: Make it easier and sater to walk and bike to local parks Coordinate with the Park Links project to link parks to each other and the larger bike network Takeaways: Prioritise crossing recommendations around parks Create a bike network that connects parks together and to their surrounding wighborhoods PREVIOUS STEP NEXT STEP INTRO WHATWELEARNED FACIUTYTYPES DIKE PROJECTS PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS Create low -stress, connected bikeways We Heard- Propo se low -stress bikeways that calm traffic and pr yAde(naease separation from —hives Create a connected networkaf low - stress bikeways across the city Conned cvm 1ty destinations like parks and schools with {ow -stress fadiffles Takeaways: Create a ne[workof bi � Je boulevards, buffered bicycle lanes, separated bikeways, and trails Prioritize network connectivity, especiallyamend community destinations F C &walkbikeburlingame.comf#/projects-map Bike Projects We've prepared a tour to guide you through a set of Project Study Corridors ` v on several major roadways within the City. Each study has different bicyclecrveae facility options for your consideration - v Please click on the "Study Corridor Tour" Button belowto begin-Attheend of the '• °Gaon Hen tour,feel free to click on the map and bicycle �. \•`"'�:� reviewthe recommended network Afterward, you can viewthe recommended pedestrian improvements \ by clicking on the Pedestrian Projects Tab on the top right. After learning more abouta project idea / cym- / Rollilg Rd BaNshorP � Northrark hTE • please rate how effective you think it would be- r / / la9t, AeH ?raposals: I `� -- • Study Corridor �. i --• Class l Shared -Use PathA''� — — - Class 2 Bicycle Lane --• Class 3 Blcyde Route Class 3B Neighborhood Bike Route --• Class 45eparated Bikeway Existing Facilities: ` w — Class l5hared-Use Path •� C y`n q'• aqf Fav g tiaa"� raWni LiYyrn:,nJ WHAT WE LEARNED FACE"TYPES f PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS �"Ysho re FH% Ro/r!,„R� 9ayshore RwY Bnyahore FwY EWi Rd RUII.ins Rrl /^ N"Is, If s / Aye / �eR s„ 1q n q City of Burlingame PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Attachment C SITE PHOTOS California Drive, between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue is a multilane roadway consisting primarily of four vehicle travel lanes with an occasional dedicated left -turn lane. The roadway from curb to curb is 63-feet wide. Currently there are Class III (sharrows) bicycle facilities along the whole segment, with on -street parking on both sides. California Drive (between Broadway and Carmelita Avenue) Northbound view — California Drive at Broadway. Broadway is the main gateway into Downtown Broadway. Northbound view — on the right (east side) is Broadway Caltrain Station. On the left (west side) are local neighborhood -serving businesses. Parking (9-ft) is allowed only along west side (left), fronting local businesses. North and southbound consist of a 12-ft inside lane and a 10-ft outside lane in each direction, with turn pockets at intersections. City of Burlingame PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT California Drive (between Carmelita Avenue and Sanchez Avenue) Northbound views — North and southbound consist of a 12-ft inside lane and a 10-ft outside lane in each direction, with existing left turn lane at Carmelita Avenue (signalized intersection). Parking (9-ft) is allowed only along west side (left), fronting local businesses. Local Neighborhood -serving businesses make up the western side of the street. City of Burlingame PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT California Drive (between Sanchez Avenue and Majilla Avenue) Northbound views - Parking is allowed on both sides. However, there are no sidewalks or pedestrian access along east side (right). The Caltrain railroad tracks are adjacent to the entire eastern side of this segment of California Drive M Parking on both sides of the street is mostly utilized by local automotive shops. City of Burlingame PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT California Drive (between Majilla Avenue and Palm Drive) Northbound views — mid -block crossing serving local SamTrans bus stop and railroad crossing to east side of the City. Along this portion of the project are some residential homes. m PORATED , Attachment D: Project Location Map ILO, I ", Henrys.. ga �a>s Airport Blvd LM °y ca4f ��sq en�,,e�eou� °M:ap C � srarePark $ qa r ry gtvd �6 A a �a'b�e Ma P Psi e ax �' ¢- °4� °Aa N eurlmyame J h'.or c$' g � waseewater ` �E gyP �� areecmenc Facitiry 4 / `� �' Bayst ark � Airport Blvd tL o� RalVns Rd Northpark sqd .oarq� Apartments 4 8t �q a El tOl way Anson If15 101 1[ 4ap C `0 Apartments �a �. 10 'Ilo° r, e � Lexington Way rP rq, es ✓� +a nq� �r4� at y 4 �" � 4 0! QYO` a _ T %t 4 Qsa 6urlm9ame Ba 'QW °la�gy High Schout r( rg6e \ 0� ye Washing nPark C Z. aG ihd�4 '� yen q s q� mac. Pye 0 oqm qe roc � Ca °fin �4 �g�, a ,fib 11 rq 4C �„ O eel Rd OPe 0 Washington Elementary 5chool 0 ♦ � � 9LrGnga me °r q RCosavalt � � "L Elem enlary 5thoaL6.1 r At- a p m` r Calf° c. o` bs g P'1g �ra0 -1 D F° f ami P C'. California Air Resources Board c.P Benefits Calculator Tool for the `' Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Pr Cop and 7rod °o1arai':-;,kV�California Climate Investments Note to Applicants rA step-by-step user guide, including a project example, for this Benefits Calculator Tool is available here. [www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/sgc ahsc userguide 110119.pcl Third -party Tools This Benefits Calculator Tool requires data inputs obtained from the following third -party tool: National Renewable Energy Laboratory PVWatts® Calculator Required for projects including grid -connected solar photovoltaic systems Available at: pvwatts.nrel.gov Information for using this tool is available in the user guide (see above). AHSC applicants must enter basic project information in the table below before proceeding to the inputs tabs. Project Name California Drive Bicycle Facilities Improvement Project Project Identification Number u9xr6p0y County San Mateo Project Area Type Contact Name Mr. Andrew Wong Contact Phone Number 650-558-7230 Contact Email awong@burlingame.org Date Calculator Completed AHSC GGRF Funds Requested ($) Other GGRF Funds ($) Other GGRF Funds Sources Total GGRF Funds ($) Kev for Color -coded Fields Required input field I Output field / not modifiable Helpful hints / important tips Not applicable FINAL November 1, 2019 Page 1 of 1 Project Info =P r. California Air Resources Board GPI Benefits Calculator Tool for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program California Climate Investments Note to Applicants A step-by-step user guide, including a project example, for this 8enefi is Calculator Tool is available here. by v v arb c c v'cc'capandtrade�auction�roceeds's�c ahsc user�uide 110119w'cc'ca�andtrade!auction�roceeds's�c ahsc user�uide 110119�� Average University Key Bike Share Passenger Daily Town with Key Destinations Energy Average Cost Bike Share VMT First Year One-way Facility Traffic Population < Destinations within 1/2 Consumption of Bike Share Trips in Reductions New Facility or Program Type Name or Location Operational Length (miles) (trips/day) 250,000? within 1/4 Mile Mile (kWh/mile) Trip ($) Year 1 (miles) GHG Emission Reductions (MTCOze) Local ROG Emission Reductions (Ibs) Local NO, Emission Reductions (Ibs) Local PM2_5 Emission Reductions (Ibs) Local Diesel PMjo Emission Reductions (Ibs) Fossil Fuel Use Reductions (gal) Class II Bike Lane California Drive 2022 5 1 mile 12 909 No 9 21 255 598 90 3 18 11 0 7,913 FINAL November 1, 2019 Page 1 of 1 Active Transportation Inputs Attachment F Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate California Drive Bicycle Facility Project No. Item Desciption QTY Unit Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 32,000 $32,000 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 30,000 $30,000 3 Stormwater Protection Plan 1 LS $ 3,000 $3,000 4 Construction Signs 2 EA $ 8,000 $16,000 5 Replace Catch Basin Grate 10 EA $ 3,000 $30,000 6 Adjust Catch Basin Concrete Apron and Curb/Gutter 10 EA $ 6,000 $60,000 7 Minor Concrete( Curb Bulb -out) 8 EA $ 6,000 $48,000 8 Remove/Salvage Roadside Sign 4 LS $ 300 $1,200 9 Relocate Sign and Post 3 EA $ 500 $1,500 10 Install Sign Panel and Post 6 EA $ 800 $4,800 11 Install Sign Panel on Existing Post 6 EA $ 300 $1,800 12 Remove Pavement Striping and Markings 1 LS $ 10,000 $10,000 13 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 9) 6,200 LF $ 3 $18,600 14 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 22) 3,785 LF $ 4 $15,140 15 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 27B) 3,240 LF $ 2 $6,480 16 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 38) 585 LF $ 3 $1,755 17 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 38A) 110 LF $ 3 $330 18 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 39) 7,330 LF $ 2 $14,660 19 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 39A - Modified) 625 LF $ 2 $1,250 20 Pavement Marking (Continental Crosswalk) 1,260 SF $ 6 $7,560 21 Pavement Marking (Numerals) 17 EA $ 300 $5,100 22 Pavement Marking (Stop Marking) 3 EA $ 300 $900 23 Pavement Marking (Striped Buldout) 300 SF $ 6 $1,800 24 MMA Traffic Paint - Bike Lane Symbol with Person 28 EA $ 200 $5,600 25 MMA Traffic Paint - Bike Lane Arrow, 6' Length 28 EA $ 100 $2,800 26 MMA Traffic Paint - Green Pavement Marking 5,950 SF $ 30 $178,500 27 MMA Traffic Paint - Sharrow Pavement Marking 32 EA $ 250 $8,000 28 Red Curb 3,000 LF $ 5 $15,000 29 Flexible Post Delineator 700 EA $ 50 $35,000 30 tBike Crossing RRFB Assembly 8 EA $ 20,000 $160,000 Subtotal $716,775 20% Contingency $143,355 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ** $860,130 * This Cost Estimate is based on conceptual design for seperated bikeway. Final design and cost estimate will be determined based on a design process with community outreach and input. ** TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (Rounded to nearest $10,000) - This estimate of construction cost is a professional opinion, based upon the engineer's experience with the design and construction of similar projects. It is prepared only as a guide and is subject to change. 09/10/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System ATP Maps & Summary Data The tool is designed to support the California Active Transportation Program (ATP), as well as active transportation users and practitioners throughout California. The tool utilizes interactive collision maps to allow users to track and document pedestrian and bicycle collisions and generate data summaries within specified project and/or community limits. Step 1: Select a County/City, Bike/Ped, Severity, and Years County: San Mateo City: Burlingame Include 1 mile buffer outside of selected County/City: No Include State Highway Related Collisions: Yes Involved With: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Severity: Fatal, Severe Injury, Other Visible Injury, and Complaint of Pain Year: 2009 - 2019 Collision Summary for initial parameters defined above: Number of Collisions by Collision Severity Involved With Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Total Bicycle 3 21 66 45 135 Pedestrian 4 20 63 66 153 https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 1 /6 09/10/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System County/City Heat Map: Step 2: Identify your project area to develop a more localized Community Heat Map Select the size of your proposed project limits: Less than 3 miles across. # of Collisions C The heat map intensity scale is constant throughout the state. �= 14 https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 2/6 09/10/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System Community Heat Map: Step 3: Draw the project boundaries to get detailed collision data summaries and map # of Collisions 0 The heat map intensity scale is custom generated for the selected community. �= 10 https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 3/6 09/10/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System Project Area Collision Map: 16 total collisions. Step 4: Review the project -specific collision map a �• -'' Ro ¢C� �i A,rport Blvd Het �b ABC- i Suppl•"Co, � drsf � � R7 ��vd le, I Anxa La n, 1a _ Bay Front Channel Ad/ v P ALP ¢ 3g4 7 ti l ! r tlio - 4r �@ Qsl �ai�, rror Rollin Rd -` ( ar \ era O Or: cf oo ° A'la o 4 v ®d4P ate � -0r'@ y Jlpn Ov d Qw a 4r4/oq o \�!ti `,Po.¢� Sdn ��l6�n • e �,, earl ing eme Hgn ^snonl b� � �c Cro ch,r@I 'qb@ q✓@ �� 1� �•�`. 1 C, ¢4e 9 G�� aC� m Burlingame 9anr 9 �¢ •Q 'L p}���� A @ q! �P G4p 0 �•: '_:' u S far r Rd O lobo °r HI' sborollgh Ile V, Collision severity Fatal ❑_ Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 4/6 09/10/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System Step 5: Review the collision summary data, graphs and tables provided. oummary Results Involved With Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Total Bicycle 0 4 5 5 1 Pedestrian 0 1 1 0 Pedestrian Collisions Annual Growth (N/A) 4 3 I5*1 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2019 0 No_ of Ca■isians Annual Growth Rate Bicycle Collisions Annual Growth (N/A) 4 3 O U O O z 0 0 Ll 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2019 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2019 0 No_ of Collisions Annual Growth Rate 100% 50% -100% 100% 50% -100% n 3 W https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 5/6 09/10/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System Collision List CASE ID Date Time Primary Rd Secondary Rd Dist & Dir Bike Ped Killed Injured from Int. 4175753 03/18/2009 08:52 California Dr Oak Grove Av 333 ft North Yes No 0 1 5100159 02/28/2011 14:48 California Dr Sanchez Av 48 ft South Yes No 0 1 5220023 07/07/2011 14:16 California Dr Broadway At Int Yes No 0 1 5396519 11/07/2011 18:00 California Dr Oak Grove Av 75 ft South Yes No 0 1 5756973 07/20/2012 16:17 California Dr Oak Grove Av At Int Yes No 0 1 6019798 03/15/2013 12:00 Carmelita Av California Dr At Int Yes No 0 1 6331224 12/27/2013 21:29 California Dr Oak Grove Av At Int Yes No 0 1 6621177 08/12/2014 18:15 California Dr Sanchez Av 127 ft South Yes No 0 1 6694311 10/08/2014 16:05 California Dr Majilla Av 200 ft North Yes No 0 1 6721230 11/24/2014 07:26 California Dr Palm Dr 270 ft South Yes No 0 1 6964394 06/08/2015 18:52 California Dr Palm Dr At Int Yes No 0 1 7110348 10/29/2015 09:14 California Dr Palm Av At Int Yes No 0 1 8423756 07/29/2017 15:46 California Dr Carmelita Av At Int No Yes 0 1 8643081 06/18/2018 12:27 California Dr Broadway At Int No Yes 0 1 8715970 09/29/2018 09:30 California Dr Broadway 200 ft South Yes No 0 1 8713883 10/05/2018 17:04 California Dr Majilla Av 225 ft South Yes No 0 1 https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 6/6 Alternative 1: Existing r g' 12' 11' 11' 12' 8' ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Alternative 2: Separated Bikeway Separated bikeways with two travel lanes in each direction. This alternative will remove about 83 parking spaces from one side of the street. Alternative 2 will add separated bikeways in both directions and will remove parking from one side of the street. The separated bikeways will provide lower -stress, dedicated roadway space for people bicycling. Adding the separated bikeways will improve traffic safety for all roadway users. 5' 3' 8' 10' 10' 10' 10' 2' S' Bicycle raffic Calming 9 Comfort Barking Impacts Lane Removal R.!-ZTurning/Loading 6 Impacts — — — — — — — — — — — — ...... .! �. ... Alternative 3: (Road Diet) Separated Bikeway with Maintained Parking Separated bikeways with parking on both sides of the street. This alternative will remove one vehicle travel lane; which travel lane is TBD. Expected average vehicle delay will increase by about 12 seconds. Alternative 3 will provide separated bikeways in both directions and will one travel lane. Removing the travel lane is expected to have a limited impact on travel delay, regardless of which direction of travel is affected. Adding the separated bikeway and removing a vehicle lane provide traffic calming and make this segment of California more comfortable and safer for all roadway users. Bicycle Traffic Calming � Comfort r= Parking impacts � Lane Removal Turning/Loading MID 0000Impacts Images generated using Streetmix Note: Parking supply figures represent the approximate number of on -street parking spaces affected under each alternative and do not reflect parking occupancy or the rate to which the parking supply is used. Off-street parking supply remains unaffected under each alternative. T� SAN MATED COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATION CHECKLIST REQUIRED - SEE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR DETAILS Application Form Attachment A: Cover Letter aAttachment B: Letters of Support/Community Engagement Documentation aAttachment C: Site Photos Attachment D: Project Location Map (Must use mapping tool in Application Instructions) aAttachment E: GHG Emission Reduction and VMT Impact aAttachment F: Cost Estimates Attachment G: TIMS ATP Maps and Summary Data Printout OPTIONAL Attachment H: Letter of Partnership Intent (if applicable) aAttachment I: Other Documentation Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 12 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT APPLICATION FORM PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Sponsor Agency Name: City of Burlingame Sponsor Agency Address: 501 Primrose Road Burlingame 94010 City: State: CA Zip: Contact Name: Andrew Wong, P.E. Contact Title: Senior Civil Engineer Contact Phone: 650-558-7230 Contact E-mail: awong@burlingame.org Are you partnering with another agency? O Yes O No If YES, please provide Partnering Agency information: Partnering Agency Name: Partnering Agency Address: City: State: CA Zip: Contact Name: Contact Title: Contact Phone: Contact E-mail: If YES, please submit Attachment H: Letter of Partnership Intent from each agency outlining roles, responsibilities, and respective funding contributed. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Forn. Page 13 Am SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS 2. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: California Drive Bicycle Facility Project Type (choose from drop down): Large Infrastructure Project Location/Limits. City of Burlingame, California Drive between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue Project Scope: Example: Construction of 4 curb extensions and pedestrian -scale lighting will provide added safety for pedestrians and/or bicyclists at this busy intersection. Note: Maximum 500 characters (approximately 100 words) Construct approximately 0.75 miles of bicycle network along California Drive, between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue, to enhance north/south connectively across the City while improving the safety, comfort, and attractiveness of bicycling for people of varying ages and abilities. For planning & budgeting purposes, a Class II or better bicycle facility is proposed. Details of final design will be analyzed and vetted through the project design process involving community outreach and input. 3. PROJECT DETAILS Note: Do not double count infrastructure that serves both pedestrians and bicyclists. Select the category that best serves the primary intended user of the project. List linear feet or number of each item in the total scope of work as specified in the respective category. Do not count the number of intersections. For example, if a project is upgrading eight curb ramps at one intersection, enter 8 in the form. BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE New Bikeways (in centerline linear feet) Class I Shared Use Paths: Class II Buffered Bicycle Lanes: Class IV Separated Bikeway: Class II Bicycle Lanes: Class III Bicycle Routes: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 14 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE Upgraded Bikeways (converting an existing bikeway to a new classification or widening/paving Class I Shared Use Path) (in centerline linear feet) Class I Shared Use Paths: Class II Bicycle Lanes: 3,800.00 Class II Buffered Bicycle Lanes: Class III Bicycle Routes: Class IV Separated Bikeway: Signalized Intersections (number) New Bike Boxes: Timing Improvements: Un-Signalized Intersections (number) New RRFB/Signal: g Crossing -Surface Improvement: 3 Mid -Block Crossings/Driveways (number) New RRFB/Signal: Crossing -Surface Improvement: Lighting Roadway for Facility Segments Intersection (number): (linear feet): Bike Parking (number of bicycle spaces) New Racks: New Lockers: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 15 T SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE Describe and quantify any Other Bicycle/Trail Improvements not listed already 8 Class III Sharrow at beginning of side streets, replace 10 existing storm drain inlets with bicycle approved grates and adjust storm drain apron to address ride comfort. PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE Sidewalks (linear feet) New (4' to 8' wide): Widen Existing: New (over 8' wide): Reconstruct/Enhance Existing: New Barrier Protected (Barrier, parking, functional -planter, etc.): Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 16 Am SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE ADA Ramp Improvements (number) New Ramp (none exist): Reconstruct Ramp to Standard: Signalized Intersections (number) New Crosswalk: Enhanced Existing Crosswalk: 2 Ped-Heads: Shorten Crossing: Timing Improvements: Un-Signalized Intersections (number) New Traffic Signal: New Roundabout/Mini Traffic Circle: New RRFB/Signal: Crossing -Surface Improvements: 2 Shorten Crossing: Mid -Block Crossing (number) New RRFB/Signal: Crossing -Surface Improvements: Lighting Intersection (number): Roadway Segments (linear feet): Pedestrian Amenities (number) Benches: Trash Cans: Shade Trees: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 17 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE Describe and quantify any Other Pedestrian Improvements not listed already Curb extension (bulb -out) at 1 mid -block crossing. 4. PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY Funding Request: $ 800,000.00 Total Project Cost: $ 1,070,000.00 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 18 Am IfIF SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS PART B: EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. PROJECT READINESS (0-15 points) COMMUNITY SUPPORT Describe the community outreach effort for the project and summarize feedback received. Please consider the following questions in your response: • How has community feedback been incorporated into the project? • What is the level of interest in the project? • Have any specific concerns been raised? • List all non -sponsor stakeholders that have taken a formal position on the project. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Initial outreach for this project have been introduced as part of the City's Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan effort. This project is recognized by the Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission as a high priority location. In addition, this project was identified as high priority during the outreach for the 2019 General Plan Update. During the GP update, the community desired improved bicycle facilities along the California Drive. For this project, the community will develop and finalize design through workshops (in -person or virtually) and meetings with stakeholders; then go straight into PS&E. Concerns raised about the existing roadway conditions include its wide right-of-way with high traffic speeds and bicycle facilities consisting of only "sharrows". Communities want a low -stress bikeway that calms traffic & provide/increase separation from vehicles, connects communities, and serves its transit dependent population. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 19 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS RIGHT-OF-WAY Pick one: OProject is entirely within the Implementing Agency's right-of-way and/or is within their control at the time of this application submittal. (This includes temporary construction easements) Project will likely require right-of-way in fee ownership, permanent easements and/or O temporary construction easements from private owners and/or will require utility relocations from utility companies outside that implementing agency's governmental control. PERMITS, AGREEMENTS, AND/OR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE List all permits, agreements and environmental clearance (both CEQA and NEPA) approved and/or needed, to date. Permit/Agreements/Environmental Clearance Status (Approved/Needed) Date Approved (or leave blank) CEQA Categorical Exemption Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Forn. Page 1 10 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS PROJECT SCHEDULE Indicate the anticipated beginning and end date for each phase of the project. • If a phase is not applicable for this application, write "N/A". • If the PS&E phase is currently underway at the time the application is submitted, indicate the percent complete to date: 35%, 65%, or 90%. Month and Year Phase Phase Start Phase End Pre -Project Planning Project Approval (PA) & Environmental Document (ED) Current Percent plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E) Complete ROW Acquisition and Utilities Coordination Construction and Procurement OVERALL PROJECT FUNDING Project Scope Phases Total Cost A+B ( ) Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Request (A) Other Matching Funding (B) Pre -Project Planning $ 120,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 120,000.00 PE/Environmental $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Design (PS&E) $ 90,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 90,000.00 Right -of -Way $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Construction $ 860,000.00 $ 800,000.00 $ 60,000.00 TOTALS $ 1,070,000.00 $ 800,000.00 $ 270,000.00 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 11 Am SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS PROJECT FUNDING Discuss any potential funding shortfalls or risks associated with any of the listed funding sources, and how they will be addressed. If the project is a large capital infrastructure project with a funding gap, as defined in section 7.c. of the Call for Projects Guidelines, what is the plan to close the funding gap within the allotted one-year period? Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) The City of Burlingame foresees no potential funding shortfalls or risks associated with any of the listed funding source. Overall project funding accounts for standard increase in labor and material cost. Since this is a high priority project with overwhelming City wide community support to improve bicycle safety and accessibility, if this project was not selected for Measure A & W funds, the City will continue with the design process with community input and PS&E phases and will plan accordingly to allocate local City funds for the construction phase at a later time. However, if this project was selected, the Measure A & W funds will guarantee construction of this project as planned. Can the project be divided into phases or segments if full funding is not available? ONo O Yes If YES, describe the different phases/segments and costs associated with each. Note: Maximum 1,500 characters (approximately 250 words) With the strong community support and regional significance of this project, the City will complete this project at some point in the future. If full grant funding is not available, the City consider these funds in conjuction with additional Clty funds to be applied towards the construction phase. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 12 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS 2. FUNDING LEVERAGE (0-10 points) FUNDING LEVERAGE Using the table below, indicate the sources of funding as well as the percentages that have been secured for the proposed Measure A & W project work scope. Attach separate documentation if additional rows are needed. • If other Measure A & W funds are involved, be specific about the program. • If any of the match is from the private sector, specify the source (e.g. development impact fees, developer contribution, easement or donated land value). • A ten percent match, at a minimum, is required. Funding Source Total Value Source Type Measure A & W Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Request $ 800,000.00 Public Local City Match $ 270,000.00 Public $ Public $ Public $ Public $ Public $ Public $ Public $ Public TOTAL PROJECT COST $ Total matching funds to be provided: $ 270,000.00 Total project costs: $ 1,070,000.00 Local match percentage (must be equal to or greater than 10%): 25.23 (total matching funds provided _ total project cost) Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 13 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS 3. PROJECT NEED (0-19 points) C�1�J :� :� � ► � Dili] ► I �] � � [�I ► �' Describe the existing site conditions and active transportation need that this project aims to address. Support narrative with relevant site photos and photo captions in Attachment C: Site Photos. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) California Drive, between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue is a multilane, 63-ft wide roadway consisting of four vehicle travel lanes with some left -turn lanes. This major uninterrupted north/south corridor, identified as a high stress roadway by the SMCo 2020 Bikeway Network. Currently there are Class III (sharrows) bicycle facilities along the whole segment, with on -street parking on both sides, but no sidewalks along the eastern side. The project would utilize the existing roadway width and adjust existing vehicle travel lanes and parking lanes to accommodate the improved bicycle facility. This project would connect to the newly improved Class II bikeway to the north, linking surrounding residential areas and local businesses to the Millbrae BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Intermodal Station, Broadway Caltrain Station, and the Burlingame Caltrain Station. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 14 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS CURRENT CONDITIONS Describe the documented safety conditions in the project area. Support narrative with results of Attachment G: TIMS ATP Maps and Summary Data Printout. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Bicycle safety is a major concern for bicyclists riding along California Drive as it is a high-speed roadway with an 85th percentile speed of 39 mph (posted 35 mph). A summary of documented pedestrian and bicycle collisions report generated by UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System, included as Attachment G, indicates between the 2009 and 2019 were a total of 14 collisions involving bicycles and total 2 collisions involving pedestrians. 29% of the bicycle collisions and 50% of pedestrian collisions were severe or worst. The total number of collisions along the project area account for 10.4% and 1.3% of total the City-wide bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions, respectively. The collision map in Attachment G shows that bicycle collisions occurred throughout the length of the project limits, supporting concerns of bicycle facilities consisting of only "sharrows" along a high-speed roadway. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 15 T SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED WALKING AND BICYCLING Which users will benefit from this project? Check all that apply. ❑� Bicyclists aPedestrians �✓ Public transit riders (bus and rail) Other micromobility users (e.g. e-scooters) What is the primary purpose of the facility? Check one. WTransportation (access to employment, school, or other destinations) ❑ Will serve both purposes equally Recreation and Health PLAN CONSISTENCY Is Project recognized in adopted or draft statewide, regional, county or local planning and fund programming documents (e.g. San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, City Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Plan, Vision Zero Plan, Specific Plan, Climate Action Plan)? OYes ONo Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 16 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS PLAN CONSISTENCY List up to five (5) planning documents or policies with the publication date and the page upon which the project can be found. If your project is identified as a high priority project, indicate that in the table below. Document or Policy High Priority Draft or Adopted Publication Year Page Numbers Burlingame General Plan Yes Adopted M-13, M-24 Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan Yes Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan Yes Adopted C-15 SMC Bike/Pedestrian Plan No Adopted 22 Burlingame Downtown Specific No Adopted 7-4 If the project is not specifically identified in a planning or policy document, describe how it supports or is consistent with state, regional, or local plan and policy goals. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 17 Am IfIF SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS 4. PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS (0-42 points) How does the project provide new or improved transportation options in an area with a mix of residential, employment, transit, or other high -density activity centers? Support narrative with Attachment D: Project Location Map. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (ooDroximately 200 words) The project improves the north & south connectively in the City for bicyclists of varying abilities, especially those accessing the City's high -density activity centers from our upcoming Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) (see Attachment D). To the north of the project are approximately 10 high -density activity centers within a 1/2 mile radius, including Broadway Station, banks, churches, schools, and the Broadway Downtown Area of local shops businesses, usually low -profit margin establishments that employ a fair number of minimum wage workers. To the south of the project are 20 high -density activity centers within a 1/2 mile radius, including the Burlingame Caltrain Station, the Main Library, parks, high school, and elementary school. The project also provides a continuation of the newly implemented low -stress bikeway network north of Broadway, linking the Millbrae BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Intermodal Station to Burlingame communities. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 18 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS PROXIMITY TO ACTIVITY CENTERS For a definition of activity centers, see application guidelines under Attachment D: Project Location Map. Number of Activity Centers located within % mile from proposed project: 9 Number of Activity Centers located between % and Y miles from proposed project: 21 What are the features of your project and/or project area that will encourage more people to walk or bike? Consider addressing how the proposed project: • Fills in a gap or extends the active transportation network • Upgrades the existing active transportation network to better accommodate users of all ages and abilities • Eliminates a physical or high -stress barrier (e.g., highway, major arterial, rail line, other safety issue) in the active transportation network • Reduces or eliminates out of direction travel to local or regionally -serving employment, housing, and/or amenities resulting in travel time savings Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 The project will create a Class II or better facility along a major high stress corridor, reconfigure the roadway with traffic calming elements to improve accessibility and enhance safety. A Class II or better bicycle facility will encourage and attract bicycling for people of varying ages and abilities. This project fills a gap in the bike facilities between San Mateo and and our Class II facility north of Broadway. The project will also connect bicyclists to the California Drive roundabout at California Drive and Lorton Avenue/Bellevue which was designed to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. This project will reinvent California Drive as a fully multimodal corridor and create a "backbone" for our future improvements from our soon to be finalized Bike/Ped Master Plan. Improvements include enhanschools, parks, Caltrain, and commercial areas. separate bike lane and improved pedestrian connections. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 1 19 Am SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS 5. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY (0-14 points) Describe how the project serves high density/affordable housing (e.g. Priority Development Areas) in proximity to high quality transit service (high ridership & frequent service). Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Through the 2019 General Plan Update, community feedback included a strong desire to accommodate growth in targeted areas well -served by transit. This includes 2,951 new housing units and 9,731 new jobs (see in Table CX-1 of the 2019 General Plan). Also discussed in Chapter 4 of the 2019 General Plan, growth will be targeted in areas providing opportunities for TODs close to transit (BART and CalTrain), services, and the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway commercial districts. California Drive bridges the gap between these areas. For this reason, California Drive is identified as a focus in Mobility chapter of the 2019 Updated General Plan in fulfilling State requirements for the Circulation Element and outlining policies to improve all modes of travel throughout Burlingame, with an emphasis on improvement for cyclists and pedestrians. Describe how the project serves low income, transit dependent and/or other vulnerable populations. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) The project is close to high -density apartment buildings located between California Drive and El Camino Real, and it is situated along a TOD corridor. This project would serve a low income and transit- dependent population with its proximity to transit, including the Burlingame Caltrain Station and SamTrans stops. In addition, the project site has various small retail, automotive repair -related businesses, small restaurants and cafe establishments, along the west side of California Drive. These shops and businesses are low -profit margin establishments that employ a fair number of minimum wage workers. Many employees cannot afford to drive and pay for parking; instead, they rely on transit and bicycling to commute to their place of employment or business. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 120 Am IfIF SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation Authority PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY Does the project meet any of the following criteria? (Mark all that apply) Note: If the answer is yes to any of these questions, include documentation and the census tract numbers in Attachment 1: Other Documentation. ❑The project is located in or crosses through a census tract with a school where 75% or more students are eligible for Free or Reduced Priced Meals. ❑The project is located in or crosses through a census tract with a CalEnviroscreen 3.0 score above 25% most disadvantaged (score greater than 39.34). ❑The project is located in or crosses through a census tract with a Healthy Places Index percentile less than 25%. ❑The project is located in or crosses through a census tract with a Median Household Income of less than $56,982. The project is located in or crosses through an MTC Community of Concern. Describe any elements of the project that include low environment impact/green infrastructure. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Increasing bicycling activity, whether for commuting or recreational purposes, translates to decreases in automobile trip lengths and can have a significant effect on both emissions and fuel consumption. Within the Sustainable Development section of the City's 2019 General Plan, it is one of the City's goals to create walkable and bike -friendly neighborhoods with higher -density, mixed -use, infill development around transit stations to reduce vehicle trips and associated pollutant emissions. The environmental benefit is a by-product of this project includes reduced fuel and natural resource consumption, while limiting the emission of greenhouse gas. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 121 T� SAN MATEO COUNTY Transportation PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Authority CALL FOR PROJECTS Describe the long-term operations and maintenance needs for the project and how this will be funded. Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words After project completion, the City will monitor and gather data through the use of Streetlight Data application to confirm the effectiveness of the improvements. Through the City's new joint subscription of Streetlight Data with C/CAG members, the City can compare existing (pre -Shelter In Place) traffic analysis and bicycle metrics with new data being collected following the improvements. Data supporting the effectiveness the improvements will be used to promote future bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the City. Long-term maintenance of the project improvements include regular maintenance of bicycle facility and lane sweeping, which will be performed by City staff. Any adjustments needed overtime to accommodate, improve and better safety and comfort, adjustments will be done by either City staff or contract with the City. The above operation and maintenance plan, including joint subscription to Streetlight Data will all be funded by local City funds. Describe how the project supports existing economic activity and/or new economic development in the immediate vicinity (e.g. new housing production, job access, outdoor recreation industry). Note: Maximum 1,000 characters (approximately 200 words) Planned, at the south end of the project limits, is a new five -story, 24-unit live/work project at 509-511 California Drive and a a new five -story, 26-unit live/work development at the corner of California Drive and Floribunda Avenue. Both of which will served by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Infrastructure Application Form Page 122 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (650)558-7230 City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Attachment A Subject: PEDESTRIAN AND BICYLE PROGRAM Cycle 5 — Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022 To: San Mateo County Transportation Authority Officials CORPORATION YARD (650)558-7670 Thank you for the opportunity to submit an application for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Cycle 5 - Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022 - Call for Projects. The City of Burlingame (City) is pleased to submit the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements for your consideration. The Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements project prioritizes creating a safe, attractive, and accessible pedestrian network to and from the Burlingame Caltrain Station, to nearby Burlingame Community Center, schools, tennis courts, aquatic center, parks, as well as the neighboring communities. The improvements would include enhancement of pedestrian accessibility such as new crosswalks, extended sidewalks, curb ramps, curb extensions, and bio-retention areas at the intersection of East Lane and Burlingame Avenue. The estimated total project cost of the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements is approximately $890,000. This includes project development, community outreach, design, and construction completion. The City is requesting $600,000 of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Cycle 5 - Measure A & W funds for the construction phase of the project. The City will provide matching funds up to $290,000 for project development, community outreach, design, and a portion of construction. The Licensed Engineer in `responsible charge' of the application has reviewed all information presented in the project cost estimates, included as Attachment F, and certifies the values are consistent with the corresponding information in the application. The City has reviewed the grant funding agreement, and will be pleased to comply with all the grant program requirements, including but not limited to our commitment to complete the project scope within the required time frame and follow the requirements of the grant. In addition, the City certifies that the San Mateo County Transportation Authority Measure A & W funds awarded in this cycle (Fiscal Year 2021 and 2022) will be used to supplement existing funds, and will not replace existing funds per the non-supplantion of funds requirements in this grant program. As part of the application requirements, the City will also provide the San Mateo County Transportation Authority with a City of Burlingame City Council resolution no later than November 2, 2020. Please let us know if you have any questions, otherwise we look forward to hearing back from you. Very truly yours, Syed Murtuza Public Works Director City of Burlingame September 21, 2020 City of Burlingame BL1RL1iVGAME Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission September 17, 2020 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Attn: Ms. Jennifer Williams 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 RE: Support of City of Burlingame Pedestrian & Bicycle Program, Cycle 5 Grant Application for the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project Transportation Authority Board Members: On behalf of the Burlingame Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, I am pleased to write this letter in support of the City of Burlingame's Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements project. The City of Burlingame (City) is seeking an infrastructure grant to improve and promote mobility and safety for non -motorized users by improving pedestrian access to the east entrance (northbound platform) of Burlingame Caltrain Station. This project along with planned pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic calming improvements in Burlingame's Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Project will significantly improve pedestrian accessibility in the area. Improvements will promote walkability to and from the Burlingame Caltrain Station to nearby Burlingame Community Center, schools, tennis courts, aquatic center, parks, and neighborhood communities east of the station. Through community outreach, this project was identified and recommended as part of the analysis from City's Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project. We strongly support this project as it embraces our goal and vision to improved safety, health, and residential quality -of -life through transportation network improvements that prioritizes walking and bicycle improvements near high -density activity destinations. The project includes enhancement of pedestrian accessibility such as construction of new crosswalks, sidewalks, curb ramps, curb extensions, and bio-retention areas at the intersection of East Lane and Burlingame Avenue. We, as a Commission, fully support this project because it will expand transportation options in the City and improve the use of active transportation by providing the critical walking infrastructure that will benefit our community. Sincerely, 0<. s4gdz�� Lynn Israelit Chair Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission September 20th, 2020 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Attn: Ms. Jennifer Williams 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 Re: City of Burlingame Cycle 5 Grant Application for Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Transportation Authority Board Members: Burlingame's BPAC offers support for the City of Burlingame — Burlingame Train Station pedestrian improvements. We'd like to offer our support for the Burlingame Caltrain station pedestrian improvements. This area, sandwiched in between the Caltrain station, Washington Park, and Burlingame High School, experiences a high volume of cars and of pedestrian and bike traffic at key times during the week. We support these improvements to make it safer for people to cross at these important intersections. Sincerely, UCL J G-�� Lesley Beatty Chairperson Burlingame BPAC COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 (Date Correction) Tuesday, February 26, 2019 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Location: Burlingame Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Please join us to discuss conerns regarding traffic, safety and parking concerns in your neighborhood. COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 (Bate Correction) Tuesday, February 26, 2919 6:90 PM - 8:99 PM Location: Burlingame Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Please join us to discuss conerns regarding traffic, safety and parking concerns in your neighborhood. Scan OR Code using your mobile device to access the project website. ■I TE�� i�■ 1. Scan OR Code using your mobile device to access the project website. JI 6.16 RTITIOI 9 rk'SN HU I Workshop #2 IVIUFIUUY Ek 0 1 �C-� I �L, L�7- k 6030 PM 8030 PNI Auditorium Burlingame Rec. Center Please join us to view feedback received from the neighborhood and results of the data collection efforts. PURA76❑ � 9110-MIS JI 9,16 RTITISI 9 IFAN its] I Community Workshop #3 Wednesday October 2, 2019 6:30 M = 8:30 M Auditorium Burlingame Rec. Center Please join us to finalize the alternatives for traffic calming in the neighborhoods. For more information, wo I M M I 1 PORATEO � NNW" +JY I NaT V.4 IL i ti ft, k.r AL rp - d ip* r BURLINGAME AVENUE o, o EXISTING CONDITiONSAND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS nxM o n agar S1fl 44'r7PrJ j+H�{, V�r. 6, l,i i� yrtil W��S 7-1 r- � o m v m `m 3 nt V ❑ N Existing Cwxlitions LCy, �r (h,� Afl•Way Stop Slgn Ln.U-TL Pi�`.m..C•._' a� Existing White Standard Crosswalk w Existi ng Yellow Standard Crosswa I k Proposed Altematives Red curb Extension ■ Bulb -Out Speed Hump ma High Visibility Crosswalk(Yellow) km HighYslhilityCrosswalk(White) 0, Traffic Clrcle Ab Chicane Existing Proposed •� t p 1i►!. � - � , ii+iii� .•• IL i!ii Ll!u ii ,�a!!;,,t ii�ii��iti�,iiE'^niii► w. -3. � � •';iiiin!��m��it��!, iliiiiii!ii!�!�i!ii!i[!n..�•"`� -� CITY t� OF City of Burlingame Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) Meeting Date: January 22, 2019 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Location: Conference Room B, City Hall Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Project Background 3. Project Goals and Objectives 4. Existing Conditions 5. Community Engagement Process a. Project Website b. Online Survey c. Postcards d. First Community Workshop Date 6. Panel Input and Open Discussion 7. Next Steps R] 11 R] R] W.- Draft Project Website Draft Online Survey _ PLEASANTON ♦ SAN JOSE ♦ SANTA ROSA ♦ SACRAMENTO ♦ FRESNO Corporate Office: 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 rrT M Phone:925.463.0611 Fax:925.463.3690 www.TJKM.com DBE#40772 ♦ SBE#38780 City of Burlingame BURLINJGAME Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project Schedule 2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 Project Management 2 Collect Background and Existing Conditions Community Participation and 3 Outreach Project Website & Online Survey Community Workshop 1 Community Workshop 2 Community Workshop 3 4 Develop Traffic Calming Strategies 5 Develop Conceptual Designs 6 Draft and Final Plan D = Draft, R = Review, F = Final PLEASANTON ♦ SAN JOSE ♦ SANTA ROSA ♦ SACRAMENTO ♦ FRESNO Corporate Office: 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 CTJrIYI Phone:925.463.0611 Fax:925.463.3690 www.TJKM.com DBE#40772 ♦ SBE#38780 Photo source: Google Maps The Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements project is located at the intersection of East Lane and Burlingame Avenue. Immediately adjacent to the project is the east entrance to Burlingame Caltrain Station. On the west of the station is the main entrance to Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area, a commercial and employment destination of retail shops, personal service shops, restaurants, office spaces, banks, and City Hall. On the east of the station are residential neighborhoods, Burlingame High School, Washington Elementary School, the City's upcoming Community Center, Washington Park, tennis courts, and aquatic center. Northbound East Lane at Burlingame Avenue Northbound East Lane approaching Burlingame Avenue is stop controlled by a stop sign. Crosswalk approach, crossing East Lane, is 80-feet. Unusual layout causes wide lanes at the approach. Long crosswalks increase pedestrian exposure time to vehicles on the road. Intersections are more challenging to cross when pedestrians encounter long crossing distances. Photo source: Google Maps Westbound Burlingame Avenue at East Lane Westbound Burlingame Avenue approaching East Lane is stop controlled by a stop sign. =..M This intersection serves a transit oriented development area to the south. Photo source: Google Maps Northbound East Lane at Burlingame Avenue r =Lad The intersection of East Lane and Burlingame Avenue is within 200-feet south of a railroad crossing. Southbound East Lane through and left turn lanes onto Burlingame Avenue is uncontrolled. This is a busy intersection with multiple and offset approaches. Limited stop control may be due to the proximately of the railroad crossing. The exit to the tennis court parking is yield controlled. Due to concerns of existing conditions such as traffic speeds, sight distance, and visibility, walking is an unattractive form of transportation. Photo source: Google Maps Attachment D: Project Location Map Lexingtoro Way ,s G 4 111�%5 Val •p Burlingame High School G J � ` 14 Cr } Washinglo-n Par `�, B Elementary School'�n � e Coll r _. ,*ry! $Val.I 6� {' p°l � �,.�� • QC e0 P C'. California Air Resources Board c.P Benefits Calculator Tool for the `' Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Pr Cop and 7rod °o1arai':-;,kV�California Climate Investments Note to Applicants rA step-by-step user guide, including a project example, for this Benefits Calculator Tool is available here. [www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/sgc ahsc userguide 110119.pcl Third -party Tools This Benefits Calculator Tool requires data inputs obtained from the following third -party tool: National Renewable Energy Laboratory PVWatts® Calculator Required for projects including grid -connected solar photovoltaic systems Available at: pvwatts.nrel.00v Information for using this tool is available in the user guide (see above). AHSC applicants must enter basic project information in the table below before proceeding to the inputs tabs. Project Name Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project Identification Number ag19wmw5 County San Mateo Project Area Type Contact Name Mr. Andrew Wong Contact Phone Number 650-558-7230 Contact Email awong@burlingame.org Date Calculator Completed AHSC GGRF Funds Requested ($) Other GGRF Funds ($) Other GGRF Funds Sources Total GGRF Funds ($) Kev for Color -coded Fields Required input field I Output field / not modifiable Helpful hints / important tips Not applicable FINAL November 1, 2019 Page 1 of 1 Project Info �gP cey California Air Resources Board \O 9� rP Benefits Calculator Tool for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program °o1aiaiWo'` ?� California Climate Investments Note to Applicants A step-by-step user guide, including a project example, for this Benefits Calculator Tool is available here. .al zap .ar�andtrade/auct onproceeds/sgc ahsc userguide 1101191f/auct onproceeds/sgc ahsc userguide 110119 1f Average University Key Bike Share Passenger Daily Town with Key Destinations Energy Average Cost Bike Share VMT First Year One-way Facility Traffic Population < Destinations within 1/2 Consumption of Bike Share Trips in Reductions New Facility or Program Type Name or Location Operational Length (miles) (trips/day) 250,000? within 1/4 Mile Mile (kWh/mile) Trip ($) Year 1 (miles) GHG Emission Reductions (MTCOze) Local ROG Emission Reductions (Ibs) Local NO, Emission Reductions (Ibs) Local PM2_5 Emission Reductions (Ibs) Local Diesel PM10 Emission Reductions (Ibs) Fossil Fuel Use Reductions (gal) Walkway East Ln/Burlin ame Av 2022 < 1 mile 2,500 No 4 16 11,700 4 0 1 0 0 358 FINAL November 1, 2019 Page 1 of 1 Active Transportation Inputs Attachment F Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate * Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvement No. Item Desciption QTY I Unit Unit Pie7 Total Amount General Construciton 1 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 32,000 $23,620 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 30,000 $47,240 3 Stormwater Protection Plan 1 LS $ 5,000 $5,000 4 Construction Stacking and Survey 1 LS $ 2,000 $2,000 5 ISite Investigation and Potholing 1 LS $ 5,000 $5,000 Sidewalk and Roadway 6 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 485 LF $ 20 $9,700 7 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 1280 SF $ 8 $10,240 8 Roadway Excavation & Dispose 31 CY $ 240 $7,440 9 Remove Existing Large Tree 2 EA $ 7,500 $15,000 10 1 Dispose Existing Soil 165 CY $ 80 $13,200 11 PCC Sidewalk 4" 3100 SF $ 20 $62,000 12 PCC sidewalk 6"(Driveway) 550 SF $ 30 $16,500 13 Accessible Curb Ramp 5 EA $ 1,500 $7,500 14 Sidewalk Trench Grate 3 EA $ 7,500 $22,500 15 Deep Curb at Bioretention 128 LF $ 200 $25,600 16 lCurb & Gutter 405 LF $ 120 $48,600 17 3" Cold Plane 2356 SY $ 8 $18,848 18 3" HMA AC Overlay 265 TONS $ 150 $39,750 19 Bioretention 1580 SF $ 25 $39,500 20 Strom Drain Inlet (24"x24") 31 EA $ 5,000 $15,000 21 48" Storm Drain Manhole 1 EA $ 8,500 $8,500 22 12" SD pipe 250 LF $ 265 $66,250 23 Landscape 850 SF $ 50 $42,500 24 1" Irrigation Service Type K Copper Tubing 2 EA $ 2,000 $4,000 25 Remove/Salvage Roadside Sign 1 LS $ 300 $300 26 Relocate Sign and Post 2 EA $ 500 $1,000 27 Install Sign Panel and Post 2 EA $ 800 $1,600 28 Install Sign Panel on Existing Post 2 EA $ 300 $600 29 Remove Pavement Striping and Markings 1 LS $ 1,000 $1,000 30 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 9) 100 LF $ 3 $300 31 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 22) 745 LF $ 4 $2,980 32 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 276) 160 LF $ 2 $320 33 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 38) 50 LF $ 3 $150 34 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Detail 38A) 100 LF $ 3 $300 35 Pavement Marking (Continental Crosswalk - White) 820 SF $ 6 $4,920 36 Pavement Marking (Continental Crosswalk -Yellow) 1,150 SF $ 7 $8,050 37 Pavement Marking (Stop Marking) 5 EA $ 300 $1,500 38 MMA Traffic Paint - Sharrow Pavement Marking 5 EA $ 250 $1,250 39 Red Curb 150 LF $ 5 $750 Subtotal $580,508 20%Contingency $116,102 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ** $700,000 * This Cost Estimate is based on conceptual design for seperated bikeway. Final design and cost estimate will be determined based on a design process with community outreach and input. ** TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (Rounded to nearest $10,000) - This estimate of construction cost is a professional opinion, based upon the engineer's experience with the design and construction of similar projects. It is prepared only as a guide and is subject to change. 09/16/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System ATP Maps & Summary Data The tool is designed to support the California Active Transportation Program (ATP), as well as active transportation users and practitioners throughout California. The tool utilizes interactive collision maps to allow users to track and document pedestrian and bicycle collisions and generate data summaries within specified project and/or community limits. Step 1: Select a County/City, Bike/Ped, Severity, and Years County: San Mateo City: Burlingame Include 1 mile buffer outside of selected County/City: No Include State Highway Related Collisions: Yes Involved With: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Severity: Fatal, Severe Injury, Other Visible Injury, and Complaint of Pain Year: 2009 - 2019 Collision Summary for initial parameters defined above: Number of Collisions by Collision Severity Involved With Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Total Bicycle 3 21 66 45 135 Pedestrian 4 20 63 66 153 https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 1 /6 09/16/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System County/City Heat Map: Step 2: Identify your project area to develop a more localized Community Heat Map Select the size of your proposed project limits: <!-- Project has limits that are -->Less than 3 miles across # of Collisions C The heat map intensity scale is constant throughout the I>= 14 state. https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 2/6 09/16/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System Community Heat Map: Step 3: Draw the project boundaries to get detailed collision data summaries and map # of Collisions 0 >= 10 The heat map intensity scale is custom generated for the selected community. https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 3/6 09/16/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System Project Area Collision Map: 3 total collisions. Step 4: Review the project -specific collision map 4;� Y �Y U6 Cd A 1U Je p Cad �r F or E bsr •`:Y or n `f, Cal�nin- Burlirpi,e J� 4 (fie lac Collision severity Fatal ❑ Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain dy Burling°me P:Ism ... of Pez klemonbilia °Nq https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 4/6 09/16/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System Step 5: Review the collision summary data, graphs and tables provided. oummary Results Involved With Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Total Bicycle 0 0 1 0 Pedestrian 0 0 0 2 O U O O z 4 3 I5*1 4 3 0 Pedestrian Collisions Annual Growth (N,."A) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2019 0 No_ of Ca■isians Annual Growth Rate Bicycle Collisions Annual Growth (N/A) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2019 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2019 0 No_ of Collisions Annual Growth Rate 0 2 5% -1 0 0 2 5% -1 0 n 3 W https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 5/6 09/16/2020 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System Collision List CASE ID Date Time Primary Rd 4679005 04/06/2010 11:05 East Ln 6752932 11/20/2014 17:29 North Ln 7202488 12/02/2015 12:01 East Ln Secondary Rd Dist & Dir from Int. Burlingame Av At Int Carolan Av 16 ft West Burlingame Av At Int Bike Ped Killed Injured Yes No 0 1 No Yes 0 1 No Yes 0 1 https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ 6/6 Avovw To: Date: From: STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council October 19, 2020 AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: October 19, 2020 Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Karen Hager, Management Analyst — (650) 558-7317 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Procure Landscape Structures Playground Equipment and Installation for the Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant J-Lot Playground Renovation in the Amount of $148,544.09, City Project Number 79450 and to Change the Playground's Name from J-Lot Plavaround to Primrose Plavaround RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to procure the playground equipment and installation from Landscape Structures in the amount of $148,544.09 through Sourcewell and rename the playground to Primrose Playground per the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission. BACKGROUND The J-Lot Playground was installed in 1999 in conjunction with the parking lot renovation of J-Lot. The play equipment is now over 20 years old and needs updating to comply with current Americans with Disabilities Act and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. DISCUSSION J-Lot Playground Committee Unlike the City's neighborhood playgrounds, the J-Lot Playground is located within the Burlingame Avenue Downtown Business District. Due to the playground's unique location, staff invited the Downtown Business Improvement District (DBID) President, Jenny Keheler, to serve as the community representative on the committee. The committee was comprised of the following members: Jenny Keheler — DBID President, Owner —A Runner's Mind Ian Milne — Parks & Recreation Commissioner Bob Disco — Parks Superintendent Richard Holtz — Parks Supervisor, Certified Playground Safety Inspector Karen Hager — Management Analyst, Project Manager J-Lot Playground Renovation and Renaming October 19, 2020 On two occasions, the committee convened to review and refine designs from Landscape Structures, as presented by Alex Hailey from Ross Recreation. The City has Landscape Structures equipment in the new Washington Park Playground, Pershing Park, and Laguna Park. The inspiration for the design was taken from the whimsical mural that is proximate to the playground (Exhibit A). Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant The City Council adopted a resolution on June 17, 2019, to approve filing the Proposition 68 per capita program application and grant conditions, and staff submitted the application to fund this project on September 21, 2020. The City of Burlingame's per capita allocation totals $196,532.55; a 20% match is required. Playground Renaming During the committee discussions, Parks & Recreation Commissioner Milne proposed that the playground name be changed from the parking lot name to the street name, which aligns more closely with other City playgrounds. At their January 16, 2020 meeting, the Parks & Recreation Commission approved the playground design and voted to support changing the playground's name to Primrose Playground. The name change is proposed to be concurrent with the playground reopening after construction is complete. Playground Design and Procurement The proposed J-Lot Playground design, as recommended by the J-Lot Playground Committee, is attached (Exhibits B and C). The City will purchase the playground equipment, turf surfacing, and installation directly from Landscape Structures through Sourcewell for $148,544.09 (Exhibit D). Sourcewell is a purchasing cooperative under the California Department of General Services Procurement Division for California local governmental agencies. They are receptacles for Federal General Services Administration previously bid and awarded contracts. Sourcewell then establishes an independent California contract for the same products and services at equal or lower prices. FISCAL IMPACT At this time, the J-Lot Playground Renovation Project is unfunded. However, once the Proposition 68 per capita grant application is approved, grant expenditures will be reimbursed to the City as expenses are incurred. There are adequate funds in the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Playground Replacement Fund for the required 20% match. Estimated Project Budget Playground Demolition, Equipment, and Installation $ 148,544.09 Site furnishings - water fountain, benches $ 7,500.00 Fence refurbishment $ 25,000.00 Installation of the water line $ 5,000.00 Staff time $ 2,000.00 Installation benches and fountain $ 1,000.00 Misc. expenses - required signage, permit fee, etc. $ 1,000.00 New Primrose Park sign $ 3,000.00 2 J-Lot Playground Renovation and Renaming October 19, 2020 Total Project Budget $ 193,044.09 Grant Amount $ 154,435.27 Match Amount $ 38,608.82 Because the available per capita funds are greater than the project amount, staff intends to apply for another project at a later date to utilize the remainder of the Prop. 68 per capita allocation. Exhibits: • Resolution • Primrose Mural Photo • Playground Designs • Purchasing Agreement for Landscape Structures, Playground Equipment, and Installation 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $148,544.09 FOR THE PROPOSITION 68 PER CAPITA GRANT J-LOT PLAYGROUND RENOVATION, CITY PROJECT NO.79450 AND TO RENAME THE J-LOT PLAYGROUND TO PRIMROSE PLAYGROUND WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Playground Replacement Capital Improvement Program has identified the J-Lot Playground as needing replacement to meet Americans with Disabilities Act and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) compliance; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame approved the resolution to file the project application for the State of California Prop. 68 Per Capita Grant funds; and WHEREAS, the City Council commits to the matching funds in the amount of 20% of overall project costs; and WHEREAS, the Landscape Structures playground surfacing, equipment, and installation can be purchased thorough Sourcewell, a government purchasing contract, for $148,544.09; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted to support changing the playground's name from J-Lot Playground to Primrose Playground. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to procure Landscape Structures playground surfacing, equipment, and installation at a cost of $148,544.09. 2. The City Council approves the matching funds be assigned from the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Playground Fund in an amount not to exceed $40,000. 3. The City Council approves renaming the J-Lot Playground to Primrose Playground upon the playground's reopening. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of October, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk IHO k `W -rim rL _ 4 I Tr ' 4 M Fe. kr. C — — + r � i dp 4k 4 - - _ _w -J - _ aL br L _• 3 - t p I E� aAmmai Al mt..�Atr, %3 ift fw mmii At pp A%6 A �_N. .I%bw_l 111112 r Exhibit B It Exhibit zA / [� 0 U& J-Lot Playground landscape Structure 1140629-01-05-05 - 01j0.2020 Recreacion Equipnlcn[ 2020 Landscape Structures- All Right Reserved. Landscape Structures Representative Alex Hailey alexh@rossrec.com Exhibit D Sourcewel Ira, Formerly NJFA 030117-LSI Prepared For: Bill To Name Burlingame, City of Bill To 1010 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 United States Quote Number 00031217 Opportunity Name J-Lot Playground Quote Name J-Lot Playground 1.00 Rentals 1.00 Demolition 1.00 Demolition 1.00 1.00 PlayBooster, 5-12 Installation ALL PURCHASE ORDERS, CONTRACTS, AND CHECKS TO BE MADE OUT TO: LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. 601 7TH STREET SOUTH DELANO, MN 55328 U.S.A. 763-972-3391 800-328-0035 Fax: 763-972-3185 Ship To Name J-Lot Playground Ship To 252 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 United States Quote Date 10/4/2020 Quote Exp Date 11/13/2020 Est Lead Time Check with Sales Rep Temporary Construction fencing and portable toilet for duration of construction. Removal and haul away of existing play equipment Removal and haul away of existing PIP rubber, approximately 1109sf at approximately 2"-3" thickness Landscape Structures PlayBooster Design #1140629-01-05 including: GeoPlex Climber, Corkscrew Climber, Loop Ladder, Sunbeam Climber, ColorSplash Panel w/ Bee & Ladybug, 32" Transfer Module w/ Fun House Door, Ladybug ABC Climber, Custom Angled Roof w/ Scalloped Accent, Bee Pipe Barrier, Garden Theme Pipe Barrier w/ Wheel, primrose Cottage Digifuze Sign, Short Flower Talk Tube at Grade, Fun House Window w/ Flower & Leaf Spinners, Custom Digifuze Periscope Panel, Storefront Panel, Table Panel, Talk Tube, Turning Bar, Flower Accent Toppers, Double Swoosh Slide, WhooshWinder Slide, Flower Steppers, Kaleidospin Panel, Sensory Play Center Wall, and complimentary Welcome Sign. Installation of Landscape Structures design #1140629-01-05 by a manufacturer certified installer. *Installation price quoted for favorable working conditions. If rock, poor soil conditions, a high water table and/or other unforeseen site conditions exist requiring additional materials and labor, additional charges may be incurred. *Installation quoted includes standard manufacturer provided footing details; if different footing details are provided by the owner/specifier, a change order will be required. *Installation quoted includes installing footings through native soil or 95% compacted base rock. If installing through concrete, asphalt or through less compacted or permeable base or drain rock, or in other conditions, please provide additional details and a change order may be required. Surface America Poured -In -Place Rubber surfacing materials: -Square Footage: approximately 1109 sf --Thickness: 3" (per 6' CFH of play equipment) --Binder: Aliphatic UV Stable $1,337.90 $1,337.90 $5,236.00 $5,236.00 $5,806.72 $5,806.72 $71,787.20 $71,787.20 $23,689.94 $23,689.94 00031217 $148, 544.09 Landscape Structures Representative Alex Hailey alexh@rossrec.com Surface 1.00 America PIP Rubber Install- 1.00 Rubber Surfacing 1.00 Security 1.00 Inspection 1.00 Bond Sourcewell 1.00 Ross Discount Sourcewell 1.00 LSI Discount Notes to Customer -Color: 100% Color, solid or speckled mix *Rubber follows the contour of the sub -base and will be 3" thick throughout the area; if sub -base work is required upon exposure once the surfacing is removed a change order can be provided. If existing surfacing is more than 3" thick a change order will be required for additional materials; if existing surfacing is less than 3" thick, material will be beveled down to meet with perimeter flatwork. *Teal, Yellow, Purple, and Primary Red are considered premium colors, if any are used for more than 25% of the color mix, an additional materials charge will apply. *Any change in color, thickness, square footage or binder type will require a change order. *It is the responsibility of the City to verify all colors and square footage prior to placing an order. Any revision to materials will require a revised quote and may result in a price increase. *Thicknesses quoted to meet industry standards for ASTM testing of 1000 HIC/200GMax. Installation of Surface America Poured -in -Place rubberized surfacing for 1109 square feet at a 3" thickness by a manufacturer certified installer. Price does not include sub -base preparation or repair, drainage, design work or inspections. Surfacing will be installed to follow slope of the existing sub base and thickness of safety surfacing quoted to be kept consistent; if sub -base requires additional preparation upon exposure a change order can be provided. Security guard for poured -in -place surfacing during 8 hour curing time, under normal weather conditions. Temporary fencing (at an additional cost) may be needed in certain circumstances. *If you elect to decline a security guard, a security opt out waiver will be required. CPSI Inspection of Play Equipment *does not include HIC testing of surfacing which can be added at additional cost Payment & Performance Bonds Sourcewell (formerly NJPA) Ross Discount, Contract # 030117-LSI Sourcewell (formerly NJPA) LSI Discount, Contract # 030117-LSI Materials Amount Tax Amount Labor Total Freight Amount Total $16,092.92 I $16,092.92 $6,644.55 $6,644.55 $336.60 $336.60 $748.00 $748.00 $4,326.53 $4,326.53 $1,751.12-$1,751.12 -$875.56-$875.56 SIGNATURE BELOW ACCEPTING THIS PROPOSAL WILL Thank you for the opportunity to quote your CONSTITUTE A PURCHASE ORDER ONLY UPON APPROVAL BY upcoming project. PLEASE NOTE: quote does LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. CUSTOMER RECEIPT OF AN not include engineering calculations, security, ORDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONSTITUTES SUCH APPROVAL. storage, or permits. Your purchase is subject to Signature the terms and conditions of this quote, approval of this quote agrees to those terms. Name Title Date If ordering materials after the expiration date, please add 3-5% annually to materials for anticipated price increase. Please also note that sales tax will be based on the current rate at the time of shipping, not order date. Customer will be expected to cover these taxes. $85,253.44 $8,099.08 $48,126.24 $7,065.33 $148,544.09 00031217 $148, 544.09 Landscape Structures Representative Alex Hailey alexh@rossrec.com Ross Recreation will provide labor using a subcontractor for all installation and labor quoted. Neither Ross Recreation nor our subcontractors are signatory to any unions, however compliance with prevailing wage rate requirements will occur. If union enrollment is required by our subcontractor for completion of this project, Ross Recreation will require a change order to cover the costs of a per project enrollment and additional wage/benefit requirements. 00031217 $148,544.09 � CITYY O �ApouwT[ To: Date: From: STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council October 19, 2020 AGENDA NO: 8e MEETING DATE: October 19, 2020 Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map (PM 20-01), Lot Split of 3.195 Acre Portion of Parcel A as Filed in Book 68 of Parcel Maps, Pages 5-6, Office of the San Mateo County Recorder at 30 Inaold Road RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the vesting tentative and final parcel map (PM 20-01) for a lot split of a 3.195 acre portion of Parcel A as filed in Book 68 of Parcel Maps, Pages 5-6, Office of the San Mateo County Recorder, subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing structure must be demolished before the map can be recorded. 2. A final parcel map for the lot split must be filed by the applicant within the two-year time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 3. All sidewalk, driveway approach, curb, and gutter fronting the project site on Ingold Road and Rollins Road shall be removed and replaced per City Standard Details. 4. The developer will be required to grind and pave Ingold Road from curb to curb, from the curb return at the T-intersection of Rollins Road to the end of Ingold Road as shown on the building permit plans under the Civil drawings. 5. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action. 6. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. 7. The final map shall show all proposed and existing easements, the widths of the right-of-way for Ingold Road and Rollins Road including the centerlines of right-of-way, bearings, and distances of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 8. The final map shall show the dedication of the proposed public park to the City of Burlingame as part of the proposed development and the subdivision map, and 9. Permanent stormwater treatment measures and maintenance agreements are required for 1 Tentative and Final Subdivision Map (PM20-01) October 19, 2020 each parcel as part of the statewide stormwater regulations. Agreements for maintenance of stormwater infrastructure shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office prior to the building permit sign -off. BACKGROUND The project consists of construction of a new seven -story complex comprising a 298-unit mixed - use development and a public park, as shown as Parcel B on the attached vesting tentative and final parcel map, to be dedicated to the City. On October 13, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the vesting tentative parcel map. Staff has reviewed the map and recommends its approval subject to the above conditions. Exhibits: • Resolution • Parcel Map 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM 20-01), LOT SPLIT OF A 3.195 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL A AS FILED IN BOOK 68 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES 5-6, OFFICE OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDER AT 30 INGOLD The City Council of the City of Burlingame resolves as follows: WHEREAS, the Public Works Department recommends that the City Council approve the above said vesting tentative and final parcel map with the following conditions: The existing structure at the site must be demolished prior to the recordation of the final map at the San Mateo County Office of Records. 2. A final parcel map for the lot split must be filed by the applicant within the two-year time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 3. All sidewalk, driveway approach, curb, and gutter fronting the project site on Ingold Road and Rollins Road shall be removed and replaced per City Standard Details. 4. The developer shall be required to grind and pave Ingold Road from curb to curb, from the curb return at the T-intersection of Rollins Road to the end of Ingold Road as shown on the building permit plans under the Civil drawings. 5. No developmental approvals shall be a part of this mapping action. 6. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. 7. The final map shall show all proposed and existing easements, the widths of the right-of-way for Ingold Road and Rollins Road including the centerlines of right-of- way, bearings and distances of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 8. The final map shall show the dedication of the proposed public park to the City of Burlingame as part of the development and the subdivision map. 9. Permanent stormwater treatment measures and maintenance agreements are required for each parcel. Agreements shall be recorded with the County prior to building permit sign -off. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: The Final Parcel Map (PM 20-01) with the conditions described above is approved. 2. Staff is directed to verify that all conditions of approval are met and arrange for the recording of the Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map. Emily Beach, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 191h day of October, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk OO BKF ENGINEERS 3 LLJ J 0 z LIj Q .. zw z n Q O O � GENERAL NOTES 1. TENTATIVE MAP: THIS VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP IS BEING FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 66452 AND CHAPTER 4.5 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. 2. TENTATIVE MAP: THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 26.08 "TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAPS" OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE. 3. TOPOGRAPHY: TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY FIELD SURVEY DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2020. BY BKF ENGINEERS. 4. BASIS OF BEARING: THE BEARING SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83) CCS83, CALIFORNIA ZONE 3. THE COORDINATES WERE DETERMINED BY HOLDING THE NAD83, CCS83 (EPOCH 2O10.00) STATE PLANE COORDINATE VALUES OF NGS CONTROL POINTS AA3814 AND DG6882, UTILIZING THE CALIFORNIA SURVEYING AND DRAFTING SUPPLY (CSDS) REAL TIME GNSS NETWORK (RTN). 5. BENCHMARK: THE BASIS OF ELEVATION USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) CONTINUOUSLY OPERATING REFERENCE STATION (CORS), P230 DETERMINED BY GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM (GNSS) SURVEY METHODS, UTILIZING THE CSDS REAL TIME GNSS NETWORK (RTN). 6. FINAL MAPS: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 66456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS. 7. BOUNDARY: BOUNDARY INFORMATION IS BASED ON RECORD INFORMATION & FIELD SURVEY COMPLETED BY BKF ENGINEERS DATED OCTOBER 28, 2019. 8. EASEMENTS: DRAINAGE EASEMENT, SURFACE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, OVERLAND RELEASE EASEMENT, PUBLIC PARK EASEMENT, PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENTS, PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, EASEMENT FOR RAILROAD AND TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES. 9. FEMA: THE SITE IS WITHIN FLOOD ZONE "AE" WHICH DESIGNATES AREAS SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE 1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD EVENT DETERMINED BY DETAILED METHODS, PER FLOOD MAP NUMBER 06081 CO132F. . VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP INGOLD ROAD CITY OF BURLINGAME, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 _ _ 0 0 SAN San Pablo N RAFAEL 80 B a y U O VALLEJO U RICHMOND %su oy U ° 4 �U m MARTINEZ 0 SAN ° J NCISC S O 24 U / In ° WALNUT BURUNGAME CREEK C U 1 LL- s° HALF MOON / A 92 BAY °/ 8 HAYWAR DUBLIN RE ODD, 0 CITY U) 84 P 0 ALTO FREMONT l SUN ALE . 0 ANTA RA LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE SUBDIVIDER'S STATEMENT OWNER: SHAC INGOLD APARTMENTS LLC 777 SOUTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94304 SUBDIVIDER: SUMMERHILL APARTMENT COMMUNITIES 777 SOUTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94304 ENGINEER: BKF ENGINEERS 225 SHORELINE DRIVE, SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 APN: 025-280-450 AREA: 3.196 f ACRES EXISTING ZONING: NORTH ROLLINS ROAD MIXED USE ZONE (RRMU) PROPOSED ZONING: NORTH ROLLINS ROAD MIXED USE ZONE (RRMU) EXISTING USE: OFFICE BUILDING (LABORATORY) PROPOSED USE: 298 APARTMENT UNITS WITH PODIUM PARKING 4,000f SQUARE FEET COMMERCIAL 911111FMN6119EA1110 0 WATER SUPPLY: FIRE PROTECTION: SEWAGE DISPOSAL: STORM DRAIN: GAS: ELECTRIC: TELEPHONE: CABLE TELEVISION: CITY OF BURLINGAME CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME PG&E PG&E CENTURYLINK COMCAST, ATT Magic Press Corporation Q D 0 0 See's Candy Factory Proterra Inc Lahlouh Inc A°'% o oSRa PROJECT SITE QPrime Time Athletic Club O Riggs Distributing, IncQ " SRa � % %%` Q Future Pro Baseball Center Q �1 WHCI Plumbing Supply Company � Qa �a ATHERTON / �30 Ingold Road Davis Drapery Hardware APPLIANCE/ Q8_drive-home Q / Tapiceria Design Studio Q Tyto life %% I Wood & Cabinetry I... Garratt-Callahan 0 I aif Beverly Coat 0 a� Hanger Co. Inc QMills Estate Villa O De Vincenzi Metal F Products Inc Cooper MD VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE DRAWING INDEX VTM-1.0 TITLE SHEET VTM-2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN VTM-3.0 PROPOSED PARCELIZATION PROPERTY LINE EX PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE EX EASEMENT LINE MONUMENT LINE BUILDING ENGINEER'S STATEMENT THIS TENTATIVE MAP HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE. RYAN K. BERNAL PROJECT MANAGER BKF ENGINEERS oQROFESS/pygl C76706 * EXP. 12/31 /20 Jj9TF CjVCA O\Fo���Q BL\12 ABBREVIATIONS: APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BLDG BUILDING B.S.B.L BUILDING SETBACK LINE D.E. DRAINAGE EASEMENT E EAST, EASTING EL ELEVATION EVA EMERGECY VEHICLE ACCESS ESMT EASEMENT EX EXISTING EXC. EXCEPTION EX.NO. EXISTING NUMBER M MAP MON MONUMENT N NORTH, NORTHING NE NORTHEAST NO. NUMBER NW NORTHWEST O.R. OFFICIAL RECORD PPAE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT PM PARCEL MAP PR PROPOSED PTR PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ROW RIGHT OF WAY S SOUTH SE SOUTHEAST SW SOUTHWEST TYP TYPICAL W WEST N IW W 111 � f' -I. W MON J W U � � z DaW Q F— 0 o J Off= WW o LLJ Q Z~W QJ z Cie) Z F- W w F (� Q 0 z Z F— m W LL- 0 U U) C 0 .N a� Of 0 z 0 o x x m ;-0 N 17 OC14 II X X X Ly o N \ 0 0 a) o IZ c o z Q) � 3 L 41 p in 0 a o 0 Q cn 0 Sheet Number: VTM-1.0 1 of 3 (DBKF ENGINEERS 0 N H / H 0 z w / a� E 0 v) C — cn �D m Om C D —w o� no I� a- 0 n W Q .. zw z r) ao w' J O w 10' P.U.E. LANDS OF GUITTARD HORACE A JR TR PER 2923 O.R. 378; APN 025-166-210 2923 384; LANDS OF 1755 ROLLINS RD BURLINGAME LLC 2923 O.R. 391; ESMT. FOR RAILROAD AND F10' — 2923 O.R. 397 TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES APN 025-166-090 PE P.U.E. EXC. f�6� — — PER 3856 O.R. 698 PER 2923 .4 O.R. 378 EXC. - 8— — — EXC. NO � •— — — — � — — (N36'29'30" — E 480.87')1 — — 37'43'07"E — � N I— — 480.97 I 10' PUE — I I I PER 2923 O.R. 421 — — — — — - — — — & 2923 O.R. 428; _ IEXC. NO. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 20' NON EXCLUSIVE ESMT. FOR RAILWAY 10' P.U.E.PUR— PERP20SES 722 O.R. 202 PER 2923 O.R. 421 I 8 D.E. PER 48 M 31; EXC. NO. 7 & 2923 O.R. 428 & PER 68 M 5-6; EXC. NO. 9 & 3135 O.R. 43; EXC. N0. 4 EXC. NO. 3 & IEXC. NO. 6 �I I I i I I Box I O O I� � I I 0000 N N w W ITl- o1\1 N � N 00 I o� LnLn cn I I ----------------------- I I ❑ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � Ll LANDS OF SHAC INGOLD APARTMENTS LLC EX BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED AREA = 66,227 SO FT APN 025-280-480 ............ ILA LOADING DOCK ■ ■ 00. 15' B.S.B.L. 15' B.S.B.L. \ PER 48M31 PER 48M31 4,32 0857_ 56.11' TO BE VACATED TO BE VACATED — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — N34'11'10"E 360.30' (N32'57'33"E)1 FOUND IRON PIPE WITH TACK INSIDE MON. WELL PER 68 PM 5-6 N=2044660 E=6017627 EL=8.31 APN 025-280-080 S34'11'10"W 502.13' INGOLD ROAD (54' WIDE ROW) APN 025-280-210 0 M 00 st 0 zz LO LO I I 0 LO N to I� k N37'43'07"E 42.08' 5' B.S.B.L. 'ER 48 M 31 '0 BE VACATED N R= 0.00' A---90'00'19" L= 1.42' 00 0 N 0 N .� N O 00 0 GRAPHIC 20 1 -FOUND MON WIT PI PER 68 PM 5-6 & 34 LLS 1-61 N=2045787 E=6016862 EL=9 09 n 0 0� N w Z3.1 _J - _j o00 0 " Ix � N N O0 3: on N O � z 0 n FOUND MON WE EMPTY INSIDE (NO IRON PIPE) ti 0 0 N LO wCD V)g N CD X Q O U v W 0CD z 0 CDU jU(MO (MO 0 Momw 3 \\ Ln000 LnwLnLO N Of (O (0 L Vl W Z J E y C a W y N AN ■■ W a Q z O �Z LL_ J J Q U W J U a � QZ a 0 0U OLLJ JW� o Q Z Z Qp z O�U M Z W w Q v Z_ N - � X M (n W W 0 U G O O p N II X X X X m M (y �2 o N 0 0 U _� C 3 N o L O z O U U d 0 (n 0 Q � Sheet Number: VTM-2.0 ■ 40 2 OF 3 OO BKF ENGINEERS 0 .z 10' P.U.E. LANDS OF GUITTARD HORACE A JR TR PER 2923 O.R. 378; APN 025-166-210 2923 O.R. 384; LANDS OF 1755 ROLLINS RD BURLINGAME LLC c6 NOTES: "Lo — —�� — 2923 O.R. 391; ESMT. FOR RAILROAD AND APN 025-166-090 10 P.U.E. 1. PROPOSED EASEMENT OVER PARCEL B, L-0 N� — — & 2923 O.R. 397 TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES R 378 ASHOWNSURFACE Q EX-f�0. 4 _ER 3856 O.R. 698 EXC. I�� 8— EXC. NO 34 1� DRABENENAGEGOFAAREASRCEL o < v Li C CD 2 DTO E _ \ \ _ _ _0 — (N36'29 ' '° ILn Icn EASEMOENT DEDICATED TRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT OR OTHER DEED RESTRICTION OVER CITY PARK. w ro ro =o�� N3�� ��— 30 E 480.87'�1 N37'43'07"E Loo o o LowLoLo — 480.97 Nd'(O (O I N W Z I 10' P.U.E. — — — — PER 2923 O.R. 421 _ — — _ J a & 2923 O.R. 428; y o EXC. NO. 4 I _ 20' NON EXCLUSIVE ESMT. FOR RAILWAY 10' P.U.E. — — I y W PURPOSES 202 PER 2923 O.R. 421 x 8' D.E. PER 48 M 31; EXC. NO. 7 PER 2722 O.R. & 2923 O.R. 428 I �■ W & PER 68 M 5-6; EXC. NO. 9 & 3135 O.R. 43; EXC. NO. 4 EXC. NO. 3 & EXC. NO. 6 I o z - I I I Q I I 0 w H z 0 I Q o corn r- col I I , o c6 � Q NN I o a z ww Z � Q O 0 i-- o N� I J J � N a0 o� 0 " Z =j Q Lo Ln �� cnI � I I J O W N 55•4850W 4.50 34*11'10"E 14.42' I U Q N34'11'10"E 9.40 S55'48'50"E 4.64' I N Q z I 34'11'10"E 2.00' 5 PPAE a O U N34'10 51 E 127.62 N55'48 50 W 4.62 S55'48 50 E 9.00 PARCEL A W N55'49'09"W 5.00' _ _ _ _ _ S55'48'50"E 0.50' 121,411 SO FT J U O 55'48'50'W 7.90' N34'10351 "E 127.04' N34'11'10"E 1.44' S34'17'10"W 7.06' S34'11'10"W 5.00' I W > LLi Q I N55'49'05'W 13.00' S55'48'50"E 9.00' SURFACE DRAINAGE EASEMENT S34'11'10'W 1.96' I Z ~ Z I\ SEE NOTE 1 S55'48'50"E 6.00' Q Q ;p 61N34'10'55"E 6.83' I \� N55'49'09"W„ 9.46' S34'11'10"W 10.00' I I O Q ICI �N55 48 50 W 2.00 N34'11'10"E 14.003 I M 1-0O\,N W vs' \. oo rnrl. O :��i im N l N a �I N rn Irn z � I A � I� o) I � Z o' PARCEL B — i I CITY PARK C" Iz z ~ a M I� 17,785 SO FT Z � PUBLIC PARK EASEMENT N LL- O I0) SEE NOTE 1 SURFACE DRAINAGE EASEMENT I W I_N SEE NOTE 1 > U N I� S34'11'10"W 14.00' ILn z `n I OVERLAND z I RELEASE EASEMENT 0l EVA SEE NOTE 2 I II R=77.09' A---19'28'10" L=26.20' I rn I N55'49'32"W 6.82'_ Lo ,55• q 0'12" L=48 58' kN55*49'08"W 20.37' ZI �op0 <D/55400g )1 � -1 R=20.00' —90'00300" L=31.42' Of `57 56.11' ll�� R=20.00' N34'113103'E 360.303 A=90'00'19" (N 32'57'33"E)1 L= 31.42' I z INGOLD ROAD (54 WIDE ROW) o -N XX Y PO r2 o N rn i — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ` 4-1 o o cn o c a o > o L a Q o z I Sheet Number. 1/ - - ti A I I L N GRAPHIC SCALE V T M- 3 0 APN 025-280-080 APN 025-280-210 20 0 20 40 3 OF 3 Avovw To: Date: From: Subject STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council October 19, 2020 AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: October 19, 2020 Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Informational Report Regarding Minimum Wage Impacts on Recreation Programming RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the proposed pricing structure for recreational programming in anticipation of the local minimum wage increase. BACKGROUND At the September 21, 2020 meeting, the City Council approved increasing the City's minimum wage to $15 per hour effective January 1, 2021. This increase in the local minimum wage necessitates increasing certain salaries in the Recreation Division. The Recreation Leader I position, which is staffed with high school students and used primarily to assist with summer camps, currently makes less than $15.00/hour. When this position is raised to $15.00/hour, the pay ranges for the five other positions in this series, Recreation Leader 11, Senior Recreation Leader, Recreation Specialist, Preschool Teacher, and Preschool Site Coordinator, will need to be raised to maintain the appropriate separations between the various pay ranges. If the Recreation Division were to return to pre-COVID staffing levels, then the budget impact of the local minimum wage increase would be approximately $70,000 in the first fiscal year. It is unclear when the Division will be able to bring back its prior programming and associated staff. The majority of Recreation Division programming is done on a contractual basis, and the class fees are split on 30% City - 70% contractor or 20% City - 80% contractor basis depending on whether or not the class occurs in a City facility. In this program area, the minimum wage increase will not impact programming. Elementary and middle school sports and adult sports leagues utilize part-time staff and flat rate contractual staff and are offered less frequently. The impact of the minimum wage increase can be accommodated without a significant impact on the fees. For the seasonal in-house camps, part-time staff represents approximately 47% of the program's budget. For pre-school, part-time staff represents about 97% of the program's budget. For these two programs, an increase in the minimum wage will have a noticeable effect on the programs' cost as they provide all -day care weekly during the summer or year-round care. Minimum Wage Impacts on Recreation Programming October 19, 2020 DISCUSSION Each year, the City increases fees for seasonal in-house camps and pre-school by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). To adjust for the part-time wage increase, staff plans to increase the fees by 10% for calendar year 2021 camps and the 2021-22 pre-school year. The below chart shows the 2019-20 weekly rates for the camp and pre-school programs as well as the 2020-21 rates with a 3% increase and a 10% increase. Program 19-20 Fee 20-21 Fee w/3% 20-21 Fee w/10% Camp $418 $431 $460 Lil' Sprouts $35 $36 $39 Cottage Kids $75 $77 $83 Villagers $96 $99 $106 For many of the City's families, the fee increase will not significantly impact their annual household budget. However, some families that rely on these programs will feel the fee increase. To aid those families, the City has a scholarship fund that can help families needing additional support by offsetting a portion of the program fees. Staff plans to conduct outreach to increase awareness of this program in the coming months. If there is an increase in the number of requests that impact the scholarship fund balance due to fee increases, staff will return to the City Council to request additional funds as necessary. FISCAL IMPACT In anticipation of the minimum wage increases, staff has already made budget adjustments to the FY 2020-21 part-time salaries for camp and pre-school. Due to the pandemic -related changes to current Recreation programming, no additional funds are required this fiscal year in the part-time staff line item. Overall, the 10% fee increase will offset the majority of the staff cost increase for both program areas. 2 Avovw To: Date: From: STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council October 19, 2020 AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: October 19, 2020 Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code (Off -Street Parking) to Reduce the Office Parking Ratio for Properties Located in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) Zone; Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for Mechanical Parking Stackers for a New Seven -Story, Mixed -Use Development with Retail, Office, and 60 Residential Units with Below Grade Parking at 1766 El Camino Real RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: 1. Request that the Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance and then make a motion to introduce the following ordinance by title only, waiving further reading: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 25.70 to Amend the Office Parking Regulations in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) District to One Space per 400 Square Feet". 2. Conduct a public hearing and consider all public testimony related to the Ordinance; Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers for a new seven -story, mixed -use development with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking. 3. Following conclusion of the public hearing, provide direction to staff regarding any desired changes to the Ordinance and related project entitlements. 4. Direct staff to place adoption of the proposed Ordinance and resolutions memorializing the City Council's action related to all project entitlements on the November 2, 2020 regular meeting agenda of the City Council. BACKGROUND An application has been submitted for construction of a new seven -story mixed use 1 1766 El Camino Real - New Mixed Use Development October 19, 2020 commercial/residential development at 1766 El Camino Real. The project site is zoned NBMU (North Burlingame Mixed Use) and is located at the southeastern corner of El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, and approximately one-half mile from the Millbrae multimodal station. The project consists of 7,588 SF of retail uses on the ground floor (to be determined), four floors (floors 2 through 5) of office space totaling 148,057 SF, and two floors (floors 6 & 7) of residential units (60 units). The overall height would be 90'-6" to the top of the parapet and 96'-0" to the top of the elevator penthouse. The project would provide a total of 385 on -site parking spaces located in two levels of below -grade parking, with the remaining spaces located at grade in the portion of the lot that connects directly to California Drive. Application Elements: • Mitigated Negative Declaration: A determination that with mitigation measures there will be no significant environmental effects as a result of this project; • Amendment to the Off -Street Parking Code to Reduce Office Parking Requirement in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NMBU) District to change the office parking ratio from 1:300 SF to 1:400 SF for office uses in the NBMU District (C.S. 25.70.040); • Design Review for construction of a new seven -story, mixed use commercial/residential building with retail, office, and 60 residential units with below -grade parking (C.S. 25.40.020) including Approval of Community Benefits Bonuses for a Tier 3 project, which the Planning Commission and City Council may approve if they determine that a project includes at least three community benefits (Code Section 25.40.030); • Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers (C.S. 25.40.050)(D). A copy of the August 24, 2020 Planning Commission staff report is attached and provides a full discussion and analysis of the proposed project, including conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission on August 24, 2020. DISCUSSION The application is being reviewed by the City Council because it includes a request for a Zoning Code amendment to alter the office parking ratio in the NBMU District. Code amendments cannot be specific to a particular property, so the application proposes an amendment that would be applicable to all properties within the NBMU District. While the code amendment is the impetus for the City Council review, the Council will review and take action on the full application, including the requested development entitlements listed above. Currently, the office parking requirement for all zoning districts is one parking space per 300 square feet. The original code amendment request included reducing the office parking ratio to one space per 500 square feet of office in the NBMU District. The Planning Commission reviewed this request as a study item at the September 23, 2019 meeting. Although they were not comfortable reducing the parking ratio to 1:500 SF, Commissioners noted that a 1:400 SF parking ratio for office may be supportable. 2 1766 El Camino Real - New Mixed Use Development October 19, 2020 The applicant revised their application and changed the code amendment request to an office parking ratio of 1:400 SF. The project would provide a total of 385 on -site parking spaces located in one level of below -grade parking, with the remaining spaces located both within the building on the ground floor and at grade in a portion of the lot that connects directly to California Drive. The off-street parking requirement for the project would be met by providing 69 parking spaces for the residential uses, 20 parking spaces for the retail uses, and 296 spaces for the office use, for a total of 385 parking spaces. Of the 385 parking spaces proposed, 144 would be provided in the form of mechanical parking lifts (stackers). The NBMU zoning regulations allow for mechanical parking lifts with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The project would provide a total of 385 spaces, where the code requires 466 spaces with a 20% reduction applied for including a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan (582 off-street spaces required w/o TDM plan). The General Plan Update and NBMU zoning provide for a 20% parking reduction for projects that utilize a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan per Section 25.40.030(B)(4)(h), provided the project includes a permanent mobility mode shift towards alternative transportation of 25% or greater for building occupants through the TDM program. The applicant intends to implement a TDM program per the Hexagon Transportation Consultants memo, dated June 18, 2019. The TDM program would include measures such as retaining a transportation coordinator, providing transit subsidies, maintaining an emergency ride home program, providing bicycle sharing, and unbundled on -site parking. The project includes 148,057 square feet of office space on floors two through five. The existing zoning regulations require one parking space per 300 square feet of office, for a total of 396 spaces for the proposed office use. With the TDM reduction, it would reduce the office parking space requirement to 296 spaces. The office parking that is being proposed is based on a parking ratio of one space per 400 square feet of office. Staff would note that by implementing the TDM program and using a 1:400 SF parking ratio for office, the required on -site parking would be 367 spaces, where 385 space are proposed, or 18 spaces more than required. To clarify, this parking ratio is intended to apply to professional office, medical office, and dental office, all of which are permitted uses in the NBMU District. The basis for the proposed reduction is that the NBMU District is within close proximity to the Millbrae multimodal transit center as well as high -quality SamTrans bus routes, which would allow greater use of transit and a corresponding reduction in the demand for parking. Planning Commission Action: On August 24, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project, including the requested code amendment for the office parking reduction in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) District. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the applicant's request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Amendment to the Off -Street Parking Requirements for office uses in the NBMU District, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Approval of Community Benefits Bonuses for a Tier 3 project. Since the City Council is the final decision -making body regarding the request to amend the off-street parking change in the NBMU District, and given that the entire project has been designed based on the office parking reduction, the City Council action, including the zoning amendment, entitlement package, and the design is predicated on the requested zoning code amendment. Therefore, the Planning Commission's action was in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. 3 1766 El Camino Real - New Mixed Use Development October 19, 2020 City Council Action: In reviewing the Planning Commission recommendations and making a determination on the requested action, the City Council should consider the following findings regarding the project entitlements: Amendment to the Off -Street Parking Requirements for Office (Including Professional/Medical/Dental Offices) in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) District: In acting on the request for the code amendment for reduced office parking in the NBMU District to one space per 400 SF, the City Council should consider consistency with the policies of the General Plan, in particular the following goals and policies that address the North Burlingame Mixed Use District, as well as parking ratios: Goal CC-11: Establish a high -intensity mixed -use development node at the north end of El Camino Real to take advantage of the proximity to the Millbrae multimodal transit station and Sam Trans commuter routes. Policy CC-11.2: Transit -Oriented Development. Allow and encourage higher - density, transit -oriented development along El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive to provide housing, employment, and retail opportunities easily accessible from the Millbrae multimodal transit station and Sam Trans commuter routes. Goal M-7: Use parking management strategies that promote parking availability, housing affordability, congestion management, and improved air quality. Policy M-7.3: Parking Requirements. Reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements and/or implement parking maximums for housing, commercial, office, and other land uses in mixed use areas and in proximity to frequent transit services. Comprehensively examine parking requirements in the Zoning Code and adjust as needed to respond to evolving vehicle ownership patterns and parking practices. M-7.6: Parking Demand Reductions. Reduce parking demand through travel options programs such as parking cash -out and other TDM strategies. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review in mixed use districts is detailed in Code Section 25.57.030 (g) and requires the proposed project to be reviewed for the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial, industrial, and mixed use areas; and (2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and F, 1766 El Camino Real - New Mixed Use Development October 19, 2020 (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. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for building height, the City Council 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 the Zoning Ordinance; (c) The Planning Commission (or in this instance, City Council) 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. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Ordinance — Amending Title 25 (Zoning Code) — Code Section 25.70 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Off -Street Parking • Resolution — CEQA • Resolution — Project Entitlements • Planning Commission Minutes — August 24, 2020 • Planning Commission Staff Reports & Attachments (2 items) — August 24, 2020 o Entitlements o Code Amendment • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) • Response to Comments Memorandum • Project Plans 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 25.70 TO AMEND THE OFFICE PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE NORTH BURLINGAME MIXED USE (NBMU) DISTRICT TO ONE SPACE PER 400 SQUARE FEET The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby ordains as follows: Division 1. Factual Background WHEREAS, on March 15, 2019 an application for new 7-story, mixed -use building at 1766 El Camino Real, located within the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) zone, was filed by Certosa, Inc.; WHEREAS, as part of the entitlement application, on June 19, 2019 the applicant submitted an application for a Zoning Code Amendment to change the parking requirement for office uses by reducing the office parking ratio for the entire North Burlingame Mixed Use District to one space per 500 square feet of office, where the current parking regulations in this district requires one space per 300 square feet of office; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this request as a study item at the September 23, 2019 meeting, but expressed concerns in reducing the office parking ratio to 1:500 SF, however noted that a 1:400 SF parking ratio for office may be supportable; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised request as a study item at the October 28, 2019 meeting and noted that an office parking ratio of 1:400 SF was supportable rather than the 1:500 SF ratio as previously requested and directed the applicant to move the project forward with the 1:400 SF office parking ratio request; WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would reduce the office parking requirements in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) zone to one parking space per 400 square feet of office and would apply to all professional, medical and dental office parking in the entire NBMU District for all future office uses proposed in this district as reflected in the edits to Title 25, Chapter 25.70.100, as detailed in Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the zoning code was considered and analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and published for public comments, with a determination that there would be no significant impacts on the environment; WHEREAS, after considering all written and oral testimony presented at the August 24, 2020 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council adoption of an ordinance amending Title 25 (Zoning Code) - Section 25.70.100 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, to reduce the office parking ratio for the entire North Burlingame Mixed Use District to one space per 400 square feet of office (including professional/dental/medical offices), where the current parking regulations in this district requires one space per 300 square feet of office. 1 ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of October 19, 2020 the Burlingame City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend Title 25 (Zoning Code) - Section 25.70 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, to reduce the office parking ratio for the entire North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) District to one space per 400 square feet of office and following conclusion of the public hearing and consideration of all written and oral testimony provided during the hearing, introduced the ordinance, by title only, waiving further reading. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Division 2. Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.70 is amended and shall be enacted as follows: Chapter 25.70 OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS 25.70.100 Office parking in the North Burlingame Mixed -Use District. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the North Burlingame Mixed -Use District, as shown in the Community Character Section IV of the 2019 General Plan Neighborhoods Context Map, Figure CC-3: (a) There shall be provided parking spaces in the ratio of one space for each four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area for office uses. This parking ratio shall apply to professional, medical and dental offices, all of which are permitted uses in the NBMU zone. North Burlingame Mixed -Use District North Burlingame Mixed Use District Pie sae ll• ORDINANCE NO. Division 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Division 4: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of October, 2020, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2020, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk 3 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 25.70 Off -Street Parking is added as follows: 25.70.100 Office parking in the North Burlingame Mixed Use District. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the North Burlingame Mixed Use District, as shown in the Community Character Section IV of the 2019 General Plan Neighborhoods Context Map, Figure CC-3: (a) There shall be provided parking spaces in the ratio of one space for each four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area for office uses. This parking ratio shall apply to professional, medical and dental offices, all of which are permitted uses in the NBMU District. North Burlingame Mixed Use District 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (NBMU DISTRICT), DESIGN REVIEW, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 7-STORY, MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO FINDINGS STATED AND MITIGATION MEASURES OUTLINED IN MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-608-P THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME finds as follows: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Council, it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-608-P, is hereby approved. Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 211 day of November, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (OFFICE PARKING IN NBMU DISTRICT) FOR A 7-STORY, MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 025-161-110) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME finds as follows: WHEREAS, on March 15, 2019, Certosa, Inc. c/o Mario Muzzi, filed an application with the City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division requesting approval of the following: ■ Environmental Review in accordance with CEQA; ■ Design Review for construction of a new 7-story, mixed -use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking (C.S. 25.40.020); ■ Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers (C.S. 25.40.050)(D); ■ Approval of Community Benefits Bonuses for a Tier 3 project (Code Section 25.40.030); and ■ Zoning Code Amendment to reduce the office parking ratio from 1:300 SF to 1:400 SF for office uses in the NBMU zone (C.S. 25.70.040) (refer to accompanying staff report for zoning code amendment). WHEREAS, on September 23, 2019 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing (environmental scoping session and design review study meeting) to review the proposed 7-story mixed -use building and to identify subjects to be analyzed in the project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). At that time direction was provided to the applicant regarding issues to be addressed in the project IS/MND; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing (second design review study meeting) to review revisions to the proposed 7-story mixed -use building; and WHEREAS, an IS/MND was prepared to analyze project impacts; said IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment commencing on July 15, 2020 and concluding on August 4, 2020; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the applicant's requests for Environmental Review, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Zoning Code Amendment; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider all project entitlements, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and oral testimony presented at said hearing; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, as a result of the oral and written testimony presented at the October 19, 2020 public hearing, as well as the analysis in the staff report, the City Council hereby makes the following findings relative to each aspect of the project application: Design Review Findings: ■ That the proposed project supports the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the City's mixed -use area with a grand canopy that unifies the building massing horizontally along the angled slip road and articulates the position of the upper residential floors from the main body of the office floors. ■ That the subject property is a gateway site that will provide a new scale of building and a new type of architecture with a mix of uses added to this area. This visually prominent, gateway site has been designed with a strong punched opening expression that anchors both facades at El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive and will maintain a transparency to acknowledge this important part of the building. ■ That the design respects and promotes pedestrian activity by providing a public plaza on the El Camino Real frontage, which wraps around to Trousdale Drive. The plaza is sized relative to the building and provides an opportunity for outside passive recreation, with new street trees, planters, and amenities while creating activity along the route to the nearby transit opportunities. ■ That the facade also has additional layering of the facade with extended slab edges to provide more depth on the corners, with an extended cantilevered slab at the second floor that is 8-feet beyond the face of the building to provide additional pedestrian coverage and a strong corner emphasis. ■ That the proposed building materials would include a stone base tile (dark almond porcelain), vision glass, spandrel glass, pre -cast concrete panels (white/almond/light gray), and glass hand rails. For the reasons above the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's mixed -use design review criteria. Conditional Use Permit Findings ■ That the proposed project 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, in that the mixed of uses proposed is consistent with the intent and allowable uses in the NBMU District; ■ That the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and the purposes of this title, in that it provides a mix of uses on a prominent corner property determined to be suitable for such use in the Zoning Code and Burlingame General Plan, that the site is close to transit options and centrally located to shops and service that won't require typical vehicular travel; 2 RESOLUTION NO. That the project includes a TDM plan to reduce trips and that with the use of stackers and the TDM plan, the proposed 385 on -site parking spaces exceeds the code required amount (with the code amendment and 20% TDM reduction) and for the reasons above the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's three Conditional Use Permit criteria for the utilization of mechanical stackers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT the applications for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Zoning Code Amendment are granted, subject to the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 10, 2020, sheets T.01, A0.01 through A4.1, sheets FT1.1 through FT1.4, sheets L1.0 through L4.0; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the City Council; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that the project shall include three (3) affordable units to households of "Low Income" category, as defined as earning a maximum of 80% of the San Mateo County Area Median Income; the City Manager shall be authorized to execute an agreement with the applicant and the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the administration of the renting or leasing of the affordable units at least 120 days before the final inspection; 5. that the required affordable dwelling units shall be constructed concurrently with market -rate units; 6. that the three (3) low income restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a minimum period of fifty-five (55) years (or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program); 7. that the three (3) restricted affordable units shall be built on -site and be dispersed within the development. The number of bedrooms of the restricted affordable units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix and average sizes of the non -restricted units in the development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of restricted affordable units with more bedrooms. The design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent with the design, unit layout, and construction of the total project development in terms of appearance, exterior construction materials, and unit layout; 3 RESOLUTION NO. 8. that the applicant shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the City; the terms of this agreement shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office, and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the reviewing City official; this agreement will be a form provided by the City, and will include the following terms: (a) The affordability of very low, lower, and moderate income housing shall be assured in a manner consistent with Government Code Section 65915(c)(1); (b) An equity sharing agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(c)(2); (c) The location, dwelling unit sizes, rental cost, and number of bedrooms of the affordable units; (d) A description of any bonuses and incentives, if any, provided by the City; and (e) Any other terms as required to ensure implementation and compliance with this section, and the applicable sections of the density bonus law; 9. that the above noted regulatory agreement regarding the three (3) restricted affordable units shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest; the agreement required by this Zoning Code Section 25.63.080 is hereby a condition of all development approvals and shall be fully executed and recorded prior to the issuance of any building or construction permit for the proposed project; 10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee in the amount of $75,159.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 11. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the project applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee in the amount of $75,159.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 12. that prior to the issuance of the building permit the Commercial Linkage Fee in the amount of $2,317,820.00 shall be paid in full, payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 13. that the public plaza shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the developer or property manager in accordance with an approved maintenance plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director; 14. that the public plaza shall be open to the public, without charge, each day of the year, except for temporary closures for necessary maintenance or public safety; 15. that the conditions of the Building Division's June 7, 2019 memo, the Stormwater Division's August 8, 2019 memo, the Park's Division's November 30, 2018 memo, Fire Division's August 16, 2019 memo and the Public -Works Engineering Division's August 1, 2019 memo related to the building permit submittal shall be met; 16. prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall verify that the July 28, 2020, FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation for the project is still current and has not expired (1/28/22) and if expired a new FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame prior to building permit issuance; 4 RESOLUTION NO. 17. that the project shall comply with the SFO Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), specifically in accordance with Safety Compatibility Policy SP-2 pertaining to land uses; and that any future tenants of the commercial and office space comply with the Safety Compatibility Criteria for Safety Zone 3 as contained in Table IV-2 of the SFO ALUCP; this table defines uses to avoid and uses that are incompatible, summarized as follows: Incompatible Uses- Use is not compatible in the indicated zones and cannot be permitted: • Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities —which include medical and biological research facilities involving the storage and processing of extremely toxic or infectious agents. See Policy SP-3 of the SFO ALUCP for additional detail • Children's schools - Public and private schools serving preschool through grade 12, excluding commercial services • Large child day care centers - Commercial facilities defined in accordance with Health and Safety Code, Section 1596.70, et seq., and licensed to serve 15 or more children. Family day care homes and noncommercial employer -sponsored facilities ancillary to place of business are allowed. • Hospitals, nursing homes • Stadiums, arenas Avoidable Uses — Uses that are not fully compatible and should not be permitted unless no feasible alternative is available as follows: • Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities — Hazardous use other than Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities — which include medical and biological research facilities involving the storage and processing of extremely toxic or infectious agents. See Policy SP-3 of the SFO ALUCP for additional detail. • Critical public utilities - Facilities that, if disabled by an aircraft accident, could lead to public safety or health emergencies. They include the following: electrical power generation plants, electrical substations, wastewater treatment plants, and public water treatment facilities. 18. that the applicant shall be required to comply with the real estate disclosure requirements of State law and General Plan as outlined in Policy IP-1 of the SFO ALUCP and that the following statement must be included in the notice of intention to offer the property for sale or lease: "Notice of Airport in Vicinity This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase or lease and determine whether they are acceptable to you."; 19. that the project applicant shall be required to evaluate potential airport noise impacts if the project is located within the 65 CNEL contour line of San Francisco International Airport (as mapped in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport). All projects shall be required to mitigate impacts to comply with the interior and exterior noise standards established by the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; 5 RESOLUTION NO. 20. that any action that would either permit or result in the development or construction of a land use considered to be conditionally compatible with aircraft noise of CNEL 65 dB or greater (as mapped in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan) shall include the grant of an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco prior to issuance of a building permit(s) for any proposed buildings or structures, consistent with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy NP-3 Grant of Avigation Easement; 21. that the property owner shall permit the relocation of City of Burlingame Police Department public safety communications equipment and a wireless access point for City communications to be placed on the roof of the new structure as indicated on the roof plans, sheet A1.10, as agreed upon by the City and the property owner. The applicant shall provide an electrical supply source for use by the equipment. The applicant shall permit authorized representatives of the City to gain access to the equipment location for purposes of installation, maintenance, adjustment, and repair upon reasonable notice to the property owner or owner's successor in interest. This access and location agreement shall be recorded in terms that convey the intent and meaning of this condition prior to building permit issuance; 22. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 23. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right- of-way shall be prohibited; 24. that the applicant shall prepare a construction staging and traffic control plan for the duration of construction for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; the construction staging plan shall include construction equipment parking, construction employee parking, timing and duration of various phases of construction and construction operations hours; the staging plan shall address public safety and shall ensure that worker's vehicles and construction equipment shall not be parked in public parking areas with exceptions for construction parking along the street frontages of the project site; 25. that the project applicant and its construction contractor(s) shall develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan must include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic and parking congestion during construction: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes; • Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area; • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur; • Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant; and A RESOLUTION NO. • Designation of a readily available contact person for construction activities who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding traffic or parking. This coordinator would determine the cause of the complaint and, where necessary, would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. 26. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to October 1 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 27. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self- contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 28. that this project shall comply with the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 29. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 30. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 31. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; 32. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Department of Public Works — Engineering Division a sanitary sewer analysis that assesses the impact of this project to determine if the additional sewage flows can be accommodated by the existing sewer line. If the analysis results in a determination that the existing sewer line requires upgrading, the applicant shall perform the necessary upgrades as determined by the Engineering Division; 33. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required from the City of Burlingame Parks Division to remove any existing protected size trees on the subject property and that the project shall comply with the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 7 RESOLUTION NO. 34. 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; 35. 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; 36. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 37. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 38. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 39. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off -site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; The following five (5) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 40. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 41. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division; 42. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; 43. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Air Quality 44. the applicant shall ensure that all off -road diesel -powered equipment used during construction is equipped with engines that meet EPA Tier 4 "final' emission standards; 45. Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures - The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures RESOLUTION NO. recommended by BAAQMD. The emissions reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the following: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day. • All haul trucks shall be covered when transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site. • All visible mud or dirt track -out material on adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet -power vacuum -type street sweepers at least once a day. The use of dry - power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks that are to be paved shall be paved as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers' specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible - emissions evaluator. • 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). • Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations; Biological Resources 46. Pre -construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Protection Measures: - The applicant shall implement the measures that follow prior to structure demolition and tree removal or trimming. Construction shall avoid the avian nesting period (March 15 through August 31) to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas as well as areas within 250 feet of the boundaries of these areas or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 50 feet of a passerine nest and 250 feet of a raptor nest until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; 47. Implement Bird -safe Design Standards into Project Buildings and the Lighting Design: - The applicant, or contractor, shall implement the following measures to minimize hazards for birds: • Reduce large areas of transparent or reflective glass • Locate water features, trees, and bird habitat away from building exteriors to reduce reflection • Reduce or eliminate the visibility of landscaped areas behind glass • Turn non -emergency lighting off at night, especially during bird migration season (February —May and August —November) • Include window coverings that adequately block light transmission from rooms where interior lighting is used at night and install motion sensors or controls to extinguish lights in unoccupied spaces 9 RESOLUTION NO. Design and/or install lighting fixtures that minimize light pollution, including light trespass, over -illumination, glare, light clutter, and skyglow, and use bird -friendly colors for lighting when possible. The City of San Francisco's Standards for Bird -safe Buildings' provides an overview of building design and lighting guidelines to minimize bird/building collisions that could be used to guide the applicant; Cultural Resources 48. Pre -construction Archaeological Sensitivity Training: - A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a pre -construction archaeological sensitivity training session for the excavation crew. This training will include an overview of what cultural resources are and provide information regarding why such resources are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), Project site history, the types of cultural resources that are likely to be uncovered during excavation, the laws that protect cultural resources, and the protocol for unanticipated discoveries (see Mitigation Measure CUL-2). An "Alert Sheet" shall be posted in conspicuous locations on the Project site to alert personnel to the procedures and protocols to follow after discovery of potentially significant precontact archaeological resources; 49. Unanticipated Discovery Protocol: - In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery and the area avoided until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan, which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery; 50. Stop Work If Human Remains Are Encountered during Ground -disturbing Activities: If human remains are unearthed during construction, pursuant to Section 50977.98 of the Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains. The county coroner shall be informed to evaluate the nature of the remains. If the remains are determined to be of Native American in origin, the lead agency shall work with the NAHC and the applicant to develop an agreement for treating or disposing of the human remains; Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources 51. Stop Work in Case of Discovery of Paleontological Resources: - Discovery of a paleontological specimen during any phase of the Project shall result in work stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional paleontologist. Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or further action (e.g., resource removal), as determined by the professional paleontologist, shall be implemented to mitigate the impact prior to the continuation of work, Noise 52. Construction Noise Control Plan: - The applicant shall develop a set of site -specific noise attenuation measures. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall submit the construction noise control plan to the City for review and approval. Noise 10 RESOLUTION NO. attenuation measures shall be identified in the plan and implemented to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. Noise measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: Using smaller equipment with lower horsepower or reducing the hourly utilization rate of equipment on the site to reduce noise levels at 50 feet to the allowable level. • Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise -sensitive uses. • Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation. • Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems. • Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 5 minutes). Constructing a solid plywood barrier around the construction site and adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise -sensitive land uses. • Using temporary noise control blanket barriers. • Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements. • Using "quiet" gasoline -powered compressors or electrically powered compressors and electric rather than gasoline- or diesel -powered forklifts for small lifting; 53. Provide Acoustical Treatments for Mechanical Equipment. - The applicant shall provide acoustical treatments for the proposed emergency generator to reduce noise levels to below the 60 d8A Leq daytime threshold for mechanical equipment, as determined by a qualified acoustical consultant. In addition, the applicant shall provide acoustical treatments for the proposed HVAC equipment to reduce noise levels to below the nighttime noise limit of 50 d8A Leq at the property line, as also determined by a qualified acoustical consultant. Selected acoustical treatments must ensure that noise levels will be below the 60 d8A daytime and 50 d8A nighttime thresholds, as applicable, in accordance with the noise limitations specified in the Municipal Code. Treatments may include, but are not limited to: • Installing stationary equipment as far as possible from off -site noise -sensitive land uses and the property line to reduce noise levels at adjacent parcels, • Constructing enclosures around noise -generating mechanical equipment, • Placing barriers around the equipment, • Using mufflers or silencers on equipment exhaust fans, Orienting or shielding equipment to protect sensitive uses to the greatest extent feasible, • Limiting the testing of emergency generators to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.); Transportation 54. Traffic Control Plan: - Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the City. The requirements of the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: Truck drivers shall be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and U.S. 101, as determined by the City Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress shall occur only at the main driveways to the Project site; specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles shall be monitored and controlled by flaggers; warning signs, indicating frequent truck entry and 11 RESOLUTION NO. exit points, shall be posted on adjacent roadways, if requested; and any debris or mud on nearby streets caused by trucks shall be monitored daily, which may require instituting a street cleaning program. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2ND day of November, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk 12 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 aPORATE Monday, August 24, 2020 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission C. 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU: 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Online a. Application for Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers for a new seven -story, mixed -use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking (Certosa Inc. applicant and property owner; William J. Higgins, FAIA, Smith Group, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. Application for Zoning Code Amendment to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the NBMU Zone. Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Bill Higgins, Smith Group, represented the applicant with property owner Mario Muzzi. Commission Questions/Comments: > What material are you planning to use for the horizontal and vertical fin construction? (Higgins: The horizontal slab edges turning the corner would be the continuation of a post -tension slab or it could be pre -cast. But that probably lends itself more efficiently to a concrete slab edge. We have not had a structural engineer do the structural calculation on the grand canopy yet. I would prefer it to be an aluminum metal clad system to tie it into the rest of the curtain wall system.) > What is the eave material of that pedestrian corner? (Higgins: The underside of a concrete slab edge ground smooth and painted we would be looking at introducing light fixtures, down lights into that slab.) Public Comments: > Mark Cate: I'm a resident of Burlingame. First of all, I know Smith Group very well and I applaud them. It's a great building and great architecture. It's a beautiful building. However, it's in the wrong place at the wrong time. Challenging both the Negative Declaration and the planning application. Addressing those issues, the density of this project, if not doubles, quadruples what's going on this corner now. It's a two-story or maybe a one-story building that has offices and now we're going to add many, many features to it. The massing of the building on this corner is too much. The comments by the architect on this place, you referenced the health care center across the street, but looking across the street, it's a bus stop in front of a parking garage in front of a hospital which is further down the street. This thing would stick out extremely, obnoxiously on this corner. The third item 1'd like to raise is the fact that we're adding 60 units of residential and the density of that residential on this acreage, it's troubling, if not objectionable. If you have not been down this road, it's a one-way street that goes from south to north, and it's very cumbersome and complicated. 1 run and walk and drive this area everyday of the week, and it's very challenging for the people that live there. To add this amount of density, this amount of traffic, would be City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 101512020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 24, 2020 very challenging. I have not studied the traffic report, but I would challenge that as how that's going to be handled. The fact that you're adding additional retail to a spot that probably cannot support retail is very troubling to me. I don't think 60 units, if it does get approved, can support that. I don't see it as a destination spot since you have retail across the street struggling right now. The last item I want to add and it's problematic is the parking. You have two skilled nursing facilities, one on the north side of Trousdale Drive and one on California Drive next to the town home project, both of those facilities park on the lots that are going to be used by this facility. And you're now eliminating that parking, so those people that go to work there have to park somewhere, and that's going to further congest this neighborhood and make it less desirable and less inhabitable for the people that are already there. That includes the residents to the south, the occupants of the townhomes and the people that work at those skilled nursing centers. And those are my brief, but concise comments. > Jadene Wong, 1755 California Drive: I am one of the owners of the townhomes which is adjacent to that panhandle. I wasn't at the prior two meetings, but when I learned about this project and reviewed some of the plans, my concerns are that, as the prior person said, this is quite a large building, and really changes the whole atmosphere. I know we're the only townhomes, we're the only residences here, but this is my home and these are our homes and I feel such a large building will impact the environment. It will impact the view and it will impact the light and the sun goes down in that direction, and it will be significantly darker in that area to have a 7-story building so close to our homes. And also to speak to the density, the people, and the parking. We've already had to limit our parking because of the bicycles on the street here. We have very limited parking. So often our guests have to go down the street, around the corner. So this will further impact the parking and I feel like this is a building that's probably better suited to a more downtown area where there are more people walking around. It feels like a city -type of a building, and not in this area which is kind of a combination of residential. There are medical buildings, but it seems more like an urban building and doesn't seem to belong in this neighborhood. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > To address the comments made by a couple of public speakers, this is an area that we identified as a high density area when the General Plan was revised in the last two years. A little bit surprised that folks see this as a spot where this shouldn't be happening because several of us who were involved in that thought in fact this is exactly the kind of thing that ought to be happening in this spot. So we have a difference of opinion here. Will it change the neighborhood? Yes, that's the point. > The design team has done a good job of taking care of basic fundamental urban design issues. This frontage road is a bizarre thing to have in that location anyway. But there's nothing we can do about it. So it's something that probably shouldn't be there that can't be undone. And it has to do with El Camino Real being a state road. We're putting a building on a small road that perhaps this building really belongs sitting directly on El Camino Real, but that's not a possibility. The building does a good job of anchoring the corner as it should, anchoring the corner on the small road and a slightly larger road. It has good basic urban design structure, it's well articulated. It's much more compelling than the slightly arched front first version of it was because that seemed sort of frivolous and meaningless in that situation before. So it's a good solid building. > Still don't buy the so-called grand canopy. As architecture trying to speak to the building on the other side of the street, it's talking to the most frivolous part of that medical center building. Don't think you gain anything from that, but it's not a deal killer. The fins are not doing anything. They seem frivolous like the flying pieces across the street. Someone asked a question about the slab edges, the horizontal fins, would urge you not to consider making that an extension of the concrete slab. You'll get no thermal break there. You'll have all sorts of waterproofing issues if you do that. That's probably going to be metal as well or something like that. It's a very nice building. It's a good solid urban design with a few frivolous pieces. > Having gone through the several year -long process of the update to the General Plan and looking at various locations where we need to encourage and allow for increased densities, can find support for this application. Can accept the findings, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the other entitlements and we previously vetted the amendments to the office parking regulations, looked at different numbers that might work, and we crafted that to the point where it's ready to move forward to the City Council as well. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 101512020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 24, 2020 Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend to the City Council approval of the applications. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 101512020 Item No. 8c (a) Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Code Amendment for a 7-story, Mixed -Use Development Address: 1766 El Camino Real Meeting Date: August 24, 2020 Request: Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers and Zoning Code Amendment to reduce the office parking ratio for a new seven -story, mixed -use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking. Applicant and Property Owner: Certosa Inc., Mario Muzzi Architect: Smith Group, William J. Higgins FAIA APN: 025-161-110 Lot Area: 1.70 acres (74,168 SF) General Plan: North Burlingame Mixed Use Zoning: NBMU (North Burlingame Mixed -Use) Adjacent Development: Police Department, Office buildings, Convalescent Hospital, Vacant Parcel Current Use: Office / Art Museum Proposed Use: Mixed -use development including Retail/Office/Residential Allowable Use: Mixed -use developments are permitted Project Summary: The project site is a corner property located at the southeastern corner of El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, and approximately one-half mile from the Millbrae multimodal station. The site is accessed from a frontage road along El Camino Real, from Trousdale Drive, and there is also a through portion of the lot from El Camino Real to California Drive. This 66-foot arm of the property wraps around the back of the adjacent Police Station (at 1111 Trousdale Drive) and connects directly to California Drive. The site totals 1.7 acres and is currently occupied by a two-story mixed -use building that formerly included the Peninsula Museum of Art, which has permanently closed. Adjacent to the subject property to the east is the Burlingame Police Department, to the south is an office building, across the street to the north is a vacant parcel and a convalescent hospital, directly across El Camino to the west is Peninsula Hospital, and across El Camino to the west is Burlingame Plaza shopping center. The applicant is proposing construction of a new 7-story, mixed -use building. The project would include 7,588 SF of retail uses on the ground floor (to be determined), four floors (floors 2 through5) of office totaling 148,057 SF, and two floors (floors 6 & 7) of residential (60 units). The overall height would be 89'-6" to the top of the parapet and 95'-0" to the top of the elevator penthouse. The project would provide a total of 385 on -site parking spaces located in two levels of below grade parking with the remaining spaces located at grade in the portion of the lot that connects directly to California Drive. The entitlement application includes a request for a Zoning Code Amendment to reduce the parking ratio for office uses in the NBMU District to 1 parking space per 400 square feet. The proposed on -site parking is based on this ratio of 1 space per 400 square feet of office, where the existing zoning regulations require 1 parking space per 300 square feet of office. Of the 385 parking spaces proposed, 144 would be provided in the form of mechanical parking lifts (stackers). The NBMU zoning regulations allow for mechanical parking lifts with approval of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. The residential parking requirement would be met with 69 residential parking spaces; 20 retail parking spaces provided on -site as required by code; and 296 office parking spaces provided where 395 office parking spaces are required (assuming 20% reduction with TDM). The ground floor along El Camino Real would consist of a public plaza leading to the office lobby, as well as to the entrance to two commercial (retail/personal service-TBD) spaces, and would function as the main building New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real frontage. There would be two access points to the parking, with a ramp accessed from the south side of the El Camino Real frontage road and a driveway along the California Drive frontage. There is a third access driveway to the site along Trousdale Drive, however this does not connect to the parking levels. This driveway leads to the residential lobby with a designated drop-off and pick-up zone and three visitor parking spaces. This is a drive -through lane with a turnaround at the end to prevent backups, as well as to provide adequate fire engine turnaround to allow full access to the site in emergencies. The ground floor along Trousdale Drive would include a landscaped frontage with a side entrance to one of the commercial (retail) spaces, as well as a separate entrance to the fitness center. The residential lobby would be located at the rear of the building and accessed from a dedicated driveway off of Trousdale Drive leading to a circular driveway, where three visitor parking spaces would be provided at the turnaround point. The residential lobby would be recessed with a canopy above providing a pronounced entrance to the residential lobby with a dedicated drop off area in front of this entrance. The ground floor lobby area would include a leasing office, bike parking area, bike/dog washing area, along with four (4) residential units. The ground floor lobby areas for the residences and office space would be completely independent of one another, each with their own elevators and stairs; there is one door that would provide an internal connection between the lobbies, however this is Fire Department access as we well as building operations, but not for general public use. The proposed project includes a total of 60 residential units that would be located on the 6'" and 7'" floors of the proposed 7-story building, with the exception of four of the units located on the ground floor. The residential units would be rental units (apartments) with 5% (3 units) being below market rate (BMR) for low income households that do not exceed 80% of the average median income (AMI). The unit breakdown would include: 45 one -bedroom units (75%) that would range from 665 square feet to 1,034 square feet; 12 two -bedroom units (20%) that would range from 1,089 square feet to 1,352 square feet; and 3 three -bedroom units (5%) that would range from 1,089 square feet to 1,477 square feet. A public plaza would be provided at the front of the project along El Camino Real and would also include space along Trousdale Drive. The public plaza space would total 7,928 SF, with the main plaza area (5,778 SF) provided on the El Camino Real frontage and the remainder wrapping around to Trousdale Drive. The plaza would include trees, landscaping, seat walls and planters, trash and recycling receptacles, lighting and bike racks. These spaces would be owner operated and maintained by the developer or property manager. The NBMU interim zoning includes "tiered" development standards requiring community benefits to be included in projects in order to achieve the highest residential densities and building heights. The applicant has elected to develop consistent with "Tier 3" development standards, which is the highest tier. Projects using Tier 3 standards shall provide at least three community benefits (see Community Benefits section in staff report for additional information). Planning staff has determined that the proposed project complies with the Tier 3 development standards. The following applications are requested for this project: • Environmental Review in accordance with CEQA; Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by ICF; • Design Review for construction of a new 7-story, mixed -use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking (C.S. 25.40.020); • Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers (C.S. 25.40.050)(D); • Approval of Community Benefits Bonuses for a Tier 3 project; the Planning Commission may approve Tier 3 projects if it determines that a project includes at least three community benefits (Code Section 25.40.030); and 2 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real Zoning Code Amendment to reduce the office parking ratio from 1:300 SF to 1:400 SF for office uses in the NBMU District (C.S. 25.70.040) (refer to accompanying staff report for zoning code amendment). 1766 El Camino Real Lot Area: 74,168 SF (1.70 acres) Plans date stamped: October 22, 2019/ Revised August 10, 2020 Tier 3 Projects Proposed Maximum Allowed/ Minimum Required Density - Residential Units: 35 du/ac 140 du/ac 60 units i 238 units Density - Commercial Space: 0.10 FAR 1.0 FAR (7,588 SF) (74,168 SF) Density - Office Space: 1.99 FAR 2.0 FAR (148,057 SF) (148,336 SF) Building Height: 7 stories 9 stories 89'-6" to top of parapet 100'-0" 95'-0" to top of penthouse Setbacks Front (El Camino Real): 19'- 41' 0' to 10' for first 35' Side - Interior. 10'-01, 10'-01, Side —Street (Trousda/e Dr): 20' 0' to 10' at least 60% of the structure located at the streetscape frontage line per Table 25.40-3 Rear: 20'-0" 15'-0" Lot Coverage: 50.2% gpo/a 37,236 SF 59,334 SF Open Space - Landscaping: Common 100 SF per unit = 600 SF 7,928 SF ground (public Min dimensions of open space: plaza- ECR/Trousdale) - Private: 5 ft. deep, 8 ft. wide 5,044 SF roof - Common: 15 ft. in any direction 12,972 SF — total common i may be private, common or both open space Private j 10% (7,417 SF) 951 SF —ground fir of the entire site 2,389 SF — 6t' fir balconies See 25.40.040 2 536 SF — 711 fir balconies 5,876 SF total private open space (approx. 97 SF / unit) New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real Tier 3 Projects Proposed ! Maximum Allowed/ Minimum Required Landscape Coverage: 25.2 % of site i 10% of site 18,703 SF j 7,417 SF Public Plaza: 7,928 SF ! 2,000 SF (combined frontages - ECR 5,778 SF + Trousdale 2,150 SF ) Number of Parking Spaces: Residential Residential 69 spaces ; 45 - 1-bdr units x 1.0 = 45 spaces 12- 2-bdr units x 1.5 = 18 spaces 3- 3 bdr units x 2 = 6 spaces 69 residential spaces Retail Retail 20 spaces 1 space:400 SF 7,588 SF / 400= 19 spaces Office 'I Office 296 spaces 1 space:300 SF' 148,057 SF / 300 = 494 spaces 1 space:400 SF (proposed amendment) 148,057 SF/400 = 370 spaces TOTAL TOTAL 385 spaces proposed 582 spaces - 20% TDM = 466 spaces (144 of proposed spaces to be provided in stackers) 2 or (81 less spaces than required ! 367 spaces with code amendment AND w/TDM) or (18 more spaces 20% reduction applied than required with code amendment 1:400 SF j approved) Parking Stall Dimensions: 8'-6" x 17'-0" 8'-0" x 17'-0" Aisle Dimensions: 24'-0" 24'-0" for 90-degree parking ' Please refer to Table 1 for additional parking summary details in attached Zoning Code Amendment staff report for office parking reduction in NBMU. P Code Section 25.40.050(D) requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for utilization of stackers or mechanical systems in the NBMU zone. 3 Application submitted and under consideration for Zoning Code Amendment to reduce office parking ratio for NBMU from 1:300 SF to 1:400 SF (see Item 8c-b). 0 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real Tier 3 Projects Proposed Maximum Allowed/ i Minimum Required Driveway Width: 24' on ECR Parking areas with more than 30 vehicle 24' on California Dr. spaces shall have two 12'-0" wide 20' on Trousdale Dr. driveways or one 18'-0" wide driveway Bicycle Parking: 40 inside building 30 resident (0.5 spaces/unit) 4 outside (plaza) 3 guest (0.05 spaces/unit) Electric Vehicle Charging 24 spaces 19 spaces Stalls: (6% of all spaces) (5% of all spaces) Background: The proposed project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at two pubic hearings. The applicant wanted to check in with the Planning Commission for a second Design Review Study meeting on October 28, 2019 to ensure they understood the direction provided at the first meeting. Each meeting is summarized below. September 23, 2019 Planning Commission Environmental scoping and Design Review Study Meeting: This project was first reviewed by the Planning Commission for Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study on September 23, 2019 (September 23, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The Planning Commission received two letters from residents (attached) and took public comments from three members of the public at the scoping/study session. The Planning Commission provided comments related to the items to be studied as part of the environmental review, however the majority of the discussion at the September 23, 2019 meeting centered on the design of the proposed project. Staff has provided an overview of the Planning Commission comments below: Building/Site Design • Building is very horizontal, feels cold, very frontal, stayed and measured; • Gateway project with a lot of opportunity at this location - want to see something exceptional at this corner location; • Long 300 foot fagade has to be broken up; homogenous project except for the intentional splitting of the building into three pieces over 300 feet; • Homogenous project except for the intentional splitting of the building into three pieces over 300 feet; • Doesn't feel like Burlingame or that it belongs at this site; • Landscaping needs additional work in terms of detailing and articulation; • Need to define corner with two elements of facades coming together; • Given location of nearby single family homes, this project feels one floor too tall; • Need to set standard with new design, don't mimic existing medical buildings; • Focus on details; • Needs to have asymmetry and less homogeneity; and • Need to look at the urban design requirements of the site (corner) which has to do with the entrance and interface with the hospital across the street. Parking Ratio Amendment • Not convinced that 1:500 SF is right ratio for this area; • Could support 1:400 SF ratio; and • Support ratio change but 1:500 SF feels light. New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real Positive aspects of proposal • Accepting of CUP for mechanical stackers; • Like bulb outs and improved pedestrian features for this corner; • Appreciate the mix of uses proposed; great addition to this area; • Contemporary design makes a lot of sense for this corner, headed in the right direction; and • Great opportunity for a gateway project. After consideration of the above comments from the September 23, 2019 study meeting, the applicant revised the project design in response to these comments in the plans date stamped October 22, 2019 (see attached response letter submitted by the applicant, dated October 21, 2019). The revisions are summarized as follows: • Revised design concept is a more dynamic composition and scale to suit this location; • El Camino fapade has been revised to be less static and more compositional by articulating the Trousdale Drive corner as a stronger end element that frames this gateway (corner); • Grand canopy frames unifies the four office floors and links the center building mass to the end mass to create an asymmetrical movement to the design; this element is further enhanced with color and face pattern change at the residential floors above; • Trousdale Drive corner is articulated with a punched opening end element that frames this gateway corner and acts as a transition to the more transparent El Camino Real fagade; • Office lobby entrance includes a horizontal extension of the grand canopy to announce the El Camino Real office lobby while also serving as covered protection for this building entrance; and • Additional detail has been given to the planting around the fitness area, and the dog run has a more diagrammatic layout with seating, planting and agility toys provided for small dogs. In additional to the architectural changes, the applicant revised the requested zoning code amendment for office parking from the original request of 1 space per 500 SF to 1 space per 400 SF. The project description has been revised to reflect this request and is detailed in the accompanying staff report for the zoning code amendment, Item 8c (b) on the August 24, 2020 agenda. October 28, 2019 Planning Commission (2"') Design Review Study Meeting: This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their second Design Review Study on October 28, 2019 (October 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The Planning Commission took public comments from three members of the public at the second study session. On balance the Planning Commission was pleased with the design changes that were made to the building. The revised parking ratio of 1:400 SF felt more comfortable and supportable. The Commission felt that the project was well designed and moving in the right direction and had the following comments/suggestions: Plaza Design • Looks like the plaza is 35 to 40 feet deep in front of the building. Who is going to use that and when? Is there seating there? • Plaza seemed really large, worry about it being grand open space that doesn't get used very much. Can see it being used incidentally. Does it get good sun? El Camino Real / Trousdale Drive Corner • Is it possible, both in terms of where the property line falls and in terms of the architecture or structural articulation, to add an awning structure so that it provides emphasis to that corner? • Things that have been done to try to reinforce that corner have gone a long way of doing that, like suggestion to reinforce if further; • Corner element needs a little bit more reinforcement, so think that of kind articulation with the architecture can move forward in parallel with the environmental assessment; • The enhancement of the corner reinforcing the corner is very important; and New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real • Corner at Trousdale Drive can still be strengthened further, would like to see a little more of an experience on that corner, other than a corner of glass. El Camino Real Canopy • Not convinced about the grand canopies. More convinced by the lower level canopy because it has a function, it can be seen as a cover for entry, however the upper canopy seems superfluous; • With that said, the fact it's functional at the ground level makes some sense; • Like the upper extended fin because of what it does in terms of unifying that element along the facade in terms of separating the office from the residential, like what's happening in terms of the vertical piece; • There is a potential, if the architecture and detailing still works for the opening to make it lattice like, it's going to create a real dynamic for the light that's coming down the alcove, there's a nice opportunity for some play of light coming through therewith that upper fin; • Like the angles of the grand canopy, at least at that ground floor, because it adds that cover and it responds to the angle of the slip street in terms of the site planning; and • Like the upper fin as it relates to the one at the street level, which provides a great opportunity for signage and shade, agree that there's an opportunity to allow light infiltration through that upper canopy and although it provides shade, it can act arbor -like or like a fin, can be a nice element rather than a solid piece that carries across the whole frontage. El Camino Real Massing • Architectural enhancement of the residential portion has helped to stratify the building and give it structure; • Like the way that the building is starting to talk to the medical office building across the street; • Previously the building had bowed elements, now we have something that's actually different and have some component pieces that are working better; and • Like some of the things that are developing with this rendition of the building, appreciate the bowed facade being turned more rectilinear. Other • Need to look into how this project could potentially affect the police department's communication system and how this potentially could be blocking some of their radio signals; and • Is there a way to incorporate a secondary entrance on Trousdale Drive so that one who is walking from the multimodal station doesn't have to travel all the way around into almost a second half of the frontage on El Camino Real to get into the office building? The applicant and project architect revisited the project following the second study meeting and made additional revisions to the plans based on the above comments from the October 28, 2019 Design Review Study meeting. In addition, the project architect has provided a detailed response to the other Commission comments and suggestions in the attached response letter submitted, dated August 14, 2020. The revised plans, date stamped August 10, 2020 include the revisions summarized below. • The Trousdale / El Camino Real corner is framed with a stronger punched opening expression that anchors both facades yet maintains a transparency to acknowledge this important part of the building. There is an additional layering of the facade with extended slab edges to provide more depth to the corner. They have also extended the cantilevered slab at the second floor 8' beyond the face of the building to provide additional pedestrian cover and stronger emphasis to this important corner; • The El Camino Real massing has been modified to simplify the number of moves and to create a calm facade that is more legible in its composition; and • The plans have been revised to incorporate the radio and antenna transmission system that will need to be relocated from the Police Department at two locations on the roof of the new building. 7 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real Environmental Review: On September 23, 2019 the Planning Commission held an Environmental Scoping meeting where staff requested the Planning Commission provide comments on any potential environmental effects to be considered in the CEQA document. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project was prepared and determined that there were no environmental impacts that were identified that could not be mitigated to less than significant levels. The 20-day public review period occurred from July 15, 2020 to August 4, 2020 and one comment letter was received. This letter was from the City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG). C/CAG requested that that Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) be added to the list of agencies whose approval is required for this project. The letter states that the Project will be subject to formal review by the ALUC, for a determination of consistency with the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) prior to local agency action on the Project. Final action on this project will be with the City Council because of the code amendment requested. Staff notes that this project will require review and approval from the Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) which is managed by C/CAG in San Mateo County (City/County Association of Governments). ALUC review is required in this case because the ALUC did not review the North Burlingame Mixed Use Interim zoning since it was passed by urgency ordinance. The City has filed the application for a land use consistency determination with C/CAG and the project will likely be reviewed by the ALUC in late September, followed by the C/CAG Board review tentatively scheduled for October. These hearings/approvals are required prior to City Council action on this project. Staff has included two specific conditions related to housing in the flight path of SFO that are typical conditions placed upon projects by the ALUC. Please note that on July 28, 2020, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an approval letter to the applicant that identified that an aeronautical study was prepared. This study found that the proposed structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. This letter is included as Appendix A to this Response to Comments. This FAA approval includes an expiration date of January 28, 2022, therefore staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the FAA letter on file with the City at the time of building permit issuance be current and renewed if necessary, dependent on the date that a building permit is issued for this project. A response to these comments memorandum has been prepared by ICF (environmental/CEQA consultant) to formally address this letter, which is included as part of the administrative record and are attached. Based on the environmental analysis, it was determined that the proposed project would have no adverse impacts on the environmental in the areas of aesthetics, agriculture and forestry services, energy, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, population/housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems and wildfire. Although the environmental analysis did find that the project could have a significant effect in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources, therefore mitigations measures were identified to reduce adverse impacts to acceptable level. While most of the potentially significant impacts were typical for larger projects, specific to this project were the biological mitigations related to bird safety and for cultural resources the mitigation includes a pre -construction survey both of which would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. All other mitigation measures are standard and commonly imposed on projects of this stature. General Plan and North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) Zone Interim Standards: In January 2019, the City adopted a new General Plan and certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The new General Plan includes higher densities and mixed -use zoning designations in the north end of Burlingame. State law requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with the respective General Plan. Given the amount of time required to prepare the Zoning Ordinance Update (for implementation of the new General Plan) staff worked with the consultant team to develop interim regulations applicable to the most significant "change 0 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real areas" identified in the Draft General Plan which included the North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone ("North Burlingame Mixed Use" land use designation. This zoning implements the General Plan mixed -use zoning with increased densities given the proximity to Burlingame Plaza and the Millbrae multimodal transit station. The purpose of the NBMU Zone is to implement the General Plan North Burlingame Mixed -Use designation by providing a distinct, defining area at the City's north gateway on El Camino Real, with housing and complementary commercial and office uses at urban -level intensities, and that takes advantage of the adjacent multimodal transit center. This transit -oriented development district accommodates housing at progressively higher densities based on the level of community benefits provided, with the goal of ensuring that new development adds value for all in the City. As noted in the "Environmental Review" section above, because the project could not be considered "consistent" with the current General Plan because the interim zoning for the NBMU District was not reviewed by the ALUC. Therefore this stand-alone project requires ALUC (C/CAG) review for land us consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. Staff Comments: Given the location of the subject property immediately adjacent to the Burlingame Police Station and the height of the proposed building, potential impacts on communications to and from the Police Station due to interference with the rooftop communications equipment are anticipated. Staff would note that C.S. 25.58.040 (General Provisions- Required public safety communications equipment and wireless access point agreement) requires a condition of approval on any structure greater than 35' in height for the location of public safety communications equipment if necessary. Staff worked with the applicant, in conjunction with Police Department communication consultants to determine the appropriate location of the existing communications equipment that will need to be relocated. The roof plan on sheet A1.10 shows two potential relocation areas for the radio antenna and cabinet on the mechanical penthouses of the new building. The applicant is aware of this issue and will comply with the relocation and access criteria as detailed in the conditions of approval. Community Benefits: To provide an incentive for development, and in partnership with the City to provide community benefits that would not otherwise be created, the Planning Commission may grant increased FAR, density, and/or height in return for provision of specific community benefits, if doing so is in the City's interest and would help implement the General Plan and further, if these benefits cannot be realized without granting increased FAR, height, and/or density. The NBMU Interim Zoning Standards includes "tiered" development standards requiring community benefits to be included in projects in order to achieve the highest residential densities and building heights. The applicant has elected to develop this property consistent with Tier 3 development standards. Planning Commission approval is required for Tier 3 projects if it is determined that the project includes at least three community benefits; at least one of the community benefits must be an affordable and workforce housing objective. Please refer to the attached North Burlingame Mixed -Use Zone for a complete list of community benefits. The applicant is proposing to provide the following three community benefits (a minimum of three are required): Affordable Housing — Section 25 40 030(B)(4)(a)(i) - The project would include 5% (3 units) below - market rate units for affordable low income households (80% of San Mateo County's Area Median Income (AMI)) for 55 years. The 2020 San Mateo County Income Limits for low income is a maximum of $97,440 for a single -person household, a maximum of $111,360 for a two -person household, a maximum of $125,280 for a three -person household, and maximum of $139,200 for a four -person household (see attached San Mateo County 2020 income limits). ruouc maza beyond Minimum — Section 25 40 030(B)(4)(c) - The project includes an approximately 7,928 SF publicly accessible plaza, well in excess of the 2,000 SF minimum. The plaza includes a M New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real landscaping, outdoor seating, trash/recycling receptacles and bike racks as required by the interim zoning standards. Mode Split - Section 25.40 030(B)(4)(h) — The project includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that would include measures such as transit subsidies, employing a transportation coordinator, providing an emergency ride home program, a bike sharing program, and unbundled parking. Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plans (sheets L1.0 through L4.0). The NBMU interim standards require that for Tier 3 projects that 10% of the site be landscaped. In addition, the NBMU interim standards require that at least 60% of the required front and street side setbacks be landscaped to provide a transitions to the sidewalk. The project proposes 25.2% site landscaping with 60% landscaping in the front and side setbacks and therefore complies with the landscaping requirements. Landscaping is provided throughout the site, including in the public plaza along El Camino Real, Trousdale Drive frontage, at the rear around the residential turn around between the building and property lines, on the roof deck open space and in front of the California Drive at -grade parking. The interim standards for the NBMU District are intentionally prescriptive in order to create the streetscape design visualized for this area. These requirements include 5foot by 5-foot tree wells along El Camino Real, a minimum of a 5-foot planter zone on street facing sides, a 10-foot minimum (public) walk zone, and a minimum of 10 feet of landscape buffer for parking spaces abutting a street. The proposed project includes nine (9) new street trees along the El Camino Real frontage and five (5) new street trees along Trousdale Drive. The street trees would be located within 5-foot by 5-foot tree wells and would include Red Oaks and Patriot Elm trees. In addition, the planters in the public plaza, along Trousdale Drive and on the roof deck would also include trees and shrubs as detailed in the planting list on sheet L4.0. Off -Street Parking/Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Parking requirements are based on the number of bedrooms proposed per unit for the residential portion of the project and ratios for the square footage of retail and office uses. The NBMU interim zoning standards, Section 25.40.050, provides reduced residential parking standards given the proximity of this zone to the Millbrae multimodal transit station. In the NBMU District, the minimum parking requirement is 1 space for each one -bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces for each two -bedroom unit, and 2 spaces for each unit containing 3 or more bedrooms; no guest parking is required. The proposed project includes 45 one -bedroom units, 12 two -bedroom units, and 3 three -bedroom units and therefore requires a total of 69 spaces for the residential use, which are provided on -site. The residential parking requirement would be met with 69 residential parking spaces, and 20 retail parking spaces would be provided on -site as required by code. With regard to the office parking, this application for entitlements includes a request for a zoning code amendment to reduce the office parking regulations in the NBMU District from 1:300 SF to 1:400 SF, which is detailed in a separate staff report (see Item 8c (b)). The project includes 148,057 square feet of office space on floors two through five. The existing zoning regulations require 1 parking space per 300 square feet of office, for a total of 396 spaces (with 20% TDM reduction) that would be required for this proposal where 296 office parking spaces are proposed. The office parking that is being proposed is based on a parking ratio of 1 space per 400 square feet of office, with an accompanying request for a Zoning Code Amendment to reduce the office parking ratio in the entire NBMU District to 1:400 SF. The retail space proposed on the ground floor is 7,588 SF and the zoning code requirement 1 parking space per 400 square feet of retail (commercial), with 19 spaces required for this use where 20 on -site parking spaces are proposed. The project would provide a total of 385 spaces, where the code requires 466 spaces with a 20% reduction applied for including of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan (582 off-street spaces required w/o TDM plan). The General Plan Update and NBMU zoning provide for a 20% parking reduction for projects that utilize a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan per Section 25.40.030(B)(4)(h) provided the project 10 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real includes a permanent mobility mode shift towards alternative transportation of 25% or greater for building occupants through the TDM program. The applicant intends to implement a TDM program per the Hexagon Transportation Consultants memo, dated June 18, 2019 (attached as Appendix A in IS/MND). The TDM program would include measures such as retaining a transportation coordinator, providing transit subsidies, maintaining an emergency ride home program, provide bicycle sharing, and unbundled on -site parking. Staff would note that by implementing the TDM program and using a 1:400 SF parking ratio for office, the required on -site parking would be 367 spaces, where 385 space are proposed, or 18 spaces more than required. Of the 385 parking spaces proposed, 144 would be provided in the form of mechanical parking lifts (stackers). The NBMU zoning regulations allow for mechanical parking lifts with approval of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission (application attached). The site would have three driveway access points. The on -site parking would be provided in two -levels of below grade parking, with two access points: a driveway along El Camino Real into the first level of below grade parking and there would also be a second access point with an at -grade driveway that would be accessed from the portion of the property that connects with California Drive. This arm of the property is approximately 65-feet wide by 180-feet long and would provide 40 at -grade parking spaces (20 spaces on each side) along the driveway leading to the below grade parking. There would also a driveway along Trousdale Drive that would provide access to the residential drop off area in front of the residential lobby; there would be three (3) at -grade visitor parking spaces provided at the end of that circular driveway. The first level of below grade parking would include 159 spaces including a mix of electric vehicle (EV), disabled -accessible, van accessible, clean air spaces and motorcycle spaces. The second level of below grade parking would include 223 spaces and motorcycle spaces; of the 223 spaces on the lower level, 144 of the spaces would be in the form of mechanized stackers. The project would include both three and five -car stackers, which requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for projects located in the NBMU District. The NBMU interim standards require 0.5 bicycle parking spaces per unit for residents and 0.05 spaces per unit of bicycle parking for guest bicycles. The project meets this requirement with bicycle parking provided in a secured room on the ground floor within the building for 40 bicycles and an additional four bicycle parking spaces provided in front of the building in the public plaza fronting on El Camino Real. The interim standards also explicitly require that 5% of all parking spaces be prepared for EV charging equipment; the proposed project complies with this requirements with 23 EV spaces (6%) included on -site. Development / Impact Fees: North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee Development fees for projects in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan are subject to the following fees: $0.63 per SF multifamily and $0.80 per SF for other uses. New development that, through demolition or conversion, will eliminate existing development is entitled to a fee credit offset for the existing development. The fees are calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued, with half of the fees required at permit issuance and half due prior to the framing inspection. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development fee is estimated to be $150,319. Residential Impact Fees — Not Applicable The City Council adopted Residential Impact Fees on April 1, 2019. The proposed project is subject to the fees based on the formula set forth in Code Section 25.82 which sets the fees based on the dwelling units per acre, with different rates for prevailing wage and non -prevailing wage for labor used for the construction of the project. In this case, the rate would be $14 per square foot (up to 50 du/ac with prevailing wage) with the Residential Impact fee estimated to be $1,174,180.00. 11 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real However, because the project would include 5% of the units as low income BMR units, as per C.S. 25.82.070(a), the fee is not required as the units would be provided on -site. The code states that if a project mitigates affordable housing impacts through the construction of afford units on site with a guarantee of affordability for a period of 55 years, then the impacts of residential development on the need for affordable housing shall be deemed mitigated. The applicant is proposing 5% of the residential units as low income BMR units, therefore the Planning Commission may approve the provision of affordable units on site, consistent with the requirements set forth in subsection (b), as part of the review of the project, which would eliminate the requirement to pay the Residential Impact Fee as three (5%) low income BMR units would be provided on -site. Commercial Linkage Fees Commercial Linkage Fees are based on the square footage for new commercial development projects. These fee calculations include gross square feet of floor area, excluding enclosed parking areas, and include a credit for existing uses. The rates are based on the land use and for office uses this rate is higher when there is more than 50,001 SF of office space proposed. In addition, the rates vary for prevailing wage and non - prevailing wage for labor used for the construction of the project. The commercial linkage fee is to be paid in full prior to the issuance of the first building permit for commercial development projects. For the proposed project, which includes 7,588 SF of retail space and 148,057 SF of office, the commercial linkage fee totals $2,317,820 (includes credit for existing uses). In summary, if the affordable units are provided on -site, then the project would not be subject to the Residential Impact Fee, and with the credits applied for the Commercial Linkage fee and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development fees the estimated total development/impacts fees would be approximately $2,468,140.00. Design Review: The purpose of this design review study meeting is to provide initial comments on design elements as they relate to the proposed project. The criteria for design review in mixed -use districts is detailed in Code Section 25.57.030 (g) and requires the proposed project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations: 1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial, industrial and mixed -use areas; and 2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and 3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and 4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and 5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and 6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Suggested Findings for Design Review. That the proposed project supports the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the City's mixed -use area with a grand canopy that unifies the building massing horizontally along the angled slip road and articulates the position of the upper residential floors from the main body of the office floors. The subject property is a gateway site that 12 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real will provide a new scale of building and a new type of architecture with a mix of uses added to this area. This visually prominent, gateway site has been designed with a strong punched opening expression that anchors both facades at El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive and will maintain a transparency to acknowledge this important part of the building. The design respects and promotes pedestrian activity by providing a public plaza on the El Camino Real frontage, which wraps around to Trousdale Drive. The plaza is sized relative to the building and provides an opportunity for outside passive recreation, with new street trees, planters, and amenities while creating activity along the route to the nearby transit opportunities. The facade also has additional layering of the facade with extended slab edges to provide more depth on the corners, with an extended cantilevered slab at the second floor that is 8 feet beyond the face of the building to provide additional pedestrian coverage and a strong corner emphasis. The proposed building materials would include a stone base tile (dark almond porcelain), vision glass, spandrel glass, pre -cast concrete panels (white/almond/light gray), and glass hand rails. For the reasons above the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's mixed -use design review criteria. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Findings for Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Stackers: That the proposed project 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, in that the mixed of uses proposed is consistent with the intent and allowable uses in the NBMU District; that the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and the purposes of this title, in that it provides a mix of uses on a prominent corner property determined to be suitable for such use in the Zoning Code and Burlingame General Plan, that the site is close to transit options and centrally located to shops and service that won't require typical vehicular travel; that the project includes a TDM plan to reduce trips and that with the use of stackers and the TDM plan, the proposed 385 on -site parking spaces exceeds the code required amount (with the code amendment and 20% TDM reduction) and for the reasons above the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's three Conditional Use Permit criteria for the utilization of mechanical stackers. Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Suggested Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in the Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project -specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. Based on the environmental analysis, it was determined that the proposed project would have no adverse environmental impacts on the environmental in the areas of aesthetics, agriculture and forestry services, energy, 13 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, population/housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems and wildfire. Although the environmental analysis did find that the project could have a significant effect in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources, therefore mitigation measures were identified to reduce adverse impacts to acceptable level. Therefore, based on the Initial Study there will be no significant environmental effects as a result of this project. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action to recommend the following items should be taken separately by resolution including the conditions representing mitigation for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (in italics below) and any conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners may add. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Design Review 3. Conditional Use Permit 4. Approval of Tier 3 Project a. Affordable Housing — Section 25.40.030(B)(4)(a)(i) b. Public Plaza Beyond Minimum — Section 25.40.030(B)(4)(c) C. Mode Split - Section 25.40.030(B)(4)(h) 5. Code Amendment for office parking reductions in the NBMU District (see separate staff report 8c-b) Since the City Council is the final decision -making body regarding the request for zoning code change to the office parking ratio in the NBMU District, the Planning Commission's action should be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council, since the entire application is based on this code change and will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Please note that the conditions below include mitigation measures taken from the IS/MND (shown in italics). The mitigation measures are included below in italics as part of the conditions of approval. If the Commission determines that these mitigations do not adequately address any potential significant impacts on the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report would need to be prepared for this project. The mitigations will be placed on the building permit as well as recorded with the property and constitute the mitigation monitoring plan for this project. At the public hearing the following mitigation measures and conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 10, 2020, sheets T.01, A0.01 through A4.1, sheets FT1.1 through FT1.4, sheets L1.0 through L4.0; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the City Council; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 14 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real 4. that the project shall include three (3) affordable units to households of "Low Income" category, as defined as earning a maximum of 80% of the San Mateo County Area Median Income; the City Manager shall be authorized to execute an agreement with the applicant and the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the administration of the renting or leasing of the affordable units at least 120 days before the final inspection; 5. that the required affordable dwelling units shall be constructed concurrently with market -rate units; 6. that the three (3) low income restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a minimum period of fifty-five (55) years (or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program); 7. that the three (3) restricted affordable units shall be built on -site and be dispersed within the development. The number of bedrooms of the restricted affordable units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix and average sizes of the non -restricted units in the development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of restricted affordable units with more bedrooms. The design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent with the design, unit layout, and construction of the total project development in terms of appearance, exterior construction materials, and unit layout; 8. that the applicant shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the City; the terms of this agreement shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office, and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the reviewing City official; this agreement will be a form provided by the City, and will include the following terms: (a) The affordability of very low, lower, and moderate income housing shall be assured in a manner consistent with Government Code Section 65915(c)(1); (b) An equity sharing agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(c)(2); (c) The location, dwelling unit sizes, rental cost, and number of bedrooms of the affordable units; (d) A description of any bonuses and incentives, if any, provided by the City; and (e) Any other terms as required to ensure implementation and compliance with this section, and the applicable sections of the density bonus law; 9. that the above noted regulatory agreement regarding the three (3) restricted affordable units shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest; the agreement required by this Zoning Code Section 25.63.080 is hereby a condition of all development approvals and shall be fully executed and recorded prior to the issuance of any building or construction permit for the proposed project; 10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee in the amount of $75,159.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 11. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the project applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee in the amount of $75,159.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 12. that prior to the issuance of the building permit the Commercial Linkage Fee in the amount of $2,317,820.00 shall be paid in full, payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 13. that the public plaza shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the developer or property manager in accordance with an approved maintenance plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community 15 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real Development Director; 14. that the public plaza shall be open to the public, without charge, each day of the year, except for temporary closures for necessary maintenance or public safety; 15. that the conditions of the Building Division's June 7, 2019 memo, the Stormwater Division's August 8, 2019 memo, the Park's Division's November 30, 2018 memo, Fire Division's August 16, 2019 memo and the Public -Works Engineering Division's August 1, 2019 memo related to the building permit submittal shall be met; 16. prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall verify that the July 28, 2020, FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation for the project is still current and has not expired (1128/22) and if expired a new FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame prior to building permit issuance; 17. that prior to final approval (by City Council) the project will obtain approval from the Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) of City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) for a land use consistency determination under the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP); 18. that all new development shall be required to comply with the real estate disclosure requirements of State law and General Plan as outlined in Policy IP-1 of the SFO ALUCP. The following statement must be included in the notice of intention to offer the property for sale or lease: "Notice of Airport in Vicinity This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase or lease and determine whether they are acceptable to you."; 19. that the property owner shall permit the relocation of City of Burlingame Police Department public safety communications equipment and a wireless access point for City communications to be placed on the roof of the new structure as indicated on the roof plans, sheet A1.10, as agreed upon by the City and the property owner. The applicant shall provide an electrical supply source for use by the equipment. The applicant shall permit authorized representatives of the City to gain access to the equipment location for purposes of installation, maintenance, adjustment, and repair upon reasonable notice to the property owner or owner's successor in interest. This access and location agreement shall be recorded in terms that convey the intent and meaning of this condition prior to building permit issuance; 20. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 21. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 22. that the applicant shall prepare a construction staging and traffic control plan for the duration of construction for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; the construction staging plan shall include construction equipment parking, construction employee parking, timing and duration of various phases of construction and construction operations hours; the staging plan shall address public safety and shall ensure that worker's vehicles and construction 16 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real equipment shall not be parked in public parking areas with exceptions for construction parking along the street frontages of the project site; 23. that the project applicant and its construction contractor(s) shall develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan must include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic and parking congestion during construction: a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes; b. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area; c. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur; d. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant; and e. Designation of a readily available contact person for construction activities who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding traffic or parking. This coordinator would determine the cause of the complaint and, where necessary, would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. 24. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to October 1 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 25. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 26. that this project shall comply with the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 27. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 28. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 29. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; 30. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Department of Public Works — Engineering Division a sanitary sewer analysis that assesses the impact of this project 17 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real to determine if the additional sewage flows can be accommodated by the existing sewer line. If the analysis results in a determination that the existing sewer line requires upgrading, the applicant shall perform the necessary upgrades as determined by the Engineering Division; 31. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required from the City of Burlingame Parks Division to remove any existing protected size trees on the subject property and that the project shall comply with the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 32. 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; 33. 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; 34. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 35. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 36. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 37. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off -site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; The following five (6) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 38. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 39. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division; 40. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; 41. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 18 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Air Quality 42. the applicant shall ensure that all off -road diesel -powered equipment used during construction is equipped with engines that meet EPA Tier 4 "final" emission standards; 43. Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures - The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD. The emissions reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the following: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day. • All haul trucks shall be covered when transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site. • All visible mud or dirt track -out material on adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet -power vacuum -type street sweepers at least once a day. The use of dry -power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks that are to be paved shall be paved as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers' specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible -emissions evaluator. • 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). • Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Biological Resources 44. Pre -construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Protection Measures: - The applicant shall implement the measures that follow prior to structure demolition and tree removal or trimming. Construction shall avoid the avian nesting period (March 15 through August 31) to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas as well as areas within 250 feet of the boundaries of these areas or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 50 feet of a passerine nest and 250 feet of a raptor nest until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. 45. Implement Bird -safe Design Standards into Project Buildings and the Lighting Design: - The applicant, or contractor, shall implement the following measures to minimize hazards for birds: • Reduce large areas of transparent or reflective glass • Locate water features, trees, and bird habitat away from building exteriors to reduce reflection • Reduce or eliminate the visibility of landscaped areas behind glass • Turn non -emergency lighting off at night, especially during bird migration season (February —May and August —November) • Include window coverings that adequately block light transmission from rooms where interior lighting is used at night and install motion sensors or controls to extinguish lights in unoccupied spaces • Design and/or install lighting fixtures that minimize light pollution, including light trespass, over - illumination, glare, light clutter, and skyglow, and use bird -friendly colors for lighting when possible. The 19 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real City of San Francisco's Standards for Bird -safe Buildings' provides an overview of building design and lighting guidelines to minimize bird/building collisions that could be used to guide the applicant, Cultural Resources 46. Pre -construction Archaeological Sensitivity Training: - A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a pre - construction archaeological sensitivity training session for the excavation crew. This training will include an overview of what cultural resources are and provide information regarding why such resources are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), Project site history, the types of cultural resources that are likely to be uncovered during excavation, the laws that protect cultural resources, and the protocol for unanticipated discoveries (see Mitigation Measure CUL-2). An "Alert Sheet" shall be posted in conspicuous locations on the Project site to alert personnel to the procedures and protocols to follow after discovery of potentially significant precontact archaeological resources; 47. Unanticipated Discovery Protocol: - In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery and the area avoided until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan, which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery; 48, Stop Work If Human Remains Are Encountered during Ground -disturbing Activities: If human remains are unearthed during construction, pursuant to Section 50977.98 of the Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains. The county coroner shall be informed to evaluate the nature of the remains. If the remains are determined to be of Native American in origin, the lead agency shall work with the NAHC and the applicant to develop an agreement for treating or disposing of the human remains; Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources 49. Stop Work in Case of Discovery of Paleontological Resources: - Discovery of a paleontological specimen during any phase of the Project shall result in work stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional paleontologist. Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or further action (e.g., resource removal), as determined by the professional paleontologist, shall be implemented to mitigate the impact prior to the continuation of work, Noise 50. Construction Noise Control Plan: - The applicant shall develop a set of site -specific noise attenuation measures. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall submit the construction noise control plan to the City for review and approval. Noise attenuation measures shall be identified in the plan and implemented to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. Noise measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Using smaller equipment with lower horsepower or reducing the hourly utilization rate of equipment on the site to reduce noise levels at 50 feet to the allowable level. • Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise -sensitive uses. • Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation. 20 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real • Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems. • Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 5 minutes). • Constructing a solid plywood barrier around the construction site and adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise -sensitive land uses. • Using temporary noise control blanket barriers. • Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements. • Using "quiet' gasoline -powered compressors or electrically powered compressors and electric rather than gasoline- or diesel -powered forklifts for small lifting; 51. Provide Acoustical Treatments for Mechanical Equipment. - The applicant shall provide acoustical treatments for the proposed emergency generator to reduce noise levels to below the 60 d8A Lq daytime threshold for mechanical equipment, as determined by a qualified acoustical consultant. In addition, the applicant shall provide acoustical treatments for the proposed HVAC equipment to reduce noise levels to below the nighttime noise limit of 50 d8A LeQ at the property line, as also determined by a qualified acoustical consultant. Selected acoustical treatments must ensure that noise levels will be below the 60 d8A daytime and 50 d8A nighttime thresholds, as applicable, in accordance with the noise limitations specified in the Municipal Code. Treatments may include, but are not limited to: • Installing stationary equipment as far as possible from off -site noise -sensitive land uses and the property line to reduce noise levels at adjacent parcels, • Constructing enclosures around noise -generating mechanical equipment, • Placing barriers around the equipment, • Using mufflers or silencers on equipment exhaust fans, • Orienting or shielding equipment to protect sensitive uses to the greatest extent feasible, • Limiting the testing of emergency generators to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.); Transportation 52. Traffic Control Plan: - Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the City. The requirements of the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: Truck drivers shall be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and U.S. 101, as determined by the City Engineering Department- all site ingress and egress shall occur only at the main driveways to the Project site; specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles shall be monitored and controlled by flaggers; warning signs, indicating frequent truck entry and exit points, shall be posted on adjacent roadways, if requested' and any debris or mud on nearby streets caused by trucks shall be monitored daily, which may require instituting a street cleaning program. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Certosa, Inc. c/o Mario Muzzi, applicant and property owner Smith Group, William J. Higgins, FAIA 21 New 7-Story Mixed -Use Development 1766 El Camino Real Attachments: Meeting History • Applicant's Response Letter, dated August 14, 2020 • October 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes • September 23, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes • Applicant's Response Letter, dated October 21, 2019 Public Comment letters • Jennifer Pfaff • Larisa Vaserman Application Materials • Application to the Planning Commission • Letter of Explanation - Project Description, dated August 1, 2019 • NBMU Project Summary Checklist • Conditional Use Permit Application for Mechanical Stackers — C.S. 25.40.050(D) • Miller, Starr, Regalia letter regarding CEQA process, dated October 23, 2019 • Environmental Informational Form • Hexagon Transportation Consultants, TDM Measures, dated June 18, 2019 Miscellaneous • San Mateo County Income Limits 2020 • Proposed Resolutions • Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed August 14, 2020 • Area Map Separate Attachments: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared by ICF, dated July 2020 Response to Comments Memorandum, prepared by ICF, dated August, 2020 22 Meeting history Applicant's Response Letter, dated August 14, 2020 • October 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated October 21, 2019 SMITHGROUP August 14, 2020 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re 1766 El Camino Real / Burlingame Dear Commissioners, We are pleased to resubmit our drawings for the design of the proposed mixed -use residential and office development at 1766 El Camino Real on behalf of Certosa, Inc. As a follow-up to the Commission comments of our previous Design Review Sessions on September 23 and October 28, 2019, 1 would like to offer the following responses in preparation of our Planning Commission hearing on August 24, 2020. 1 have consolidated the major comments into key topical areas of review as an executive summary together with our team's response: Plaza Design > Looks like the plaza is 35 to 40 feet deep in front of the building. Who is going to use that and when? Is there seating there? Response: With 148,000 square feet of office space there is a great opportunity for morning and daytime use for employees arriving to the building, waiting for rides, taking breaks and lunching outside. Additionally, if there are food and beverage components, that will add to this indoor/outdoor use. We anticipate residents using it as well, especially on weekends where it is not as active with office employees. Night lighting schemes will be implemented to ensure safety and street visibility. Integrated bench seating and street furniture will be provided as part of the plaza design as well as bicycle racks. We want to create an active gathering space at those times when people want to use it with part being under a cover. > Plaza seemed really large ..... worry about it being grand open space that doesn't get used very much. Can see it being used incidentally. Does it get good sun? Response: The plaza is not a grand civic plaza or square, but rather a plaza of about 7,000 sf that is relative in scale to the building, its location and the number of people that will be working here. Depending on the tenant that is in one of the office or commercial spaces, there is an opportunity for outside movable tables and chairs that will further activate it. Since it is located on the southwest side of the property, the plaza will enjoy late morning and full afternoon sun. 301 Battery Street, Th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415.227.0100 SMITHGROUP El Camino I Trousdale Corner > Is it possible, both in terms of where the property line falls and in terms of the architecture or structural articulation, to add an awning structure so that it provides emphasis to that corner? > Things that have been done to try to reinforce that corner have gone a long way of doing that, like suggestion to reinforce if further. > Think corner element needs a little bit more reinforcement, so think that of kind articulation with the architecture can move forward in parallel with the environmental assessment. > Think the enhancement of the corner reinforcing the corner is a big deal. > Corner at Trousdale Drive can still be strengthened further, would like to see a little more of an experience on that corner, other than a corner of glass. Response: We have framed the Trousdale I El Camino Real corner with a stronger punched opening expression that anchors both facades yet maintains a transparency to acknowledge this important part of the building. There is an additional layering of the fagade with extended slab edges to provide more depth to the corner. We have also extended the cantilevered slab at the second floor 8' beyond the face of the building to provide additional pedestrian cover and stronger emphasis to this important corner. El Camino Canopy > Not convinced about the grand canopies. More convinced by the lower level canopy because it has a function, it can be seen as a cover for entry, however the upper canopy seems superfluous. > With that said, the fact it's functional at the ground level makes some sense. > Like the upper extended fin because of what it does in terms of unifying that element along the fagade in terms of separating the office from the residential, like what's happening in terms of the vertical piece. > Also think there is a potential, if the architecture and detailing still works for the opening to make it lattice like, think it's going to create a real dynamic for the light that's coming down the alcove, there's a nice opportunity for some play of light coming through therewith that upper fin. > Like the angles of the grand canopy, at least at that ground floor, because it adds that cover and think it responds to the angle of the slip street in terms of the site planning. > Like the upper fin as it relates to the one at the street level, which provides a great opportunity for signage and shade, agree that there's an opportunity to allow light infiltration through that upper canopy and although it provides shade, it can act arbor -like or like a fin, can be a nice element rather than a solid piece that carries across the whole frontage. Response: The grand canopy unifies the building massing horizontally along the angled slip road as well as articulates the composition of the upper residential floors from the main body of the office floors. In addition to providing a protective overhang at the pedestrian level, the canopy provides a signature building identity and zone for address signage. Incorporating a trellis like structure into the recess of the canopy will allow for a play of light against the fagade and daylight access to the pedestrian plaza level. 301 Battery Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415.227.0100 SMITHGROUP El Camino Massing > Think the architectural enhancement of the residential has helped to stratify the building and give it structure. > Like the way that the building is starting to talk to the medical office building across the street, > Previously building had bowed elements, now we have something that's actually different and have some component pieces that are working better. > Like some of the things that are developing with this rendition of the building, appreciate the bowed facade being turned more rectilinear. Response: The El Camino Real Massing has been modified to simplify the number of moves and to create a calm facade that is more legible in its composition. The reinforcement of the Trousdale / El Camino corner, the unifying element of the grand canopy, the simplifying of the glazing system and the articulation of the residential floors all contribute to than overall building design that reflects its mixed -use function. The building will be a contemporary addition to North Burlingame especially as it relates to the Mills -Peninsula Medical Center on El Camino Real. Other > Need to look into how this project could potentially affect the police department's communication system and how this potentially could be blocking some of their radio signals. Response: Based on the Burlingame Police Department requirements, we have incorporated a radio and antenna transmission system at two locations on the roof of the building. > Is there a way to incorporate a secondary entrance on Trousdale Drive so that one who is walking from the multimodal station doesn't have to travel all the way around into almost a second half of the frontage on El Camino Real to get into the office building? Response: Since the primary function of the building is office it is important to maintain a central point of lobby security which is the El Camino Real address. We feel that we have enhanced the pedestrian experience along the Trousdale frontage of the property with street trees, landscaping, potential signage and proper sidewalk treatment that would provide for a pleasant one -minute walk for the additional 240 feet to the lobby entrance. Additionally, we have reinforced the Trousdale / El Camino corner as stated above with an extension of the pedestrian canopy to provide cover and identity to this pathway. Sincerely, William J. Higgins, FAIA Principal 301 Battery Street, Th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415.227.0100 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 PM Council Chambers e. 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU: a. Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers for a new seven -story, mixed -use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking (Certosa Inc. applicant and property owner; Architecture International, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. Application for Zoning Code Amendment to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the NBMU Zone. Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones and Loffis noted that they had met with the project architect. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. > There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Bill Higgins and John Martin, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Looks like the plaza is 35 to 40 feet deep in front of the building, the same depth as the curtain wall to the core wall to the building. Who is going to use that and when? Reason I ask this question is I had a police officer recently tell me that one of the challenges they face is that at night, the Burlingame Plaza and CVS is brightly lit and attracts people from the train station to hang out. (Higgins: We see with 148,000 square feet of office space there is a great opportunity for morning and daytime use throughout the day with employees taking breaks, waiting for rides, and arriving to the site. It also depends on the commercial use of the retail space, if there is a food and beverage component, that will add to this indoor/outdoor use. At night there will be lighting schemes that we will implement to make sure that it's safe. We can see the residents using it, maybe on weekends where it's not as active with employees.) > Is there seating there? Are the bay shapes benches? (Higgins: Yes, the rounded shapes will be benches. Seating and street furniture, as well as bicycle racks, will be provided. We wanted to create a gathering space on those times when people want to use it, and part is under a cover.) > Plaza seemed really large, wanted to make sure 1 understood what you intended it for, not sure what you would do with that space if wasn't a plaza, worry about it being grand open space that doesn't get used very much. (Higgins: It's not a grand civic plaza or union square, but rather a plaza that is relative in scale to the building, location and the number of people that will be working here.) > Can see it being used incidentally. (Martin: Depending on the tenant that is in one of the office or commercial spaces, there is an opportunity for outside movable tables and chairs that will further activate it.) > Does it get good sun? (Martin: Yes.) > Is it possible, both in terms of where the property line falls and in terms of the architecture or City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 8/17/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2019 structural articulation, to add an awning structure so that it provides emphasis to that comer? (Higgins: The cantilevered slab is still within the setbacks, it could go another couple of feet, so yes it's possible.) > Was thinking about how travelers may be coming from the Millbrae BART/Caltrain Multimodal Station. Is there a way to incorporate a secondary entrance on Trousdale Drive so that one who is walking from the multimodal station doesn't have to travel all the way around into almost a second half of the frontage on El Camino Real to get into the office building? Where you have an entrance to the fitness center, it seems like a natural secondary entrance to get to the core of the building. (Higgins: It also depends on the pedestrian foot traffic of whether they're walking along El Camino Real or along California Drive. Don't have any sort of population patterns of what that pedestrian movement might be. Currently, it's an egress point from the stairs, but we do have the fitness center and commercial space in this comer. The point would be to get them to the building by the enhancement of the landscaping and the sidewalk treatment and then lead them to the office lobby, we could look at that, but we don't want to create too many security points in an office like this, so that's the only challenge.) > There are hundreds of parking spaces below in the garage, and a majority is for the office and residential uses, but it would seem like a nice opportunity to have direct access to the commercial spaces without having to come out into the plaza and walking around to go to the fitness center or into one of two entrances to the commercial spaces. (Higgins: Yes, we could review that. We have these shuttle elevators that lead from the garage out to the office lobby, we could look at putting them on the perimeter. Do you allow them to open up into the lobby or open to the landscape. We prefer from a weather and security point of view to open up into the lobby. We could look at whether the elevators open up to a more public zone verses a semi-public zone.) > Think that's the kind of activity that can help enliven the street a little bit. If office workers are coming down into the lobby and jogging around the corner, and over to the recreation area, as opposed to everything being internal, there's that gated community verses it being open.) > Just for reference, what is the height of this building and the height of the hospital across the street? (Higgins: This building is 85 feet to the roof deck and 95 feet to the top of the elevator. Believe hospital is between 70 and 80 feet. The mass of that building is much larger than this one because it wraps the comer.) Public Comments: Carolyn Scott, 1755 California Drive: People that work across the street from the Police station at the rehab center pads in this area right now, but there's not a lot of packing around because the parking on that frontage road on El Camino Real is limited to two or four-hour parking. The place across the street is not going to have a place to park so they're going to end up parking over in the shopping center and the hospital. We lost parking in front of our complex because we've got the bike lane and the cars, and there is no street packing from 5:00 to 7:00 pm, so we've lost two hours of parking there. Parking is a real big deal and if this project is going to have 60 residential units and only 69 spaces, you're going to end up having no place to park. Jill Young, 1755 California Drive: Want to echo the issue about parking, it's a huge issue in the area. We have to have cars towed off of our guest spaces on our property because there is no place to park, whether it be for the multimodal station or offices in the area. Concerned that the proposed rental units will reduce the property values in the area. Concerned with the height of the building next to our two-story building. Will there be limitations to the windows on the south and east side to protect our privacy? Unidentified speaker: On behalf of our neighbor who had to leave, he is concerned about our neighborhood being provided with complete environmental information and about the traffic impact to the neighborhood with an addition of a massive structure like this. Would reiterate that the parking is a horrible problem for people who have lived there for many years, and we do not want any parking reduction. The city has taken away parking spaces and parking hours from the area in front of our residences. Would also like to note that the terrace, which not only violates our privacy looking into backyards, is located on the east side of the building, and will be impacted by noise at all hours of the day by trains, factories to the east of the railroad track, and the police department. Doesn't seem that it will be very City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 8/17/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2019 amenable to potential residents, seems like the design is not even considering factual information from real people who reside or frequent the area. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Think this project is headed in the right direction and has come a long way. > Think the enhancement of the comer reinforcing the comer is a big deal. > Asked the question at the last meeting, why this building at this site?. How does it answer the urban design question? Things that have been done to try to reinforce that comer have gone a long way of doing that, like suggestion to reinforce if further. > Think the architectural enhancement of the residential has helped to stratify the building and give it structure. > Not convinced about the grand canopies. More convinced by the lower level canopy because it has a function, it can be seen as a cover for entry, however the upper canopy seems superfluous. Think the least successful thing at the hospital across the street are those flying elements, the structural beams that are hanging out off the building, they don't make any sense, they seem to be money spent with not much return on that investment. Feel the same way about the upper canopy, not sure what you're getting out of that, the fins at both ends also seem superfluous. > Like the way that the building is starting to talk to the medical office building across the street, which 1 think is a nice piece of quiet modem architecture, with the big punched opening and the double height punched opening in the middle of the building,. and it's a calm facade. Think this is starting to work, but 1 don't think it's there yet. > Think you're being too literal about the grand canopy, which is trying to capture an angle of the street which really is not that useful. With that said, the fact it's functional at the ground level makes some sense. > Like the upper extended fin because of what it does in terms of unifying that element along the facade in terms of separating the office from the residential, like what's happening in terms of the vertical piece. Agree that the fins toward the left side don't have to happen, but like the dynamic of what's happening there and the separation of that fin. Also think there is a potential, if the architecture and detailing still works for the opening to make it lattice like, think it's going to create a real dynamic for the light that's coming down the alcove, there's a nice opportunity for some play of light coming through there with that upper fin. > Previously building had bowed elements, now we have something that's actually different and have some component pieces that are working better. Like the angles of the grand canopy, at least at that ground floor, because it adds that cover and think it responds to the angle of the slip street in terms of the site planning. > Think corner element needs a little bit more reinforcement, so think that of kind articulation with the architecture can move forward in parallel with the environmental assessment. > Need to analyze traffic and parking in the vicinity. > Think neighbor raises a good issue in terms of analyzing noise impacts to the residential property because we need to make sure those elements are addressed as a part of the assessment moving forward. > Appreciate the fact they've revised what they're asking for in terms of the revisions to the parking ratio, think the 1:400 SF ratio works much better, am more comfortable with that than the 1:500 SF ratio previously requested, think that's a good change to the entitlement. > Think the project needs to move forward into the environmental assessment so we can look closely at the impacts, comfortable with project moving forward. > This is a large project that's going to have a big demand. Environmental assessment should carefully look at impact on City's sewer and water service. > Need to look into how this project could potentially affect the police department's communication system and how this potentially could be blocking some of their radio signals. > Like some of the things that are developing with this rendition of the building, appreciate the bowed City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 8/17/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2019 facade being turned more rectilinear. > Like the upper fin as it relates to the one at the street level, which provides a great opportunity for signage and shade, agree that there's an opportunity to allow light infiltration through that upper canopy and although it provides shade, it can act arbor -like or like a fin, can be a nice element rather than a solid piece that carries across the whole frontage. > Comer at Trousdale Drive can still be strengthened further, would like to see a little more of an experience on that comer, other than a comer of glass. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. City or Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 8/17/2020 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, September 23, 2019 b. 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU: 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers a. Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers for a new seven -story, mixed -use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking (Certosa Inc. applicant and property owner; Architecture International, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. Application for Zoning Code Amendment to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the NBMU Zone. Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 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., > What is the parking ratio in other commercial zones? (Keylon: Parking ratio for office is the same throughout the city and is 1:300 SF. Parking ratio for medical uses is 1:250 SF, except in the Inner Bayshore area where it is 1:300 SF in buildings over 20,000 SF in area; that's the nexus we used for this application on the north end of Burlingame.) > Please clarify the residential linkage fee. (Keylon: Projects that are developing residential units can either provide affordable units on site or pay an in -lieu fee based on their density and type of labor. The rate is different if the project is prevailing wage or non -prevailing wage. In this case, the community benefit they've chosen is to provide affordable units at 5% low income, and therefore the residential linkage fee would not be required since affordable units are being provided. > In reading through the reduced parking requirements and the modifications being proposed in this area for the office ratio, what's being presented to us is changing the ordinances so that the parking ratio is 1 space per 500 SF, or 2 spaces per 1,000 SF as it's being presented in the parking table provide by Hexagon. Even with reductions allowing for projects that are close to multimoda/ transportation or in downtown areas, not seeing too many that get as low as 2 parking spaces per 1,000 SF. There are various considerations, for example Mountain View says parking reduction and shared parking may be implemented if it can be justified that there will be no resulting parking deficiency, however that doesn't tell me they're getting as low as 2 parking spaces per 1,000 SF on a regular basis. If we're going to 2 spaces per 1,000 SF, there doesn't seem to be too many other communities that are going that low, am I correct in reading this? (Keylon: For Millbrae, their ratio comes down to approximately 1 space per 660 SF within 800 feet of the multimoda/ station. Outside of that boundary, it's 1 space per 400 SF; San Mateo is almost 1 per 400 SF because they're 2.6 per 1,000 SF; and South San Francisco within their downtown near the train station is 1 per 400 SF. The case study also provides additional information. (Kane: The table referring to TOD buildings demonstrates a considerably lower ratio than the default ratio for the City's.) Acting Chair Kelly opened the public heating. Mario Muzzi, Bill Higgins, Dave LoCoco and John Martin, represented the applicant. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 8/17/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Commission Questions/Comments: > Staff report shows 20 parking spaces dedicated or assigned for the commercial spaces. Where would those spaces be located? (Higgins: It's an unbundled garage, but they could be assigned spaces for the commercial tenants, probably off the California Drive side since that's the easiest entry point without going deep into the garage. We haven't explored exactly the actual assignment or location, but that's one idea.) > Are the 20 parking spaces for employees working in the commercial space or are those for customers or clients coming to visit the commercial space? (Keylon: The intent is that they would be for both.) (LoCoco: From an accessibility and electric vehicle point of view, the code requires certain percentages of those types of parking spaces for commercial and residential uses, and this project has those. The final signage of which are retail are not designated at this point but it would get evolved as the leases are made. Assume there would be some spaces underneath and some along the back edge for employees; want to make your most comfortable retail spaces available for the customer.) > If 1 am a customer or employee coming to the commercial area and I park in the garage, how would I get to the commercial space? (LoCoco: You would use the office elevator to the front lobby, which will provide access to the retail spaces through the outdoor plaza area. We're not trying to create a mall or an internal streetscape.) > Are you confident that people coming to the retail businesses will use the garage parking and walk out to the street and then back into a store? (Higgins: Yes, it's all protected so they can park in a protected area and come through a protected lobby.) > Can there be better identification for the lobby along the El Camino Real facade? Concern is that it's a six -story building and there is a hard line between the first and second Boors, and there isn't really a celebration of that lobby. Something is needed to help identify and articulate that entry and create a little bit more pedestrian experience. (Higgins: We could look at adding a canopy extension.) > Have same concern on the residential side; there is a canopy of some sort that is a little better articulated, but some sense of entry is needed. Perhaps some movement into upper floors with the canopy. > In and around the fitness center, the plan is showing an arcade and plaza leading up to building which feels a little harsh. Is there any opportunity to get some softened edges, perhaps some trees along the driveway to soften that transition from the storefront wall of the fitness center to the arcade. Might filter that view into the fitness center so you don't feel like you're on the driveway. (Higgins: Intent would be the fitness center would be entered from the Trousdale Drive side, it could have a double entry. The pedestrian experience does continue under cover to get to the front entry; there is a planter separating it from the sidewalk area.) May want to revisit that edge between the arcade and driveway, would help to soften that edge. > Plans show artificial turf in the dog play area, however the images show benches and other amenities. Will the dog play area get developed with some articulation besides just a swath of turf over the parking? (Martin: Yes, we want to make sure people can socialize and let the dogs out and sit around and talk to theirneighbor.) > Do you have the trees species identified for what will be planted along the street? (Martin: Patriot elm along El Camino Real and Red Oak along Trousdale Drive. In both of our plans, they are 5-foot tree wells, which is what we understood also from the city was the desired size, and it shifts away from the curb in Option 2 to allow for a step out zone; provides extra space to open your door depending on if you're parking or being dropped off.) > The basement garage wall is at the edge of the public right-of-way. Are you confident that the Patriot elm will have enough room to grow at the height shown on the plans? What height will they grow to? (Martin: Growth height would be approximately 40 feet. The intent is make sure the roots don't encroach on the basement walls with root barriers, as well as how we take an approach to using soil and making sure that the desirable soil for the tree runs closer to the curb where the roots are going to go.) (Higgins: The garage itself is going to be a straight line, so that section was taken at the narrowest point.) > The second layer of trees are in raised planters because they're above the garage, correct? (Martin: Yes, they are in raised planters and there is an opportunity to look closer into detail the use of the nose of where the cars are parking to be able to provide more depth along that edge.) What is the species of those trees? (Martin: Those would be Peppermint trees, they have a darker appearance and are more City of Burlingame Page 2 Primed on 811712020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 ornamental, intent is to provide more verticality.) What height would you expect those to get if they're in raised planters? (Martin: Depends on the soil, but would likely ge to 10 to 15 feet in height.) > With the dominant corner of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real where you're looking to develop a bulb out, there's an opportunity to define that comer more at the building. Having trouble identifying the entrance in the middle of the building along El Camino Real. Wondering how the corner can either orient or direct people a little bit more in that direction with perhaps some greater depth of landscaping around that comer, and some more activity that could help people to visualize or move in that direction versus having a flat facade. For example, Peninsula Hospital across the street has sculptures at the corner; corner needs more attention. > At the residential turnaround up against masonry wall at the police station, is there some thought as to how you'll present that rear edge of the property? (Higgins: We have to look at the grades and the top of the wall, but wall will have to extend up because the drop off is up near the lobby level, so it is up from the street level about three to four feet, will have to look at the articulation of that wall as a landscape wall since it's going to be the backdrop of our drop off, so that will require some attention.) > You have some punch outs along the residential levels and even in the center part of the commercial level, wondering if there's enough shade for the balcony areas? West side has a really strong sun exposure. (Higgins: Intent is that the balconies create some outdoor living, we have scaled them such that we have about 6 to 8 feet depending on the dimension of the bow. The office ones extend back over ten feet deep and are much bolder due to the floor heights. We think they do provide opportunity for sun shading on that facade. Not carrying them around because we want the balconies off the living dining areas and not just off every room.) > Wondering if there could be some more dimensionality with more projection coming beyond the eve, maybe it's a material or trellis, some type of element that could define the face of the building a little bit more. Higgins: Sometimes we do articulate the slab edge by extending it out since it's post -tension concrete, that is possible for the slab edge. Right now we're envisioning the office being a more of a curtain wall expression and maybe it can transition to that sort of slab expression as we get to the top.) > How do you see this building fitting into Burlingame? Why this building, on this site, in this town? (Higgins: Architecturally think it will fit in very well, it anchors this location as part of the north Burlingame entry. This is across the street from the hospital, which also has a prominent facade even though it's setback further, it establishes a vocabulary that this office carries across the street and can create a mixed -use district. This is a more sophisticated architecture that is compatible with the hospital. Creates a contemporary expression which creates a new zone as an entry to Burlingame, shows the growth of Burlingame and follows the pattern of the new zoning.) > Does this building seem very frontal to you? (Higgins: It is indeed frontal because the longest facade is facing EI Camino Real, part of the intent is to not have it be a wall of a building but to articulate the mass so it breaks down the mass, and not try to necessarily read like three buildings, but also address that this facade is an important facade, and it needs to be highly articulated, otherwise it will become a 300-foot wall. Part of the interim zoning guidelines is to breakdown the mass with depth and movement.) > If this is a gateway building, doesn't that mean that the end facade becomes considerably more important? (Higgins: It does and that's one of the reasons we turned the glass around the comer so it reveals a solid edge.) > The end of your building is static and symmetrical and that's very frontal, and the long facade is very frontal. > Why have the tri-part type divisions of the major pieces and what's the bow got to do with anything? It seems very, very symmetrical. (Higgins: It's not perfectly symmetrical because the facades have different dimensions. It's an agled site, so we're gradually moving the facade out into that zone with the bow, so it's stepping the facade forward to address El Camino Real as opposed to being a straight rectangle. Think the bow and notching of the facade helps us create a re-entry zone so that we can articulate the bow, also provides a more panoramic view.) Public Comments: Ladsa Vaserman: Not associated with the museum, however am appalled and upset by the idea that that museum will have to cease to exist; there doesn't seem to be a solution to relocate the museum. Am a City or Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 8/172020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 member of the most vulnerable part of the human society, am disabled and an dependent adult. Early lease termination of the Peninsula Museum of Art in Burlingame is making me and members of the community frustrated and upset. Land owner decided to demolish the structure at 1777 California Drive, a museum which includes exhibition galleries, a library, and working studios for professional artists and a wide variety of mediums. Owner plans to build a high rise housing complex, which will no doubt be unaffordable for most. There are a lot of souls being sheltered and nurtured at the museum, museum gives us hope, that our human society will be more humane, better, kinder, loving and compassionate. Museum hosts visitors, special events, exhibit openings, and regular group meetings. Museum receives financial support, understanding the museums' importance in the contribution to a better wortd. Museum admission is free and provides guided tours and exhibitions for schools, children, seniors and people with disabilities. Museum has made many disabled -accessible upgrades and is extensively used by the elderly and disabled. Museum is needed for people who are confined to a hospital or assisted living facility. Given the difficult health issues in our society, it's imperative that we put our mindset toward art. Museum is an invaluable institution in San Mateo County and what it provides for the community is priceless and very much needed. Dale Young: Live in condominium building next door, next to the California Drive entrance to the proposed project. This transition creates many more users of these premises between the residents, employees, office tenants, and patrons than are using that building now. Concerned with reduction in the parking, parking already is a problem in the area. I've had people try to come visit me, they have to park a block away because they cannot rind parking on California Drive. Concerned with the height of the building because my backyard is there. Not sure how much glass there is on the other side of the building, but i don't know if I like the idea of people peering in my backyard. If you're going to emphasize the transit orientation of the area, you need to focus on how are people are going to get to and from their destinations. Know from personal experience, because I walk from my condominium to the BART and Caltrain station everyday, that traffic at Trousdale and California Drive will be a problem; stepping into the crosswalk across Trousdale Drive is dangerous for pedestrians. People driving eastbound on Trousdale Drive turning south onto California Drive often roll right through that stop sign, even if there's a pedestrian standing on the comer. Have nearly been hit three times travelling southbound on California Drive from the BART station, with northbound traffic on California Drive turning left onto Trousdale Drive, it tums abruptly even though a person is stepping off the curb into the crosswalk or not paying attention. Think there needs to be a recommendation perhaps to City Council or other city department that there be a traffic signal installed at that intersection. Also, there is no way to get across California Drive between Broadway and Murchison Drive, people jaywalk which is very dangerous. If there is going to be more traffic, there should also be another crosswalk across California Dive at Trousdale Drive and not just a traffic signal for the traffic, but a dedicated pedestrian signal as well. No name provided: Live in condominium building next door and have same concerns as previous speaker. Main concern is the parking because the city has taking away parking spaces and parking hours. Nice that you want to have a transit oriented community at this end of town, but it's not the reality of what people do; if people come in their car and there is no place for them to park, they'll park where they're not supposed to which is our driveway or our guest packing spaces. Regarding the transit orientation, most buildings in area are medical buildings that a lot of disabled people come to, so they are not using public transit, there needs to be places for people who come in a car that need help being escorted into the building. Think it's an impractical proposal to reduce the parking and that's not the reality of what people do. Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > This is an incredible opportunity site and am really excited about the idea of the project. > One of the challenges you face in doing this project is that almost anything you do on a project of this size is going to seem out of place in some way, because it's going to stand out, even though the hospital City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 8/172020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 is across the street,' it's going to stand out as a new scale of building and a new type of architecture. > Think that transit oriented developments is an important step for us, there is certainly going to be traffic studies completed. > Think there are a lot of good things going on with this building, however it leaves me cold. My first reaction to it was it looks like a Washington, D.C. suburban Virginia office building, it doesn't feel like it belongs here somehow, seems formulaic. Reason I was asking about the bowed front is because it looks like a building from the mid 80's and mid 90's, think it's missing a tremendous opportunity on that site. It's very frontal, stayed and measured, and not exactly symmetrical. The site and the opportunity seems very asymmetrical,, it is a gateway project. Has the long 300 foot facade that has to be broken up in some way, but it doesn't have to be broken up necessarily in this way, this is just one option. Don't know exactly where to go with it, really want to see something exceptional on this comer. Feels uninspired, seems like you have a formula and you put the formula before us, seems like it wants to be strung with buildings that are the same, if you get enough of them you have a pseudo city. It doesn't feel like Burlingame and it doesn't feel like it belongs on this site and it doesn't do what it needs to do on this site. > Feel like this project is so done the way it's been presented, feel like we haven't had the opportunity to provide input. Have provided many details on the plans, but you haven't solved the urban design problem, the most important problem you need to solve. You've got the building completely designed, all the materials and plants chosen, but think you need to take a huge step back. Glad that this is a design review study, but fear is that somebody is going to make a proposal and we bring this back on regular action, we'll look at it one more time and it will be approved. This looks like one of those projects that just has to be worked, and it needs more thought,big problem needs to be solved before the small problems. Want so much for this sort of thing to happen in Burlingame, but not like this one. > Generally accepting of the conditional use permit for the mechanical stackers and zoning code amendment but think those issue are going to be bourne out through the environmental review. Need to see what the traffic analysis shows, need to see how that's going to affect traffic in the neighborhood and potential impacts. Unfortunately, this project is not going to be able to solve a lot of the issues elsewhere in the neighborhood. Understand what the neighbors are saying, have witnessed similar experiences in terms of the crossings and the intersections at California Drive. Fortunately, this project can address the intersections and the crossings at El Camino Real and along Trousdale Drive. Grateful that they are considering the bulb -outs to make it an easier crossing for pedestrians across an intersection, you get the those bulb -outs in the sidewalks and you get more territory dedicated to pedestrians and you cause the car to have to slow and navigate through intersections. > Landscaping needs additional work in terms of the detailing and articulation, what is experience going to be like in the dog park area, what are the edges going to be like at the fitness center, and what are the anecdotal or the scenario type experiences in the plaza for the public amenity. What is the expectation for how that's experienced, and when and who is experiencing that because there's not a lot of pedestrian traffic along El Camino Real and along that slip road, for the time being it's still traffic oriented. With this office park, there likely will be more people coming from the BART/Caltrain station and arriving to the office and walking into the office park, so there likely would be more scenarios of the office users down in that plaza, but what is that experience like? Are they going to come down and use that? What if the commercial spaces could help support that in terms of accessing that to pick up coffee or a sandwich. > In terms of design review, building is very horizontal. Appreciate the mixed -use nature of the building, really like the commitment to providing the office, commercial and the residential component within this project. Adds for some great dynamic for the interplay of what I was describing in terms of the users for how they experience the street and the building. The mix of users is going to help with the vibrancy of the potential for this comer. > I look at this building versus the hospital building, which has been cited as an example, and the hospital building is much more massive, but it's broken down and articulated in a different way in terms of its component parts and pieces that come together as a building that really helped to experience that building both close up and from a distance in terms of understanding it visually, in terms of different parts and pieces of the architecture. Along El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, the hospital is experienced in a certain way in looking at its architecture, this project has a lot of stretch of the same thing. Don't think solution is as simple as breaking down the massing down to three component pieces. Needs strong City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 811712020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 consideration of how architecture defines itself in terms of the pieces of the facade. > There is a great opportunity to define what happens at the comer, both in the architecture, landscaping and in the pedestrian realm. Might help to define end or corner piece because that is going to be prominent for the time being. Would like to know that we're not just looking at a comer that just kind of happened with two facades coming together. > Like the project in terms of what it's doing, know for a fact when we were putting together the plan in this area, there was doubt as to what would happen with these properties, so am grateful that property owners are coming forward and wanting to commit to embracing our area plan and adding some energy to this neighborhood and doing something with those properties along there. > Agree about the mixed -use nature of this project, will be a great addition to this area. > Important to look at dewatering during and after construction, given that the garage is 20 feet below sea level. > Generally in support of reducing the parking ratio in this area. Would parking reduction also apply to hospital or medical uses? (Keylon: It would apply to medical and dental offices, there is a different ratio for hospitals.) > Not convinced that 1:500 SF is the right ratio for this area. Studies that Hexagon presented in their report were really helpful, and by two of them, this building would be under parked everyday, so it doesn't seem to support it. In looking at the other cities referenced, almost none of them had a parking ratio like this, particularly Millbrae which is next to the same intermodal station; even their ratio was not this light and is also limited to 800 feet, which is a significantly tighter radius than the half mile proposed in the amendment. Don't think the data supports 1:500 SF ratio; could see supporting a 1:400 SF, but would like to see additional data to get to that ratio. > Do we know the distance from this property to the intermodal station? Would help to know the distance, should include in next staff report. (Muzzi: Located 0.4 miles from station.) > Not sure if 1 can support the reduced parking ratio, but could still consider it with additional studies. We're in this heavily medical office area, so we do have to think about companions bringing people to their appointments, and maybe the need even for more disabled -accessible parking spaces depending on what the commercial usage of the office spaces may be. > Concerned about access to the main entrance off the slip road. There should be some more exploration of locating a main entrance closer to the comer at Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real, rather than in the middle of the property. Access to a middle entrance would be difficult because you would have to make a u-turn if driving southbound. If you move forward with a middle entrance, wondering if that could be the residential entrance, and the main entrance and entrance to the fitness center and once spaces could be some where else. > Property is great as a mixed -used designation, thank you for embracing that idea. This is a great opportunity to be a gateway property, much like how the eucalyptus trees along El Camino Real form the entrance to Burlingame. > Building doesn't have to look like the hospital, but definitely could be an interesting architectural feature to the area, and meet a lot of the needs of this part of the city. > When we first started looking at the zoning and discussed the height limits for this particular block of buildings, was concerned because there are homes and backyards just one block away that look up to medical buildings and then this project would extend above that. Given this building and location, it is one floor too tall. > With regards to the design, can see how you arrived at this design; the police station is next door, an old medical building is adjacent to the site, there is a medical facility on Trousdale Drive, and older medical buildings to the north that are certainly due to be rebuilt soon. But that is what makes this building so important, will be setting the standard for new zoning in the area. Focus on the detail of this building is due, and we really have to get it right. Don't feel like I'm truly entering Burlingame until I'm a block south of this site, think you have the potential to change that with this building on this prominent comer. > A contemporary design is the right direction to be headed with this. Not at all suggesting that it doesn't fit into Burlingame because it's not mission style, contemporary makes a lot of sense for me in this location. > There is a certain homogeneity of the project that makes me uneasy, it's a very homogeneous project City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 8/17/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 except for the indentations splitting the building into three pieces over 300 feet. Needs to have asymmetry and less homogeneity and it needs to address the various urban design requirements of the site which has to do with the entrance and the hospital across the street. > Have a phenomenal opportunity here and would like to see it pushed as far as we possibly can. > In support of the reduced parking, however it does feel light. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 8/17/2020 John P. Sheehy, FAIA, RIBA William J. Higgins, FAIA Sherry Caplan, IIDA, Assoc. AA October 21. 2019 Catherine Keylon Senior Planner Community Development Department Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Subject: 1766 El Camino / Burlingame, CA Planning Commission Submittal Letter of Explanation Dear Catherine and Commissioners: We are submitting 1 full size sets and 10 half size sets of the updated plans and elevation views for the above referenced project for Planning review. We appreciate the Commissioners' design review comments and input from our Study Session of September 23" and have made great progress in responding to them as represented by the drawing resubmission attached. We have endeavored to revise the design to respond to these key elements in particular: The site is an opportunity for a Contemporary, Transit -Oriented Mixed -Use Development: The revised design concept is a contemporary elegant addition to the North Burlingame Mixed -Use zone with a more dynamic composition and scale appropriate for this area and is a well thought-out translation of the interim zoning constraints and design guidelines. Building seems too "frontal" and homogenous: We have composed the El Camino fagade to be less static and more compositional by articulating the Trousdale corner as a strong end element that frames this gateway corner. Coupled with this, we have incorporated a grand canopy that frames and unifies the four office floors and links the center building mass to the end mass thus creating an asymmetrical movement to the design. This connecting element is further enhanced with a color and fagade pattern change at the residential floors above. ARCHITECTURE INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURE '_ANNNG INTERIOR DESIGN SAN FRANCISCO 225 Miller Avenue MITI Valley, California 94941 USA 415.381,2074 T 415,381.2075 F www.orch-inti.com • Building should also address / define the corner of Trousdale & El Camino — it is a gateway from the north: As stated above, we have articulated the Trousdale corner with a similar punched opening end element that frames this gateway corner and acts as a transition to the more transparent El Camino Real fagade. Provide more definition of the office lobby entry: The horizontal extension of the grand canopy provides for an opportunity to give identity to the building and announce the El Camino Real office lobby address while providing covered protection at the office entrance. The Landscape should articulate the edges and enhance the pedestrian experience: Additional attention and detail have been given to the planting around the fitness area and more diagrammatic dog run with seating, planting and agility toys for small dogs. Also, the Trousdale corner and El Camino plaza can provide opportunities integrated into the plan. Depending on what is desired, art can be vertical (scales vary), embedded in the ground (could be directional toward the lobby), or more functional such as the design of the seating or bike racks (like Burlingame Ave.) The project is being submitted as a Tier 3 project under the Interim Zoning standards. As part of this submission the project will be achieving Benefit items 4a as well as 4c, 4f and 4h of the following Community Benefits Objectives: 4a. Affordable Housing — The project will provide affordable housign at a rate of 5% of low income households as a percentage of the total number of units built for a period of 55 years. This will be built as 3 on -site units. 4c. Public Plaza — The Project provides for a public plaza along the El Camino street frontage with a total area of approximately 5,778 sf which is in excess of the 2,000 sf required. The Plaza will provide seating, planting, bike parking, trash/recycle receptacles and other streetscape amenities as per the Community Benefits guidelines. 4f. Pedestrian Connection between Adjacent Properties — The Project provides improved pedestiran connections between adjacent properties for a more walkable and bikeable environment. 4h. Mode Split - The project will provide for the permanent mode shift towards alternative transportation for building occupants through a Transportation Demand Management Program that achieves the objectives of General Plan Chapter VI: Mobility. The project is a 7-story mixed -use building above grade with 2 levels of below grade parking and includes the following uses: Residential — 60 units consisting of 1, 2 & 3 Bedroom Units on 2 floors Office — 148,057 sf on 4 floors plus ground floor lobby Commercial/ Retail — 7,588 sf on the ground floor Residential Amenties on ground floor Residential Amenity terrace on the 611, floor to include a barbque and kitchen area Parking — 385 spaces on 2 below grade levels Ground level amenities include: Fitness Center — 3,772 sf Leasing Office— 1,314 sf Bike Parking & Bike/Dog Wash —1,931 sf Lobby, Lounge & Mail room — 5,433 sf The project will have vehicular access off of the El Camino "slip" road and off of California Drive, thus providing a balanced separation of ingress and egress. There will be a vehicular drop-off for the residential lobby off of Trousdale Drive. A curbside drop- off will be provided on the El Camino "slip" road for the office lobby and short term loading. A landscaped plaza totalling 5,778 sf will be located on the El Camino side thus providing an enhanced pedestrian experience and a community benefit for the public. The streetscape of both the El Camino frontage and the Trousdale Drive frontage will follow City guidelines and will include street trees, raised planters, special paving, seatwalls and a planting pallet compatible with the Bay Area climate. The 7-story, 85-ft. tall building will be Type 1-A construction consisting of post - tensioned concrete slabs and a regular structural column grid. The exterior finishes will include a glass curtain wall for the office and a combination of curtain wall and window wall for the residential units. This is being designed to be coupled with a precast wall panel system and extensive use of balconies for the residential units and the office tenants. The ground level will be clad in a procelain or stone tile. The overall design concept is to be a contemporary elegant addtion to the North Burlingame Mixed -Use zone with a scale appropriate for this area. The building massing is articulated with buidling mass breaks along the El Camino frontage to reduce the scale of this longer fagade. The curvilenear bowing of the El Camino fagade creates a modulated street wall that provide varied views along this important street frontage. The south, north and east facades are framed with a more solid, punched opening expression to balance the compostion and to relate more directly to those adjacent neighbors. 1 hope that this letter highlights the features of the building for your review; I look forward to our next review on October 28'n Best Regards, i iam . i ins, Principal Public Comment letters • Jennifer Pfaff • Larisa Vaserman 09.23.19 Meeting Item 9b 1766 El Camino Real Page 1 of 2 From: Jennifer Pfaff I Sent: Sunday, September 22, 201911:23 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningC< <ckev I o n@ burl i nga me. o rp Cc: CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner<kgardiner@burlingame.orp Subject: 1766 EL Camino Agenda 9b - landscape issue Dear Chair Comaroto and Planning Commissioners, COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED SEP 23 2019 CITY OF BURLINGAME COD — PLANNING DIV. I wonder if you would please ask the developer of 1766 El Camino Real about a couple of landscape related items, a few of which are attached to this correspondence. Pls See profile Section I pages 27-28 L.5.0 and L5.1 of the site plan landscaping — These show the profile view of the building, the trees, and the underground garage, and I think the El Camino frontage and Trousdale are similar with this concern. It looks like the tree well space is only 4 ft. wide, total, then the sidewalk area is just 6 ft. until roots underneath the pavement will hit the wall of the underground garage. I think that creates roughly 8 ft. wide maximum of root space on the side adjacent to the project. Could you ask them if that is that going to be enough space for the roots to grow, or will this tree need to be felled early, because of eventual damage to the retaining walls of the underground garage? Also, it looks as if the (maroon colored) tree on the El Camino facing side planted on top of the sidewalk is in a raised planter that appears to have a very shallow depth. It, too, sits on top of the hollowed garage. What is called the "specimen tree" on page. 26 (L.4.0) possibly may also not be planted on solid ground. This issue seems to have become a problem in other cities, so it would be great to figure this out beforehand on such a significant project that is meant to shape the area for the future in many ways. Again, apologize if I am not reading the plans properly. Thanks so much for your attention to this. Sincerely, Jennifer Pfaff PLAZA PAVING DEFINES ENTRIES AND SEATING AREAS SEATING AREAS AND PLANTERS IN ENTRY PLAZA STREETSCAPE TREE AND UNDERSTORY PLANTING 1 of 5 September 16, 2019 From: Larisa Vaserman Villa Mills Estate Assisted Living Facility Burlingame, CA 94010 Mobile (.,.., E-Mail: ' I �agmail.com To: San Mateo County Board of Supervisors To whom it may concern: My name is Larisa Vaserman. I am a member of the most vulnerable part of the Human Society: I am Disabled and Dependent Adult. Let me utter my view on a subject that became a very big issue in the Community lately and affected me personally. In addition to my very difficult life, full of injustice, "extremely complicated Medical History", this very wrong "business" is making me and a lot of other members of the community very much frustrated, upset and hopeless for the better World, which is rapidly changing, becoming more diverse and interconnected every day. 2 of 5 The "business", I am referring to, is "early lease termination" for PMA, Peninsula Museum of Art, located in Burlingame. WHY?! The Landowner decided to demolish the existing structure at 1777 California Drive, Burlingame. The Museum includes Exhibition Galleries, Library, 29 Working Studios for Professional Artists in a wide variety of mediums. The Landowner plan to build a high-rise housing -oriented complex, no doubt unaffordable for most. Here is one DEFINITION of HOUSING: "a rigid casing that encloses and protects a piece of moving or delicate equipment'. This definition comes to the heart of the present building at 1777 California Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010: this "Delicate Equipment" protects many BODIES and many SOULS. There are a lot of "SOULS" being sheltered and nurtured there: 3 of 5 SOUL of the Museum Founder notable sculptor and amazing Human Being - Ruth von Jahnke Waters; SOULS of the 29 Artists in their working studios and many other Artists, who exhibit their Art there; SOULS of many volunteers: Docents and helpers; SOULS of many Children, who choose to study Art and express their creativity. Thus giving hope to us that our Human Society will be more Humane, much Better, much Kinder, much more Loving and Compassionate; SOULS of many visitors every day or at special Events: Exhibit Openings, Artist Talks, Classes; SOULS of many women of all ages, who belong to California Peninsula Women's Caucus for Art and come here for their regular meetings; SOULS of many Patrons, who financially support Peninsula Museum of Art with understanding of Museum importance in the Contribution to a Better World around. And, it already is: Museum admission is free. More than that: it provides guided Tours around the Museum and Exhibitions for Schools, Children, Seniors and for People with Disabilities. At one time, PMA spent lots of money by re -building an existing wheelchair ramp to bring it up to the ADA new requirements. 4of5 And YES, it's extensively used by the Elderly and Disable, considering a number of Facilities around: from Assisted Living to a Skilled Nursing. Plus, Main Mills Peninsula Hospital right across. Living in such Facilities doesn't mean that "outside life" has to stop completely, doesn't mean that a person's curiosity and interest in the magical world of arts and creativity has to end. Quite the opposite - it will be more valuable and enjoyable and needed for most people, who are "confined" to live in such environment for one reason or another, when one's life is "restricted" due to health and/or age, especially for psychological and healing purposes. While physical structure comprised of "Living Spaces" for people - a safe place, where we sleep, wake up to start a new day, eat, drink, raise family, love, play games, have birthdays, getting older, it's vitally important to have a "housing for SOUL" - for EVERYBODY! Witnessing today an "Epidemic" Mass shooting, especially in our country United States of America, tough Reality full of Frustration, Stress, Depression, growing need in help of Doctors/ Experts in Psychiatry/Psychology, it's imperative to "re-route" our mindset towards ART, which 5of5 is "a diverse range of HUMAN ACTIVITIES in creating Visual, Auditory or Performing artifacts (ARTWORKS), expressing the author's IMAGINATIVE, CONCEPTUAL IDEAS, or TECHNICAL SKILL, intended to be appreciated for their BEAUTY or EMOTIONAL POWER". PENINSULA MUSEUM OF ART represents an invaluable institution here, in San Mateo County. What it provides for the Community, is absolutely priceless and very much needed, more than ever! PMA MISSION The Peninsula Museum of Art enhances our region and Enriches lives through Art and Education. The inclusion of Artist's Studios as a Major Department of the Peninsula Museum of Art is a deliberate effort to bridge the gap Between the Creative Community of Professional Artists and The Community at large. Peninsula Museum of Art ( PMA) features: • Changing Exhibitions of work by outstanding Artists of The Greater Bay Area • Art Classes and Workshops for Children and Adults • Receptions, Art Talks and other special Events • Special receptions for mobility -impaired visitors • 29 Studios for Professional Artists, working in both: 2D and 3D • Community involvement • FREE Admission • 501(c)3 Non-profit Corporation Application Materials Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation - Project Description, dated August 1, 2019 NBMU Project Summary Checklist Conditional Use Permit Application for Mechanical Stackers — C.S. 25.40.050(D) • Miller, Starr, Regalia letter regarding CEQA process, dated October 23, 2019 • Environmental Informational Form • Hexagon Transportation Consultants, TDM Measures, dated June 18, 2019 evR�ir+gnn,e {COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT a 501 PRIMROSE ROAD a BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.568.7250 a f: 650.696.3790 a www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: 91' Design Review ❑ Variance 17'Parcel #: Al::W mZ �F-1 i G - I t O ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning 1 Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: j-7% U E I Cewq I? G, kto I APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: C,942 `®5 I NG . Name:G . Name: AF CAJ IT&7CW1Z Cy_ dN-M;a1V AM D!►!!R'� Address: Z Z 175 M l I-efz-AVX�_. E z. •y 2— tZ. City/State/Zip: IY1 i i-L UA1,L4:-r!f_�, CA 9LtCd LV 1 MM ed Phone: ti 1 � °��.� . � ��7 CI r y 0: BLiil NGAME ( P E-mail: r— i rl+9 . C--m �T Burlingame Business License #: Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authorit to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as p ning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such actio {Initials of Arch ltect/Desig ner) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: —1 ��' I'1'! �--VS-G (�F AFFID"ITISIGNATURE: I hereb certif under enact of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my Knowledge and / Applicant's signature: Date: I am aware of the Commission. Property owner',c to submit this application to the Planning Date: Date submitted:. S: JHANDOUTS�PC Application. doc John P. Sheehy. FAA, RIBA William J. Higgins, FAIA Sherry Caplan, IIDA, Assoc, AIA August 1, 2019 Catherine Keylon Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Subject: 1766 El Camino / Burlingame, CA Planning Commission Submittal Letter of Explanation Dear Catherine: We are submitting 1 full size sets and 3 half size sets for the above referenced project for Planning review. The project Is being submitted as a Tier 3 project under the Interim Zoning standards. As part of this submission the project will be achieving Benefit Items 4a as well as 4c, 4f and 4h of the following Community Benefits Objectives 4a. Affordable Housing - The project will provide affordable housign at a rate of 5% of low income households as a percentage of the total number of units built for a period of 55 years. This will be built as 3 on -site units. 4c. Public Plaza - The Project provides for a public plaza along the El Camino street frontage with a total area of approximately 5,778 sf which is In excess of the 2,000 sf required. The Plaza will provide seating, planting, bike parking, trash/recycle receptacles and other streetscope amenities as per the Community Benefits guidelines. 4f. Pedestiran Connection between Adjacent Properties - The Project provides Improved pedestiran connections between adjacent properties for a more walkable and bikeable environment. 4RCHITECTURE NTERNATIONAL 4RCHITECTURE PLANNING NTERIOR DESIGN SAN FRANCISCO 225 Miller Avenue MITI Valley, California 94941 USA 415.381.2074 T 415.381.2075 F www,arch-inti.com 4h. Mode Split - The project will provide for the permanent mode shift towards alternative transportation for building occupants through a Transportation Demand Management Program that achieves the objectives of General Plan Chapter VI: Mobility. The project is a 7-story mixed -use building above grade with 2 levels of below grade parking and Includes the following uses: Residential - 60 units consisting of 1, 2 & 3 Bedroom Units on 2 floors Office - 148,057 sf on 4 floors plus ground floor lobby Commercial/ Retail - 7,588 sf on the ground floor Residential Amenties on ground floor Residential Amenity terrace on the 6m floor to include a barbque and kitchen area Parking - 385 spaces on 2 below grade levels Ground level amenities Include: Fitness Center - 3,772 sf Leasing Office - 1,314 sf Bike Parking & Bike/Dog Wash - 1,931 sf Lobby, Lounge & Mail room - 5,433 sf The project will have vehicular access off of the El Camino "slip" road and off of California Drive, thus providing a balanced separation of ingress and egress. There will be a vehicular drop-off for the residential lobby off of Trousdale Drive. A curbside drop-off will be provided on the El Camino "slip" road for the office lobby and short term loading. A landscaped plaza totalling 5,778 sf will be located on the El Camino side thus providing an enhanced pedestrian experience and a community benefit for the public. The streetscape of both the El Camino frontage and the Trousdale Drive frontage will follow City guidelines and will Include street trees, raised planters, special paving, seatwalls and a planting pallet compatible with the Bay Area climate. The 7-story, 85-ff. tall building will be Type 1-A construction consisting of post - tensioned concrete slabs and a regular structural column grid. The exterior finishes will Include a glass curtain wall for the office and a combination of curtain wall and window wall for the residential units. This Is being designed to be coupled with a precast wall panel system and extensive use of balconies for the residential units and the office tenants. The ground level will be clad in a procelaln or stone tile. The overall design concept is to be a contemporary elegant addtion to the North Burlingame Mixed -Use zone with a scale appropriate for this area. The building massing is articulated with buidling mass breaks along the El Camino frontage to reduce the scale of this longer fagade. The curviienear bowing of the El Camino facade creates a modulated street wall that provide varied views along this Important street frontage. The south, north and east facades are framed with a more solid, punched opening expression to balance the compostion and to relate more directly to those adjacent neighbors. i hope that this letter highlights the features of the building for your review, and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Best Regards, ARCHITEC$REINTERNATIONAL William J,AIA Principal L766 EL CAMINO / BURLINGAME, CA 3.11.19 iite Area: I I 1 1 74,168 1 SF )FFICE DENSITY: FAR=2.0 148,336 ISF :OMMERCIAL DENSITY: FAR=1.0 74.168 SF >LANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL: RESIDENTIAL OVER OFFICE - NON HIGH-RISE LEVELS USE FLOOR HT. USE RESIDENTIAL COMM. /RETAIL OFFICE Feet ZONE #OF UNITS GFA NSA GFA* 7 RESIDENTIAL 9.833 28 32,000 6 RESIDENTIAL 9.833 28 32,000 5 OFFICE 12.5 35,569 4 OFFICE 12.5 35,569 3 OFFICE 12.5 35,569 2 OFFICE 1 12.5 1 37,711 Ground COMMERCIAL 15 4 19,870 7,588 3,633 iUBTOTALS: 85 75 60 83,870 7,5891 148,057 'inlcudes office core/corridor BARKING REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED tESIDENTIAL 69 As per Interim Zoning GROUND 3 )FFICE 296 2.0 / 1000 sf GFA B1 164 tETAIL 19 1.0 / 400 sf GFA B2 218 384 385 OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS: OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 60 Units @100 sf = 6,000 OPEN SPACE PROVIDED Residential Amenity Deck 5,044 Residential Balconies 4,296 LANDSCAPED REQUIRED 10% of Site = 7,417 LANDSCAPE PROVIDED 18,703 UNIT MIX STUDIOS amo© o®a© RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIRED: 0 45 18 6 RRMU & NBMU PROJECT SUMMARY CHECKLIST 1.BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -PLANNING DIVISION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-3997 TEL: 650.558.7250 1 FAX: 650.696.3790 1 E-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPTa(7BURLINGAME.ORG z ) ❑ RRMU ZONING DISTRICT Q NBMU ZONING DISTRICT O I 1766 EL CAMINO REAL, BURLINGAME, CA APN-025-116-110 W PROJECT ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #(APN) [_ ❑ CONDIMINIUM APARTMENT zR 60 #OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL UNITS 7,588 COMMERCIAL SQ. FT. w 0 a239,515 GFA TOTAL PROPOSED SQ. FT. OFFICE = 148,057 OTHER USE(S) SQ. FT Pease refer to the respective zoning districts for Development Standards and requirements for Community Benefit Bonuses. CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX THAT APPLIES TO PROPOSED PROJECT: ❑ TIER 1 (BASE STANDARD) ❑ TIER 2 (INCREASED INTENSITY) ® TIER 3 (MAXIMUM INTENSITY) TIER 2 (INCREASED INTENSITY) AND TIER 3 (MAXIMUM INTENSITY) REQUIREMENTS Must include at least two (2) community benefits for Tier 2 or at least three (3) community benefits for Tier 3 from subsection 4 (Community Benefits) of respective zoning district AND at least one (1)affordable and workforce housing objective from subsection 4 (a). I. REQUIREMENT —AFFORDABLE HOUSING [SEE SUBSECTION 4 (a)] Must include at least one of the following: I ® Affordable housing at rate of 5%for low-income households; OR ❑ 10%for moderate -income households, as a percentage of total # of housing units built I. REQUIREMENT —COMMUNITY BENEFITS Must include at least two (2) of the following for Tier 2 and at least three (3)for Tier 3: ❑ Pedestrian Amenities ® Public Plazas Beyond Minimum ; ❑ Off -Site Streetscape Improvements ❑ Cultural Arts Space ® Pedestrian and Similar Paths and Connections between Adjacent Properties ❑ Historic Preservation (Off -Site) Mode Split ❑ Zero Net Energy ❑ Publicly Accessible Park Space ❑ Public Parking Facilities I ❑ Flexible (Miscellaneous) Benefit City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P (650) 558-7250 • F (650) 696-3790 • w .burlinaame orc CITY OF BURLINGAME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed use of car stackers at 1766 ECR will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and general welfare or convenience because they will provide required on -site parking for the uses proposed at this location and therefore would help to preserve existing on -street parking spaces for visitor in the vicinity. They are will wholly enclosed within the building and would not impact other business/properties. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The mechanical vehicle stackers proposed at 1766 ECR are called out as Conditional Uses in the NBMU interim zoning, and are therefore consistent with the intended zoning. This method of parking is consistent with the parking alternatives discussed in the General Plan and presented in the interim zoning as an option to standard parking spaces with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Car stackers are a common parking option used in urban and suburban areas along the Peninsula and across the Bay Area. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity as the proposed mechanical vehicle stackers will be located wholly within an enclosed building. The stackers would not impact the aesthetics, mass, bulk or character of the subject or surrounding properties. Rev 06.2007 Handouts\Conditional Use Permit App.doc riMILLER STARR REGALIA October 23, 2019 Burlingame City Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Gil Honorable Commissioners: 1331 N. California Blvd. Fifth Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94696 Travis Brooks travls. brooks@ msrlegal. com This office represents Certosa, Inc. ("Certosa") in its efforts to develop a seven - story, mixed use building including retail, office, and residential uses at 1766 El Camino Real in the City of Burlingame (the "Project"). We submit this letter in advance of the City Planning Commission's environmental scoping meeting scheduled for the Project on October 28, 2019. T 925 935 9400 F 925 933 4126 www.msrlegal.com As you know; the Project will require discretionary approval of a design review application, conditional use permit for parking stackers, and a zoning code amendment related to office parking requirements in the applicable zone. Accordingly, staff have taken the position that the Project will require some level of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). As discussed below, we believe that a Tiered Negative Declaration, or Tiered Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"), addressing potential impacts from the Project's adjustments to office parking requirements, is the appropriate level of environmental review for the Project. Such review would be tiered off of the Environmental Impact Report ("General Plan EIR") certified for the City's General Plan update and interim zoning ordinance for the North Burlingame Mixed Use zone ("NBMU") on January 7, 2019. Background As noted in the Project application materials, the Project's office, commercial, and residential components, and proposed parking for commercial and residential uses are consistent with the General Plan and interim zoning standards for the NBMU. However, the Project's proposed office parking component is less than current parking requirements in the City's Zoning Code. Accordingly, Certosa is requesting an amendment of the interim zoning code that, consistent with General Plan policy M-7.3, would reduce office parking requirements throughout the NBMU zone. CERT%56334t2178923.1 offices: Walnut Creek / San Francisco / Newport Beach Planning Commission October 23, 2019 Page 2 Specifically, the requested zoning amendment would reduce parking requirements from one space for every 300 square feet of office space to one space required for every 400 square feet of office space in the NBMU zone. 11. Tiered environmental review of the Project is appropriate. Tiered environmental review of the Project is appropriate under Public Resources Code section 21094 and CEQA Guideline 15152. Under these provisions, when an EIR has already been prepared for a general plan, a lead agency "shall" examine a later project, subject to that general plan, using a tiered EIR or Negative Declaration if the following requirements are met: • The later project is consistent with the originally adopted general plan or policy (Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b)(1)-(2); 14 CCR § 15152(d)-(e).); • The later project is consistent with applicable zoning ordinances or includes a rezoning to achieve or maintain conformity with the general plan. (Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b)(2); 14 CCR § 15152(e) (emphasis added).); and • The project does not reflect changes or new information requiring a subsequent or supplemental original EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b)(3).) Here, each of the above requirements are met. As indicated in the Project application, the Project is designed to be consistent with the City's newly updated General Plan. Next, outside of the Project's proposed levels of office parking, the Project's is consistent with the City's Interim Zoning Code. To remedy the inconsistency between the Project's proposed office Parking requirements and those in the Zoning Code, the proposed zoning amendment would amend Zoning Code section 25.39.050 to achieve conformity with recently added General Plan Policy M-7.3. Policy M-7.3 seeks to reduce, or even eliminate minimum parking requirements in the Zoning Code: Reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements ... for housing, commercial, office, and other land uses in mixed use areas and in proximity to frequent transit services. Comprehensively examine parking requirements in the Zoning Code and adjust as needed to respond to evolving vehicle ownership patterns and parking practices. (Burlingame General Plan Policy M-7.3.) Finally, the Project does not reflect the type of new information or changes to the General Plan that would require issuance of a subsequent or supplemental General Plan EIR, thus meeting the last requirement. CERTT5533412178923.1 Planning Commission October 23, 2019 Page 3 The requirements for tiered environmental review are met and the City should analyze the Project on a tiered basis, based on the General Plan EIR. When preparing a tiered EIR or Negative Declaration, a lead agency should only analyze those potentially significant impacts of the later project that were not analyzed in the prior EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21068.5(b.) Here, the Project is consistent with the General Plan and interim zoning standards already analyzed in the General Plan EIR, except for the Project's proposed zoning amendment related to office parking, Thus, the only potentially significant, new impacts resulting from the Project would be those related to parking. We note that reduced parking levels, in -and -of themselves, are generally not recognized as environmental impacts under CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G [revised after 2002 to remove parking capacity from the CEQA environmental checklist].) Instead, parking levels are only relevant under CEQA to the extent they cause secondary transportation or other recognized environmental impacts. (See San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.AppAth 656, 697; see also Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1053; see also Pub. Rec. Code 21099(d)(1)[explicitly exempting parking impacts from review for mixed use infill projects in transit priority areas].) Any Project impacts resulting from changes to the City's parking standards in the NBMU zone would be insignificant. First, the Project's proposed number of parking spaces for office uses is entirely consistent with the results of the office parking demand survey performed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the Project earlier this year. (Report on Parking Research Completed for the Mixed -use Development at 1766 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California, June 18, 2019.) This survey found that similar projects in similar locations had peak parking demand ratios of approximately one parking space for every five -hundred square feet of office space. (ld.) We also note the General Plan EIR found that build out of the General Plan would not result in any significant transportation impacts with the incorporation of a single mitigation measure related to the intersection of California Drive and Broadway. (General Plan EIR at pp. 2-8, 2-9.) Last, from a Project specific standpoint, any conceivably significant impacts resulting from reduced parking requirements for the Project would be mitigated by the Transportation Demand Management measures incorporated in the Project application. (See Recommended TDM Measures for the Mixed -use Development at 1766 El Camino Real, June 18, 2019, Hexagon Transportation Consultants.) CERT156334t2178923.1 Planning Commission October 23, 2019 Page 4 For the foregoing reasons, we believe that a tiered negative declaration, or a tiered mitigated negative declaration (incorporating the TDM measures in the Project application as mitigation measures), is the appropriate level of environmental review for the Project. IV. Conclusion We hope the above information is helpful to you and greatly appreciate your time and attention to this matter. If the Commission has any questions regarding the Project or the above information, we will be happy to answer them at the meeting on October 28, 2019. Very truly yours, Travis Brooks cc: Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner Mario Muzzi Arthur Coon, Miller Star Regalia TZB CER-R5633412178923A City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.orR CITY o euRL1NGAME ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FO F� (to be completed by applicant when Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report is required) 10AR 1 5 ?[,l9 GENERAL INFORMATION GDD-PLANNIN`U DU CITY OF F!"'P iINCAME Project Address: I T lob 61, Cott NO Assessor's Parcel Number: 2 ~ ti 1 6 '" 1 D 4VIZL,lt4laAeMGsJ CA .Applicant Name: IrG. PropeOwnerName: �r1GZ Addre Addre City/S City/S Phone: Phone Permit applications required for this project (special permit, variance, subdivision map, parcel map, condominium permit, building permit, etc.): V:, V I 1 &M Mt-r _ Related permits, applications and approvals required for this project by City, Regional, State and Federal Agencies: SITE INFORMATION Site size: IM& 1 . b 3 Acres and 7 Lf 1 61, Square Feet Existing Zoning: Existing use(sJ of property: f Total Number of Existing Parking Spaces': Number of Compact Spaces: Number of Existing Structures and Total Square Footage of Each: Will any structures be demolished for this project? ✓ Yes No Size and use of structures to be demolished: Number and size of existing trees on site 2: Z,.tt Will any of the existing tress be removed? Yes If Yes, list number, size and type of trees to be removed: No Are there any natural or man-made water channels which run through or adjacent to the site? Yes �7 No If Yes, where? 'City of Burlingame minimum standard parking space size is 9'x20'. The minimum size for compact parking spaces is 8'xl7'. Refer to City of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance C.S. 25.70 for parking requirements for particular uses. Refer to the City of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (C.S. 11.06) for tree removal permit and tree planting requirements. ENVUVIRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.ore Describe in general the existing surrounding land uses to the: North b FFt C1� / rk &-VI c44-1- South o F f✓I CE East $ Viz LI N CAM E T4L LA CPI West _M g 121 C IyL PROPOSED PROJECT Residential Projects: Number of Dwelling Units: Size of Unit(s): 1$2 11 Co 9 tW 5 -3 0 0 Household size (number of Commercial/Industrial Projects: per unit) expected: ti and square footage of each use: e7F'f-1 C,� � I7T7% Cestm- 7412ZAAd fit" kl L -, ?. 'V 9) % SX-- Estimated number of employees per shift: i F3 Will the project involve the use, disposal or emission of potentially hazardous materials (including petroleum products)? Yes No If Yes, please describe: Institutional Projects (public facilities, hospitals, schools): Major function of facility:, Estimated number of employees per Estimated Occunancv: For all Projects: Flood Hazard: is this site within a special flood hazard area? Yes kGNo Land Use: If the project involves a conditional use permit, variance or rezoning application, please explain why the applications are required3: ' Please fill out and submit the appropriate application form 9variance special permit, etc.) ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.ore Building gross square footage: Existing: Proposed: Number of floors of construction: Existing: Proposed: Traffic/Circulation: Standard and compact off-street parking spaces provided: Existing: Standard Proposed: Standard Compact Compact Total 2 ?j Total Grading: Amount of dirt/fill material being moved (check one): 0-500 cubic yards 5,000-20,000 cubic yards 500-5,000 cubic yards _� Over 20,000 cubic yards(indicate amount)^' O o o D Note: If fill is being placed over existing bay fill, provide engineering reports which show the effect of the new fill on the underlying bay mud. Storm water runoff: Indicate area of site to be covered with impervious surfaces (parking lot paving, etc.): Is the are ith impervious surfaces less than 200 feet away from a wetland, stream, lagoon or bay? Yes No Noise: Describe noise sources and timing of activity generated by your project during construction: Noise sources generated during operation of facility: Vibration: Will the proposal cause vibration that may affect adjacent properties? Describe any potential sources of vibration: tV O Exterior Lighting: Please describe any proposed exterior lighting of the facility4: AS TGF— 'E3<n3'iZ1'O(Z ILI.VYK)WA-MWO VF7-PIYvMVGa; Water: Expected amount of water usage: Domestic gal/day Commercial gal/day Expected fire flow demand Peak use gal/min Peak use gal/min gal/min As per the C.3 regulations set forth by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, please respond to the following questions: 1. Would the proposed project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? 4 Refer to City of Burlingame Exterior Illumination Ordinance (No. 1477) regarding requirements which limit exterior illumination in both residential and commercial zones. ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinRame.ore 2. Would the proposed project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? 3. Would the proposed project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? 4. Would the proposed project create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates volumes? 5. Would the proposed project result in increased erosion in its watershed? 6. Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Action Section 303(d) list? If so will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? 7. Would the proposed project have a potential significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to marine, fresh, or wetland waters? & Would the proposed project have a potentially significant adverse impact on ground water quality? 9. Will the proposed project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 10. Will the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? Sewer: Expected daily sewer discharge Source of wastewater discharge on site (i.e. restrooms, restaurants, laboratory, material processing, etc.) ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burtingame.org General: Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Provide attachment to explain nature of all items checked `yes'. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. Change in dust, ash, smoke fumes or odors in vicinity. Change in bay, lagoon, stream, channel or groundwater quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity (during construction and/or during operation). Site on filled land or on slope of 10 % or more. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable materials or explosives. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire water, sewage) Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (oil, natural gas, etc.). Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. CERTIFIICATION 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, correct to the best of my knowledge and b Date _— S Yes No ENVREV.FRM pp"` 111111111�1�.A HEXAGON TPANSPOPTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. June 18, 2019 Mr. M Email: Re: Recommended TDM Measures for the Mixed -use Development at 1766 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California Dear Mr. Muzzi: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc has completed parking research relative to the office portion of your proposed mixed -use development at 1766 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California. The project proposes to provide on -site parking at a reduced parking ratio compared with the City's Zoning Code requirements for the proposed office uses. We understand the City is considering a reduced parking ratio but would like to see some research supporting a reduced number. Also, the City will allow a reduced ratio in conjunction with appropriate Transportation Demand Management measures. Hexagon recommends a list of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that that can be implemented by the project to reduce its parking demand. Recommend TDM Measures Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single —occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution problems. The attached table presents a list of recommended TDM measures that are applicable to the proposed office development, along with an indication of who should have primary responsibility for implementing each measure. The recommended TDM measures include a broad range of TDM measures designed to reduce single -occupant vehicle trips and the project parking demand through a combination of appropriate measures to promote alternative forms of transportation. The objectives of these TDM measures include encouraging employees to use existing transit services and encouraging the use of bicycle travel and walking to, from, and around the area. The recommended TDM measures also include planning and design measures related to the attributes of the site design and on -site amenities. Such design measures encourage walking, biking, and use of transit. Some of the most important TDM measures are described as follows: Transportation Coordinator Experience with other TDM programs indicates that having a TDM contact person (also referred to as a Transportation Coordinator) who focuses on transportation issues and is responsible for implementing the TDM program is key to the plan's success. We recommend the developer appoint an individual as the Transportation Coordinator or TDM contact person to serve the entire mixed -use complex. He/She will be responsible for implementation of the TDM program throughout the project and will be available to answer questions from both residents and employees, and to coordinate as needed with all employers in the building. 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 - San Jose, California 95113 - phone 408.971.6100 - fax 408.971.6102 - www.hextrans.com Mr. Mario Muzzi June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Transit Subsidies The project is located about 0.5 miles from the Millbrae Transit Center, which provides direct access to BART and Caltrain service as well as to multiple shuttle routes and SamTrans bus routes. At a normal walking pace, it would take approximately 10 minutes to walk from the project site to the transit center. This encourages the use of Caltrain and SamTrans for residents and employees of the proposed project. Subsidized transit passes are an effective means of encouraging employees and residents to use transit rather than drive. One way of doing this is to provide a Clipper Card with a certain amount of cash value to the office employees and residents. The Clipper Card is an all -in -one transit card that can be used to pay for rides on all major Bay Area transit providers, including BART, Caltrain, and SamTrans. Emergency Ride Home Program An Emergency Ride Home program will guarantee that office employees within the project need not worry about being stranded at work without a car in the event of illness, family emergency, or unexpected overtime if they bicycle, carpool, or vanpool. The emergency ride home program could offer free taxi service from the workplace to the employee's home. Bicycle Sharing Bike sharing programs provide commuter -style bikes that can be checked out from and returned to self-service bike share stations for short trips. The idea behind bike sharing is to make bikes available to transit users for the short journey between a transit station and the residential location. There are no bike sharing program stations near the project site. Therefore, the project could provide its own bike sharing program by providing bicycles on site that can be checked out by office employees or residents for short trips. Unbundling of On -Site Parking Unbundled parking means separating the cost of parking from office and residential leases and allowing tenants to choose whether to lease a parking space. This program has the benefit of communicating the cost of constructing and maintaining parking to tenants, and it may help increase use of other travel modes. The TDM measures in this letter would reduce trip making and parking demand for the project. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Ling Jin Associate Mr. Mario Muzzi June 18, 2019 " Page 3 of 3 Table 1 — Measures Program Administration, Monitoring and Reporting Designating a Transportation Coordinator Building developer Online Kiosk/TDM Information Board Transportation Coordinator Transportation Information Packets Transportation Coordinator Participation in Transportation Management Association Building developer Trip Planning Assistance Transportation Coordinator Annual Resident/Employee Surveys Transportation Coordinator Transit Elements Proximity to Transit Center Building developer Resources (schedules, route maps & other info) Trans. Coordinator Transit Subsidy Employer/Property Owner Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Parking Building developer Shower Room Building developer Resources (maps & info) Trans. Coordinator Bike Sharing Building developer Pedestrian Facilities Enhanced Sidewalks Building developer Carpool and Vanpool Programs On -Site Ridematching Transportation Coordinator 511 Ridematching Assistance Available to public Incentives for New Carpools/Vanpools Available to public Discounted Tolls on Bay Area Bridges Available to public Other On -Site Amenities Residential Building developer Retails Building developer Emergency Ride Home Program Reimburse cost of emergency taxi rides Trans. Coordinator Unbundling of On -Site Parking Building developer (1)The building developer wiII have Initial responsibility for creating an online kiosk. After the building is occupied, the Transportation Coordinator wil I have ongoing responsibility for the online kiosk and various elements. Miscellaneous San Mateo County Income Limits 2020 • Staff Comments Proposed Resolutions • Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed August 14, 2020 • Area Map y a) a) a m E o co U R .0 E c T � E N E R O o E O. a) a N N a y C � v�- T y _ a U w O N o m U N a U) R O Co LL N � a L o L L U L Ea) 3 o U N C C R w y a E U R LL m N O � d m LO j LL E � R a O) L O (7 a () aa) E F C 0 O D co _ U) O N LL = CC) 0 0 0 O COO Itrncor`r`�o oivrimu O 00 N CO N N V3 EJ) V) w GO 0 0 0 0 0 V 0d 0co I� O) (O m O) V r- N (O W O O l0 n N N 6s V3 Vi V3 V3 O O O O O f-N N 000 (O O) (O O) N 0 0 � N (D (O O O 0 It N N V�l V3 63 V3 Vi O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 V O V o (O co-;tomuS N L) O) Lf) N N N 63 Vj Vi V! 63 a) N O O O 00 00000 N O N O 00 N Ih 0 V 00 '� tO 00 M h O N R LL a wwenb344� 7 y `p w O O O 0 0 a £ m OM N c00 W O JL (O W c(i (O r- 0) 'ITr N 00 0 O M L C C V? V) Va V) V3 O a 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 c0 O V R t co M N O L O W N V (O .-- CO (O 0 r O 0 ti Ee 6v e» Va ev 69 O O O O O O E (Lnrn7oc_- U O O O C r h O O) N V C R y d3w V)V3 V3 E R N � Q Q . N O Q O Q �Q o 3 C o O 0) 0N N R J �Q O v u a a o E E O a) a 3 a W O W� J:5 2 h W O z a 00 2 v £ $ o E E - J 0 o W W 0 o O O C d a N N J 6 K K O O N N p OM O m m O O Np p E LL E C c v o N N - - v `v 0 o tt N � d d O O j j - U j V Z Z d d u F N N QFQ vdi vdf U 2 (QJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i0 N l0 N O O M CO m O O r r% L d H W [1 N c R O U wwwwwww .o WO- o E E 000000o Rd�23 0 J n�� m< (I0 m [1 N 7 R= J �O r O r M 1� O N N W O q E M > O R "' N O n �+ .� d wwwwwww DOE c y o o3> j L a d p O N S O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a E c o E d o 0 u� rn ' m cn rn N `. N N c0 0 0 O r `0 m m o' Noi a E 3 w w K -O N7r, d {R f9 w w w 6 R d r d a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M N N M N V (J N R^ O d c O O M O (O O R' N t0 M N U O O O N E a R -7 N N 1 V V V N W R :O C 0 10 0 Q) l0 l0 V O W L 0 0 L d N w w w w w fA w w w w w > w w w p X- m J O L m 3 > E 'R 0 0 o 0 0 0 e O O O O O O O r N w Rp N 00R 0 0 a N W N = W W Y% c O d 2 N N O It O It N O O1N N N w M N 16 p N OU U N 0O O W R L wwwwwww a wwww m N www U 0 y t c W E E O 3 d R N O U 2 0 O O) O) M M W M M O) N t0 aD M Elm N w w w w w w w a w w w w w w w y V « } O m M r% (0 lU (O l0 M N N. Ol f0 N Kc N N �ww d OO B =O jc wrl w0(O1 wMOJ wDf0) vrwO^) wMCO QE ww � wc0 wN) wN y �c NO d— � C W O O O O O O O £ M N M 0 (O h a N y O 0 Lq OOi G 00i C a M 'u a M 0 V M y v o 16 d d c M o n coo rM- coo n rn i .- N N of 3 n O u M o H 0 c� > Z O w w w w w w w w w N w S w w w O (D d U U) N 6 d d > y . m> d O d d 2 + m o x d o O c d C E 3 d o $moo. adio-3 . T o E E r C 6> d R$ N Q ♦ ♦ ♦ ' c W Qr. i .-• 0 30 Oo 'w U d d R i0 a J O U a m U >+ O Q Q = w 6 d o8 O a > 00 ♦_ _ > J = O~d 2 O > c N E E '� u w o d ELL 5 c 3 ,7,` C C M Q m N J♦ W W M a 2 N d o g E "- 0� 3 E to vQl o m U uQJ tQb H .c_ d K J= O K♦ Z d N i N E. E J W OJ E E K m LL A x R 'O Nas d,6 Tie ari0 22 3 m u Z'3 mT M 3 O b Q^Er EOa G W> S J fn C W> J 2 J S = U !L N L f7 f fn d ry U N m � M . E J m R O N O N O N o M o V O O O h o M o W O N V W O N N N N N N N N N N N O N C = W � O N X �i c N y W N M 10 I� N O N N N N y N N p O N Q Y O V' O N W .�- M 0 o N o N _W C FL O N OO p O N y O e I N M GTV Project Address: Project Comments - Planning Application 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU, APN: 029-022-030 Description: Request for Application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new 7 story mixed -use building with retail, office, 60 residential units, and 2 levels of below grade parking. 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 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) Plans submitted for any commercial project must be designed, wet -stamped, and signed by a licensed architect. 1997 Uniform Administrative Code §302.2 and §302.3. 2) 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. BMC 18.30.040, 18.30.045 & 18.30.050 3) Provide a code analysis for each area. 4) Provide the mixed occupancy calculations showing compliance with Table 506.2. 5) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 6) Indicate on the plans that, at the time of Building Permit application, plans and engineering will be submitted for shoring as required by 2016 CBC, Chapter 31 regarding the protection of adjacent property and as required by OSHA. On the plans, indicate that the following will be addressed: a. The walls of the proposed basement shall be properly shored, prior to construction activity. This excavation may need temporary shoring. A competent contractor shall be consulted for recommendations and design of shoring scheme for the excavation. The recommended design type of shoring shall be approved by the engineer of record or soils engineer prior to usage. b. All appropriate guidelines of OSHA shall be incorporated into the shoring design by the contractor. Where space permits, temporary construction slopes may be utilized in lieu of shoring. Maximum allowable vertical cut for the subject project will be five (5) feet. Beyond that horizontal benches of 5 feet wide will be required. Temporary shores shall not exceed 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). In some areas due to high moisture content / water table, flatter slopes will be required which will be recommended by the soils engineer in the field. c. If shoring is required, specify on the plans the licensed design professional that has sole responsibility to design and provide adequate shoring, bracing, formwork, etc. as required for the protection of life and property during construction of the building. d. Shoring and bracing shall remain in place until floors, roof, and wall sheathing have been entirely constructed. e. Shoring plans shall be wet -stamped and signed by the engineer -of -record and submitted to the city for review prior to construction. If applicable, include surcharge loads from adjacent structures that are within the zone of influence (45 degree wedge up the slope from the base of the retaining wall) and / or driveway surcharge loads. 7) Indicate on the plans that an OSHA permit will be obtained per CAL / OSHA requirements. See the Cal / OSHA handbook at: http://www.ca-osha.coMlpdfpubs/osha user ug ide.pdf * Construction Safety Orders : Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 6 , Section 1541.1. 8) Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 9) Prior to applying for a Building Permit the applicant must either confirm that the address is 1766 El Camino Real or obtain a change of address from the Engineering Department. Note: The correct address must be referenced on all pages of the plans. 10) Acknowledge that, when plans are submitted for building code plan check, they will include a complete underground plumbing plan including complete details for the location of all required grease traps and city -required backwater prevention devices. 11) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2016 California Plumbing Code, Chapter 4 Table 422.1 Minimum Plumbing Facilities and Table A - Occupant Load Factor. 12) Show compliance with all accessibility regulations found in the 2016 CBC for existing buildings including: a. Accessible paths of travel b. A level landing must be provided on each side of the door at all required entrances and exits. c. Accessible countertops d. Accessible bathrooms e. Accessible parking 13) Separate toilet facilities are required for each sex, except: a. Residential occupancies b. Occupancies serving ten or fewer people may have a toilet facility for use by more than one person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes. 2016 CPC §422.2 #2. c. Business and Mercantile occupancies with a total occupant load of 50 or less, including customers and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes. 2016 CPC §422.2 #3. 14) Specify on the plans the location of all required accessible signage. Include references to separate sheets on the plans which provide details and graphically illustrates the accessible signage requirements. 15) Specify an accessible path of travel from all required exits to the public right of way. 16) Specify a level landing, slope, and cross slope on each side of the door at all required entrances and exits. 2016 CBC §I IB-302, I IB-304.2, I IB-305.2 17) Provide complete dimensioned details for accessible bathrooms 2016 CBC §I IB-213 I IB-603, I IB-604, I IB-605, I IB-606, I IB-607, I IB-608, I IB-609, I IB-610 18) Provide complete, dimensioned details for accessible parking 2016 CBC §11B-208, I IB-502 & I IB-503 19) Provide details on the plans which show that the building elevator complies with all accessible standards. 2016 CBC §I IB-407. 20) On the first page of the plans clearly state that all paths of travel and common use spaces will be accessible and all living units will be adaptable. 21) Provide details which show that the maneuvering clearances for the bathrooms in each unit are accessible 2016 CBC § 1127A2.2 # 1. (The space under the lavatory can be used but the maneuvering clearance and are allowed to encroach into the knee and toe clearances.) 22) Provide details which show that the water closet in each unit complies with 2016 CBC § 1134A.7 #1; 23) Specify whether 2016 CBC § 1134A.2 option # 1 or option #2 will be used for the bathrooms. 24) Specify that there will be a clear maneuvering space adjacent to each tub that is at least 30" X 48" measured from the drain end of the tub. 2016 CBC § 1134A.5 25) Specify on the plans that all dwelling unit interior doors will comply with CBC 1132A5.2. 26) Where elevators are provided in structures that are four or more stories in height at least one elevator shall be provided for Fire Department emergency access. One elevator must accommodate a stretcher that is 24" x 84". See 2016 CBC §3002.4 for elevator cab dimensions (80" x 54") and other details. 27) Provide the interior dimensions for the elevator. 2016 CBC § I IB-407.4.1 & Table 1113-407.4.1 28) Private decks and exterior balconies must be accessible and therefore must be 60" in the shortest dimension to allow for a person in a wheelchair to turn around and exit the deck or balcony in the forward direction. Revise the plans to show decks / balconies that are at least 60" in the shortest dimension. UFAS §4.34.2 and §4.2.3 29) Please Note: Architects are advised to specify construction dimensions for accessible features that are below the maximum and above the minimum dimension required as construction tolerances generally do not apply to accessible features. See the California Access Compliance Manual — Interpretive Regulation JIB-8. 30) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 31) Revise the plans to show that the egress from the basement area leads directly to the exit of the building or extends to the exterior of the building through an exit passageway. 2016 CBC § 1024.1 38) Exterior exit balconies, stairways, and ramps shall be located at least ten (10) feet from adjacent lot lines and from other buildings on the same lot unless adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. 2016 CBC § 1027.5 #3 39) The accessible parking shown in the basement must comply with the accessibility requirements of the 2016 CBC. Specifically: a. All entrances to and vertical clearances within the parking structure must have a minimum vertical clearance of 8' 2" where required for accessibility to accessible parking spaces. b. At least one of these spaces must comply with the accessible parking requirements including loading / unloading access aisle and signage. See 2016 CBC § 1109A.5 — Unassigned and Visitor Parking Spaces. 40) All NEW non-residential buildings must comply with the requirements of AB-2176 Sec. 42911 (c) [2003 — 2004 Montanez] as follows: c. Space for recycling must be a part of the project design in new buildings. d. A building permit will not be issued unless details are shown on the project plans incorporating adequate storage for collecting and loading recycled materials. 32) Include with your Building Division plan check submittal a complete underground fire sprinkler plan. Contact the Burlingame Water Division at 650-558-7660 for details regarding the water system or Central County Fire for sprinkler details. 42) Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to issuing the building permit. 43) A pre -construction meeting must be conducted prior to issuing the permit. After you are notified by the Building Division that your plans have been approved call 650-558-7270 to schedule the pre - construction meeting. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: June 7, 2019 650 558-7270 Project Address: Description: From Project Comments - Planning Application 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU, APN: 029.022-030 Request for Application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new 7 story mixed -use building with retail, office, 60 residential units, and 2 levels of below grade parking. Jennifer Lee Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 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. This project is required to comply with the Provision C.3 and C.6 of the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) since it will create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface and will replace 50 percent or more of site impervious surface. Stormwater source control and treatment requirements shall apply to the entire project site. Please complete, sign, and return the "C.3/C.6 Development Review Checklist' which is available at www.burlinname.ora/stormwaterdevelooment. For additional information, please see the C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance handbook at www,flowstobay.org/newdevelopment.- Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing architectural copper. If applicable, please read the "Requirements for Architectural Copper" fact sheet available at www.burlingame.org/stormwaterdevelopment • The building permit application plans shall show the marking of the words "No Dumping! Flows to Bay" or equivalent on all storm drain inlets surrounding and within the project site consistent with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program's C.3 Technical Guidance. Since the project will disturb one (1) or more acres of soil, the project must obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include the following: • A copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for Construction General Permit coverage and • A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). • Post -construction treatment measures must be designed, installed, and hydraulically -sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. The project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post- construction stormwater treatment measures in perpetuity. A completed, notarized Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent stormwater pollution from construction -related activities. 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 the Construction BMP plan sheet. An electronic file is available at: www.burlingame.orp/stormwaterdevelooment. Reviewed By: Jennifer Lee Date: 8/8/19 650-558-7381 Project Address: Project Comments - Planning Application 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU, APN: 029-022-030 Description: Request for Application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new 7 story mixed -use building with retail, office, 60 residential units, and 2 levels of below grade parking. From: Jay Kiely Police Department Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Police requires that contractor/ developer work with CCFD and TEA to ensure the integrity of EMS radio communication is maintained. To this end, developer/ contractor will be responsible for installing as well as managing all necessary equipment. 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: Lieutenant Jay Kiely Date: 4/10/19 650-777-4100 CITTY Project Address: Description: Project Comments - Planning Application 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU, APN: 029-022-030 Request for Application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new 7 story mixed -use building with retail, office, 60 residential units, and 2 levels of below grade parking. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1 . L.5.0 !ends argument into definition of a highnse. %Nh.le the build ng's highest GGGUpiable fleeF is 74 frorn grade, t is required to be less than 75'fram f re appaFatus aGoess. 1 believe you need te shaFten the buildiRg the height of the GUrb at the closes fire apparatus npness in nFder to be GORSidered as a- highF c 2. North fire apparatus access is more than 150 feet long, provide a turn around. 8-16-19: The turnaround is too small to accommodate the length of the fire truck. The Truck turning radius specification sheet details measurements when the truck is turning in a forward motion. To calculate measurements for a hammerhead -type turnaround (Truck moving backward), the total length of the Truck is 42' so the hammerhead turnaround must accommodate this length. Current turnaround design will not accommodate. 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. Additional requirements 7 & 8 listed below to also be addressed when submitting building permit plans: 1. Fire apparatus access shall be in accordance with the §503, CFC. Slopes shall not exceed 16% and first 15 feet at either end shall not exceed 5%. Turning radius shall be in accordance with CCFD equipment. 2. Provide fire flow and fire hydrants in accordance with Appendix B&C, CFC. 3. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout conforming to NFPA 13 as adopted. The system shall be interconnected with the standpipe system with outlets located at the intermediate floors. When possible, FDC's and double check valve assemblies or shut-off's shall be located a minimum 2/3'd the height of the building away from the building. This may be a deferred approval item, but plans will not be reviewed until a separate fire protection underground permit has been submitted. 4. Provide a separate fire protection underground submittal under separate permit through the Burlingame Building Department. 5. Provide separate permit for the fire alarm system through the CCFD prior to installation. 6. Provide a separate permit for Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System through the CCFD prior to installation. 7. The north fire apparatus access road and the entire turnaround, including the center pavers, must support 75,000lbs. The entire turnaround must have a red curb indicating it is a fire lane with no parking allowed. Sheet A2.4 must be sized for correct scale. 8. Private garden areas must be openable from the exterior to provide fire department access around the building. Reviewed By: Christine Reed 650-558-7617 Date: 8-16-19 Project Address Project Comments - Planning Application 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU, APN: 029-022-030 Description: Request for Application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new 7 story mixed -use building with retail, office, 60 residential units, and 2 levels of below grade parking. From: Lisha Mai Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No further comment at this time. 2. Please dimension all driveway curb cuts proposed for the project site. Total driveway exceeds 20% of total allowable per Municipal Code 12.04.060. However, in commercial districts approval may be granted for driveways not exceeding seventy (70) percent of the street frontage including the frontage on each street in the case of a corner lot or in the case of lots fronting on two (2) streets, in order to give access to areas used for the off-street parking of vehicles, for off-street loading zones. 3. Please show compliance. Street lighting requirements shall be design and submitted for review as part of Building Permit submittal. 5. ,, im i he sen?..�ted and secured , Additional comments may need to be addressed during Building Permit submittal. 6. Additional comments may need to be addressed during Building Permit submittal. 7. Please provide cross section views of the sidewalk surrounding the project site with dimensions. Cross section show sublevel garage built up to property line. a. Show on site plan, perimeter limits of underground garage in relations to the property line. Keep in mind fire protection assembly shall be aboveground and directly behind property line. b. See comment no. 22 below regarding tie -back agreement. 8. How will the trash be retrieved from the trash rooms and picked up by Recology. On -site pickup is required. A staging area is recommended. Staging/bin placement for pick up shall be onsite ad not within public right of way. How will this be accomplished? 9. Please show proposed utility connections to the City's infrastructure. Survey sheet A0,05 is of existing utility. Please show on proposed site plan, new utility connections for the proposed project, as well as replacement of fire hydrant to the main due to new bulb outs. 10. Please provide a preliil iary title report for review, 11. Please show all existing easements, public or private (if required) to be removed from the property. Please show on plan or respond confirming there are no existing easement, public or private. 12. Please provide garage ramp profiles. Per Municipal Code 26.70.026, "Maximum driveway slopes shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent at any point without special approval of the department of public works". Please provide justification for 16% slope. 13. may need to be addressed during Building Permit submittal. T Additional comments Additional comments may need to be addressed during Building Permit submittal. 15. here a pede6, idil patilvva) '," , _: L.sc ding to the Suhgrade level-' Additional comments may need to be addressed during Building Permit submittal. 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. 16. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type IV' 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). 17. A stormwater maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the County for all c3 treatment measures. This agreement must be recorded prior to building permit signoff. 18. Please provide a letter from Recology indicating that the proposed trash room sizes are sufficient to service the development. 19. Sewer upgrades to the existing mains will be required. Scope of work will be defined as part of the conditions of approval. 20. The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of stormwater from the street into private property. 21. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. 22. Subgrade parking is shown to be constructed up to the property line. If excavation method is by means of tie -backs, a shoring and tieback agreement is required for any encroachment into the City's right-of-way. 23. A subdivision map is required if the intent is to sell the residential units. 24. All nonstandard sidewalk details that are constructed in the public right-of-way will require a maintenance agreement with the City as responsibility will be borne the property owner. 25. A traffic, sewer, water, and storm drain study will be required for this project. Any impacts generated as the result of the project will be required to upsize or contribute its prorated share of the impact to upgrade the existing infrastructure. Reviewed By: Lisha Mai Date: 8/1/19 650-558-7239 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR A 7-STORY, MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration ND- 608-P, is hereby approved. Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 1, , 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 241h day of August 2020 by the following vote: Secretary RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (OFFICE PARKING IN NBMU DISTRICT) FOR A 7-STORY, MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 025-161-110) WHEREAS, on March 15, 2019, Certosa, Inc. c/o Mario Muzzi, filed an application with the City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division requesting approval of the following: o Environmental Review in accordance with CEQA; o Design Review for construction of a new 7-story, mixed -use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking (C.S. 25.40.020); o Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers (C.S. 25.40.050)(D); o Approval of Community Benefits Bonuses for a Tier 3 project (Code Section 25.40.030); and o Zoning Code Amendment to reduce the office parking ratio from 1:300 SF to 1:400 SF for office uses in the NBMU zone (C.S. 25.70.040) (refer to accompanying staff report for zoning code amendment). WHEREAS, on September 23, 2019 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing (environmental scoping session and design review study meeting) to review the proposed 7-story mixed -use building and to identify subjects to be analyzed in the project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). At that time direction was provided to the applicant regarding issues to be addressed in the project IS/MND; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing (2nd design review study meeting) to review revisions to the proposed 7-story mixed -use building; and WHEREAS, an IS/MND was prepared to analyze project impacts; said IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment commencing on July 15, 2020 and concluding on August 4, 2020; and Following consideration of all information contained in the August 24, 2020 staff report to the Planning Commission regarding the project, all written correspondence, and all public comments received at the public hearing, the Commission recommends approval of the new 7- story mixed -use development at 1766 El Camino Real based on the following findings regarding the project entitlements: RESOLUTION NO. Design Review Findinqs: That the proposed project supports the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the City's mixed -use area with a grand canopy that unifies the building massing horizontally along the angled slip road and articulates the position of the upper residential floors from the main body of the office floors. The subject property is a gateway site that will provide a new scale of building and a new type of architecture with a mix of uses added to this area. This visually prominent, gateway site has been designed with a strong punched opening expression that anchors both facades at El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive and will maintain a transparency to acknowledge this important part of the building. The design respects and promotes pedestrian activity by providing a public plaza on the El Camino Real frontage, which wraps around to Trousdale Drive. The plaza is sized relative to the building and provides an opportunity for outside passive recreation, with new street trees, planters, and amenities while creating activity along the route to the nearby transit opportunities. The facade also has additional layering of the facade with extended slab edges to provide more depth on the corners, with an extended cantilevered slab at the second floor that is 8-feet beyond the face of the building to provide additional pedestrian coverage and a strong corner emphasis. The proposed building materials would include a stone base tile (dark almond porcelain), vision glass, spandrel glass, pre -cast concrete panels (white/almond/light gray), and glass hand rails. For the reasons above the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's mixed -use design review criteria. Conditional Use Permit Findings That the proposed project 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, in that the mixed of uses proposed is consistent with the intent and allowable uses in the NBMU District; that the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and the purposes of this title, in that it provides a mix of uses on a prominent corner property determined to be suitable for such use in the Zoning Code and Burlingame General Plan, that the site is close to transit options and centrally located to shops and service that won't require typical vehicular travel; that the project includes a TDM plan to reduce trips and that with the use of stackers and the TDM plan, the proposed 385 on -site parking spaces exceeds the code required amount (with the code amendment and 20% TDM reduction) and for the reasons above the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's three Conditional Use Permit criteria for the utilization of mechanical stackers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, that the applications for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Zoning Code Amendment are hereby granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 10, 2020, sheets T.01, A0.01 through A4.1, sheets FT1.1 through FT1.4, sheets L1.0 through L4.0; K RESOLUTION NO. 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the City Council; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that the project shall include three (3) affordable units to households of "Low Income" category, as defined as earning a maximum of 80% of the San Mateo County Area Median Income; the City Manager shall be authorized to execute an agreement with the applicant and the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the administration of the renting or leasing of the affordable units at least 120 days before the final inspection; 5. that the required affordable dwelling units shall be constructed concurrently with market -rate units; 6. that the three (3) low income restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a minimum period of fifty-five (55) years (or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program); that the three (3) restricted affordable units shall be built on -site and be dispersed within the development. The number of bedrooms of the restricted affordable units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix and average sizes of the non -restricted units in the development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of restricted affordable units with more bedrooms. The design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent with the design, unit layout, and construction of the total project development in terms of appearance, exterior construction materials, and unit layout; 8. that the applicant shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the City; the terms of this agreement shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office, and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the reviewing City official; this agreement will be a form provided by the City, and will include the following terms: (a) The affordability of very low, lower, and moderate income housing shall be assured in a manner consistent with Government Code Section 65915(c)(1); (b) An equity sharing agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(c)(2); (c) The location, dwelling unit sizes, rental cost, and number of bedrooms of the affordable units; (d) A description of any bonuses and incentives, if any, provided by the City; and (e) Any other terms as required to ensure implementation and compliance with this section, and the applicable sections of the density bonus law; RESOLUTION NO. 9. that the above noted regulatory agreement regarding the three (3) restricted affordable units shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest; the agreement required by this Zoning Code Section 25.63.080 is hereby a condition of all development approvals and shall be fully executed and recorded prior to the issuance of any building or construction permit for the proposed project; 10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee in the amount of $75,159.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 11. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the project applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee in the amount of $75,159.50, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 12. that prior to the issuance of the building permit the Commercial Linkage Fee in the amount of $2,317,820.00 shall be paid in full, payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 13. that the public plaza shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the developer or property manager in accordance with an approved maintenance plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director; 14. that the public plaza shall be open to the public, without charge, each day of the year, except for temporary closures for necessary maintenance or public safety; 15. that the conditions of the Building Division's June 7, 2019 memo, the Stormwater Division's August 8, 2019 memo, the Park's Division's November 30, 2018 memo, Fire Division's August 16, 2019 memo and the Public -Works Engineering Division's August 1, 2019 memo related to the building permit submittal shall be met; 16. prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall verify that the July 28, 2020, FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation for the project is still current and has not expired (1/28/22) and if expired a new FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame prior to building permit issuance; 17. that prior to final approval (by City Council) the project will obtain approval from the Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) of City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) for a land use consistency determination under the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP); 18. that all new development shall be required to comply with the real estate disclosure requirements of State law and General Plan as outlined in Policy I13-1 of the SFO ALUCP. The following statement must be included in the notice of intention to offer the property for sale or lease: "Notice of Airport in Vicinity This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for RESOLUTION NO. example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase or lease and determine whether they are acceptable to you.' 19. that the property owner shall permit the relocation of City of Burlingame Police Department public safety communications equipment and a wireless access point for City communications to be placed on the roof of the new structure as indicated on the roof plans, sheet A1.10, as agreed upon by the City and the property owner. The applicant shall provide an electrical supply source for use by the equipment. The applicant shall permit authorized representatives of the City to gain access to the equipment location for purposes of installation, maintenance, adjustment, and repair upon reasonable notice to the property owner or owner's successor in interest. This access and location agreement shall be recorded in terms that convey the intent and meaning of this condition prior to building permit issuance; 20. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 21. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right- of-way shall be prohibited; 22. that the applicant shall prepare a construction staging and traffic control plan for the duration of construction for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; the construction staging plan shall include construction equipment parking, construction employee parking, timing and duration of various phases of construction and construction operations hours; the staging plan shall address public safety and shall ensure that worker's vehicles and construction equipment shall not be parked in public parking areas with exceptions for construction parking along the street frontages of the project site; 23. that the project applicant and its construction contractor(s) shall develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan must include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic and parking congestion during construction: a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes; b. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area; c. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur; d. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant; and e. Designation of a readily available contact person for construction activities who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding traffic or RESOLUTION NO. parking. This coordinator would determine the cause of the complaint and, where necessary, would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. 24. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to October 1 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 25. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self- contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 26. that this project shall comply with the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 27. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 28. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 29. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; 30. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Department of Public Works — Engineering Division a sanitary sewer analysis that assesses the impact of this project to determine if the additional sewage flows can be accommodated by the existing sewer line. If the analysis results in a determination that the existing sewer line requires upgrading, the applicant shall perform the necessary upgrades as determined by the Engineering Division; 31. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required from the City of Burlingame Parks Division to remove any existing protected size trees on the subject property and that the .project shall comply with the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; M RESOLUTION NO. 32. 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; 33. 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; 34. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 35. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 36. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 37. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off -site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; The following five (5) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 38. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 39. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division; 40. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; 41. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Air Quality 42. the applicant shall ensure that all off -road diesel -powered equipment used during construction is equipped with engines that meet EPA Tier 4 "final' emission standards, 43. Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures - The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures RESOLUTION NO. recommended by BAAQMD. The emissions reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the following: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, anc unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day. • All haul trucks shall be covered when transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site. • All visible mud or dirt track -out material on adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet -power vacuum -type street sweepers at least once a day. The use of dry - power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks that are to be paved shall be paved as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers' specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible - emissions evaluator. • 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). • Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations; Biological Resources 44. Pre -construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Protection Measures: - The applicant shall implement the measures that follow prior to structure demolition and tree removal or trimming. Construction shall avoid the avian nesting period (March 15 through August 31) to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas as well as areas within 250 feet of the boundaries of these areas or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 50 feet of a passerine nest and 250 feet of a raptor nest until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; 45. Implement Bird -safe Design Standards into Project Buildings and the Lighting Design: - The applicant, or contractor, shall implement the following measures to minimize hazards for birds: • Reduce large areas of transparent or reflective glass • Locate water features, trees, and bird habitat away from building exteriors to reduce reflection • Reduce or eliminate the visibility of landscaped areas behind glass • Turn non -emergency lighting off at night, especially during bird migration season (February —May and August —November) RESOLUTION NO. Include window coverings that adequately block light transmission from rooms where interior lighting is used at night and install motion sensors or controls to extinguish lights in unoccupied spaces Design and/or install lighting fixtures that minimize light pollution, including light trespass, over -illumination, glare, light clutter, and skyglow, and use bird -friendly colors for lighting when possible. The City of San Francisco's Standards for Bird -safe Buildings' provides an overview of building design and lighting guidelines to minimize bir&building collisions that could be used to guide the applicant; Cultural Resources 46. Pre -construction Archaeological Sensitivity Training: - A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a pre -construction archaeological sensitivity training session for the excavation crew. This training will include an overview of what cultural resources are and provide information regarding why such resources are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), Project site history, the types of cultural resources that are likely to be uncovered during excavation, the laws that protect cultural resources, and the protocol for unanticipated discoveries (see Mitigation Measure CUL-2). An Alert Sheet" shall be posted in conspicuous locations on the Project site to alert personnel to the procedures and protocols to follow after discovery of potentially significant precontact archaeological resources; 47. Unanticipated Discovery Protocol., - In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery and the area avoided until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan, which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery,• 48. Stop Work If Human Remains Are Encountered during Ground -disturbing Activities: If human remains are unearthed during construction, pursuant to Section 50977.98 of the Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains. The county coroner shall be informed to evaluate the nature of the remains. If the remains are determined to be of Native American in origin, the lead agency shall work with the NAHC and the applicant to develop an agreement for treating or disposing of the human remains; Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources 49. Stop Work in Case of Discovery of Paleontological Resources: - Discovery of a Paleontological specimen during any phase of the Project shall result in work stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional paleontologist. Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or further action (e.g., RESOLUTION NO. resource removal), as determined by the professional paleontologist, shall be implemented to mitigate the impact prior to the continuation of work, Noise 50. Construction Noise Control Plan: - The applicant shall develop a set of site -specific noise attenuation measures. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall submit the construction noise control plan to the City for review and approval. Noise attenuation measures shall be identified in the plan and implemented to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. Noise measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Using smaller equipment with lower horsepower or reducing the hourly utilization rate of equipment on the site to reduce noise levels at 50 feet to the allowable level. • Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise -sensitive uses. • Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation. • Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems. • Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 5 minutes). • Constructing a solid plywood barrier around the construction site and adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise -sensitive land uses. • Using temporary noise control blanket barriers. • Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements. • Using "quiet" gasoline -powered compressors or electrically powered compressors and electric rather than gasoline- or diesel -powered forklifts for small lifting; 51. Provide Acoustical Treatments for Mechanical Equipment. - The applicant shall provide acoustical treatments for the proposed emergency generator to reduce noise levels to below the 60 d8A Leq daytime threshold for mechanical equipment, as determined by a qualified acoustical consultant. In addition, the applicant shall provide acoustical treatments for the proposed HVAC equipment to reduce noise levels to below the nighttime noise limit of 50 d8A Leq at the property line, as also determined by a qualified acoustical consultant. Selected acoustical treatments must ensure that noise levels will be below the 60 d8A daytime and 50 d8A nighttime thresholds, as applicable, in accordance with the noise limitations specified in the Municipal Code. Treatments may include, but are not limited to: • Installing stationary equipment as far as possible from off -site noise -sensitive land uses and the property line to reduce noise levels at adjacent parcels, • Constructing enclosures around noise -generating mechanical equipment, • Placing barriers around the equipment, • Using mufflers or silencers on equipment exhaust fans, • Orienting or shielding equipment to protect sensitive uses to the greatest extent feasible, • Limiting the testing of emergency generators to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.); 10 RESOLUTION NO. Transportation 52. Traffic Control Plan: - Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the City. The requirements of the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: Truck drivers shall be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and U.S. 101, as determined by the City Engineering Department, all site ingress and egress shall occur only at the main driveways to the Project site; specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles shall be monitored and controlled by flaggers; warning signs, indicating frequent truck entry and exit points, shall be posted on adjacent roadways, if requested; and any debris or mud on nearby streets caused by trucks shall be monitored daily, which may require instituting a street cleaning program. Chair I, , Secretary of the Burlingame Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24'h day of August. 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 11 Secretary CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLJNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 www.burlingame.org Project Site: 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following virtual public hearing via Zoom on Monday, August 24, 2020 at 7:00 P.M. You may access the meeting online at www.zoom.uslioin or PUBLIC HEARING by phone at (669) 900-6833: NOTICE Meeting ID: 849 6762 9867 Posscode:141032 Description: a) Application for Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers for a new seven -story, mixed -use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking. b) Application for Zoning Code Amendment to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the NBMU Zone. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to: publiccommentna burlinaame.ora. Mailed: August 14, 2020 (Please refer to other side) City of Burlingame - Public Hearing Notice If you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to olanninedeot(fturlineame.ore or call (650) 558-7250. Individuals who require special assistance or a disability -related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed, should contact the Planning Division at planninedeot(@burlin¢ame.org or (650) 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. Kevin Gardiner, AICP Community Development Director (Please refer to other side) Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ACTION (Public Hearing): Proposed Amendments to Title MEETING DATE: August 24, 2020 25, Chapter 25.70 to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) Zone. AGENDA ITEM: 8c (b) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Amendment of Title 25 — Chapter 25.70 to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) Zone is being proposed in conjunction with development of the property at 1766 El Camino Real. The proposed amendments to the Municipal Code are were analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and all impacts were determined to be less than significant. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the following ordinance, consider all public testimony (both oral and written) and, following conclusion of the public hearing, consider recommending adoption of the ordinance by the City Council: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 — CHAPTER 25.70 TO AMEND OFFICE PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE NORTH BURLINGAME MIXED USE (NBMU) ZONE BACKGROUND The City Council voted to adopt the Burlingame General Plan Update on January 7, 2019. State law requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with the respective General Plan. Given the amount of time anticipated to prepare the Zoning Ordinance Update, staff worked with the consultant team on interim regulations applicable to the most significant "change areas" identified in the Draft General Plan, which included the North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone ("North Burlingame Mixed Use" land use designation in the General Plan, in proximity to Burlingame Plaza and the Millbrae Transit Center). The approach was to allow interim zoning for the North Burlingame area along with the North Rollins Road area to be adopted concurrently with the General Plan, so that consistent zoning would be in place for the areas with the most significant changes to land use and building form. The City Council adopted interim zoning for both the North Burlingame and North Rollins Road areas together with the adoption of the General Plan on January 7, 2019. DISCUSSION On March 15, 2019 an application for new 7-story, mixed use building at 1766 El Camino Real, located within the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) zone, was filed by Certosa, Inc. The project would include 7,588 SF of ground floor retail uses, four floors of office totaling 148,057 SF, and two floors of residential (60-units) above. The project would provide a total of 385 on -site parking spaces located in one level of below grade parking with the remaining spaces located both within the building on the ground floor and at grade in a portion of the lot that connects directly to California Drive. The proposed project and code amendment was originally based on a parking ratio of 1 space per 500 square feet of office where the existing zoning regulations require 1 parking space per 300 square feet of office. Of the 385 parking spaces proposed, 144 would be provided in the form of mechanical parking lifts (stackers). The NBMU zoning regulations allow for mechanical parking lifts with approval of a Conditional Use Amendments to Title 25- Code Amendment to Amend NBMU Office Parking Regulations August 24, 2020 Permit from the Planning Commission. The off-street parking requirement for the project would be met by providing 69 parking spaces for the residential uses, 20 parking spaces for the retail uses, and296 spaces for the office use, for a total of 385 parking spaces. On June 19, 2019 the applicant submitted an application for a Zoning Code Amendment to change the office use parking requirements in the NBMU District. As part of the development application, the property owner is requesting a zoning code amendment to reduce the office parking ratio for the entire North Burlingame Mixed Use District (which would include the project, as well as future office development in the zone). The original code amendment request included reducing the office parking ratio to 1 space per 500 square feet of office, where the current zoning in this district requires 1 space per 300 square feet of office (which is the office parking required in the remaining zoning districts throughout Burlingame).The Planning Commission reviewed this request as a study item at the September 23, 2019 meeting, but was uncomfortable reducing the parking ratio to 1:500 SF, however noted that a 1:400 SF parking ratio for office may be supportable. In response to the Planning Commission comments at the September 23, 2019 study meeting, the applicant revised their request for the code amendment for reduced office parking in the NBMU District to 1 space per 400 SF. The Planning Commission appreciated the fact that the applicant revised their request to the parking ratio code amendment. The Commission noted that the 1:400 SF ratio works much better and was more comfortable with the 1:400 SF ratio rather than the 1:500 SF ratio previously requested. Overall, they felt that it was a good change for both the proposed project and for the NBMU zone, and directed the applicant to move the project forward with the 1:400 SF office parking ratio. To clarify, this parking ratio is intended to apply to professional office, medical office and dental office, all of which are permitted uses in the NBMU District. The parking requirement for health service would remain at 1:250 SF (C.S. 25.70.040) due to the different performance characteristics of those uses. This parking ratio would not apply to hospitals, as there is distinct ratio for that use (based on number of beds). The zoning code amendment request was filed in conjunction with the entitlement package and is being requested for consideration in parallel with the development project. However, the code amendment would change the zoning requirement for professional, medical and dental office parking in the entire NBMU District and would apply to any future office uses proposed in this district. General Plan Goals and Policies: The updated General Plan includes a number of goals and policies that address the North Burlingame Mixed Use District, as well as parking ratios: Goal CC-11: Establish a high -intensity mixed -use development node at the north end of El Camino Real to take advantage of the proximity to the Millbrae multimodal transit station and SamTrans commuter routes. Policy CC-11.2: Transit -Oriented Development. Allow and encourage higher -density, transit -oriented development along El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive to provide 2 Amendments to Title 25— Code Amendment to Amend NBMU Office Parking Regulations August 24, 2020 housing, employment, and retail opportunities easily accessible from the Millbrae multimodal transit station and Sam Trans commuter routes. Goal M-7: Use parking management strategies that promote parking availability, housing affordability, congestion management, and improved air quality. Policy M-7.3: Parking Requirements. Reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements and/or implement parking maximums for housing, commercial, office, and other land uses in mixed use areas and in proximity to frequent transit services. Comprehensively examine parking requirements in the Zoning Code and adjust as needed to respond to evolving vehicle ownership patterns and parking practices. M-7.6: Parking Demand Reductions. Reduce parking demand through travel options programs such as parking cash -out and other TDM strategies. Comparison to Similar Cities/Research: The applicant notes that the subject property is approximately one-half mile from the Millbrae BART Station and approximately 0.3 miles to the Millbrae Caltrain station. At a normal walking pace the walk from the subject property to the Millbrae multimodal station would take approximately 10 minutes. The site is also directly adjacent to the SamTrans El Camino Real bus lines, and the Millbrae multimodal station also serves as a hub for several SamTrans lines. Given the site location, it is well situated for utilizing public transportation for both residents in the building and for office and retail employees coming to the building. These characteristics also generally apply to the rest of the properties within the NBMU district, which is pertinent because the parking ratio would apply throughout. The proposed project includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that would incorporate several TDM measures to incentivize the use of public transit and alternate forms of transportation including: • Transit Subsidies o Clipper cards subsidized for employees and residents to encourage the use of public transit rather than driving. • Emergency Ride Home Program o Guarantee that office employees have access to free taxi or rideshare services from the workplace home in the event of illness, family emergency or unexpected schedule changes. • Bike Sharing o Provide commute -style bikes for short trips that can be checked from and returned to a self-service bike share station located on the project site. • Unbundled Parking o Separate the cost of parking from office and residential leases by allowing tenants to choose whether to lease a parking space separate from the cost per square foot of the tenant space. 3 Amendments to Title 25 — Code Amendment to Amend NBMU Office Parking Regulations August 24, 2020 The NBMU District regulations provide the opportunity for a 20% reduction in required off-street parking for projects that utilize a TDM plan as set forth in the following code provision. Table 1 below provides an overview of the code required parking, the required parking with a 20% reduction for implementation of a TDM plan, and the parking that is being proposed with the project and requested zoning code amendment. Code Section 25.40.050(G): Parking Reductions for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Projects utilizing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan per Section 25.40.030.B.4.h. shall be allowed up to 20 percent reduction in required off-street vehicle parking (not including bicycle parking and EV stalls), provided the project provides for a permanent mobility mode shift towards alternative transportation of 25 percent or greater for building occupants through the TDM program. I dFAV -I- r-dfKing Analysis - -11ca CI Gammo Keal rro/ect CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENT CODE REQUIRED -WITH 20% TDM REDUCTION PROPOSED — WITH 20% TDM REDUCTION AND PARKING AMENDMENT Residential: 45, 1-bdr units x 1.0 = 45 69 spaces 1-bdr units x 1.0 = 45 spaces spaces - 13.8 (20% reduction) 2-bdr units x 1.5 = 18 spaces 12, 2-bdr units x 1.5 = 18 55.2 spaces 3 bdr units x 2 = 6 spaces spaces Total: 69 spaces 3.3bdrunits x2=6 spaces ------- - ----- --- Total: 69 spaces i ---- -------- - Retail: -------- ------------------------------- __ ....-.......... 1 space/400 SF ------------------ ----- --------- — ...... ...... ......... ----- 19 spaces i - - - — 1 space/400 SF 7,588 SF / 400 = - 3.8 (20% reduction) ; 7,588 SF / 400 = Total: 19 spaces 15.2 spaces 1 -.-.-..----.._.-... --................. - .------------ -----------.-.-.-.-.-.-._.........-.-.-.-.-_-.-....-------------------- Total: 20 spaces Office: 1 space/300 SF 494 spaces i 1 space/400 SF 148,057 SF / 300 = 99 (20% reduction) 148,057 SF / 400 = Total: 494 spaces 395 spaces Total: 370 spaces i 370 spaces (with amendment) I370 spaces 74 (20% reduction) 74 (20% reduction 296 spaces 296 spaces TOTAL: 582 spaces required 466 spaces with 20% reduction 385 spaces proposed applied (81 less spaces than required (no code change or 20% by TDM) reduction for TDM) or or 367 spaces with code (18 more spaces than amendment AND 20% reduction required with code applied amendment approved) 4 Amendments to Title 25 - Code Amendment to Amend NBMU Office Parking Regulations August 24, 2020 As part of the zoning code amendment request, the applicant has provided a parking research study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated June 18, 2019 (attached). The report includes a summary of the reductions to office parking requirements by other jurisdictions along the Peninsula. These changes are generally for developments near Caltrain and/or BART stations and when projects include TDM plans. The report also includes three (3) separate case studies of projects that have already been constructed and are in operation near transit to determine how much of the on -site parking is actually being utilized. Two of the sites are in San Mateo; Survey Monkey at 3050 S. Delaware Street, which is located adjacent to the Hillsdale Caltrain Station, and Franklin Templeton at 1 Franklin Parkway, which is located approximately 0.6 miles from the Hillsdale Caltrain Station with a dedicated, fully landscaped and lighted pedestrian path from the station to the campus. In addition, Franklin Templeton provides shuttles from the Caltrain Station to the campus. The third site is in Sunnyvale (Nokia & Apple) at 200 & 250 Mathilda Avenue, located approximately 1,800 feet from the Sunnyvale Caltrain Station. The study included parking surveys of each location on a weekday between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. when office parking demand peaks. The counts conclude that the parking demand for offices in transit -oriented developments (or TODs) is lower than most zoning codes require ranging from 1.91 (1:524 SF) to 2.26 (1:443 SF) spaces per 1,000 square feet, and that the average parking demand is 2.12 (1:472 SF) spaces per 1,000 square feet. It's important to note that the counts were done prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, when the offices were fully occupied. Please refer to the attached document for the full results and analysis. Staff has a provided a summary (Table 2) below of office parking requirements for other cities; some data was extracted (and verified) from the Hexagon report and some of the information was found in the respective municipal codes for each city. Table 2 - Office Parking Requirements in Other Peninsula Cities near Transit Burlingame 1:300 SF of office Millbrae 1:666 SF of office Win 800' Millbrae Transit Station 1:400 SF all other locations Menlo Park 1:200 SF of office 1:263 SF in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Area San Mateo 1:385 SF within Downtown Specific Plan Area San Carlos 1:450 SF Mixed -Use Districts South San Francisco 1:400 SF of office within Downtown Districts (1:500 SF within ''% mile of BART of Caltrain with CUP) Redwood City 1:166 SF of office within downtown core 5 Amendments to Title 25- Code Amendment to Amend NBMU Office Parking Regulations August 24, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should review the summary in this report and the attachments, conduct a public hearing, and consider public input. At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission should provide a recommendation to the City Council for the proposed office parking changes for the NBMU District. Prepared by: Catherine Keylon Senior Planner Attachments: • October 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes • September 23, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes • Zoning Code Amendment Application for Office Parking Requirements in the NBMU Zone, dated October 21, 2019 o Report on Parking Research for Mixed Use Project, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated June 18, 2019 o TDM Measures for Mixed -Use Project, Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., dated June 18, 2019 • Miller, Starr, Regalia letter regarding CEQA process, dated October 23, 2019 • Proposed Code Language to be Added to Off -Street Parking Section - C.S. 25.70.100 - Redline Version • Planning Commission Resolution 9 ME Y HALL ®� City of Burlingame BURLING501 PRIMMROSEROSE ROAD eURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 PM Council Chambers e. 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NEW: a. Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers for a new seven -story, mixed -use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking (Certosa Inc. applicant and property owner; Architecture International, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. Application for Zoning Code Amendment to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the NBMU Zone. Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones and Loftis noted that they had met with the project architect. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. > There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Bill Higgins and John Martin, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Looks like the plaza is 35 to 40 feet deep in front of the building, the same depth as the curtain wall to the core wall to the building. Who is going to use that and when? Reason l ask this question is I had a police officer recently tell me that one of the challenges they face is that at night, the Burlingame Plaza and CVS is brightly lit and attracts people from the train station to hang out. (Higgins: We see with 148,000 square feet of office space there is a great opportunity for morning and daytime use throughout the day with employees taking breaks, waiting for rides, and arriving to the site. It also depends on the commercial use of the retail space, if there is a food and beverage component, that will add to this indoodoutdoor use. At night there will be lighting schemes that we will implement to make sure that it's safe. We can see the residents using it, maybe on weekends where it's not as active with employees.) > Is there seating there? Are the bay shapes benches? (Higgins: Yes, the rounded shapes will be benches. Seating and street furniture, as well as bicycle racks,. will be provided. We wanted to create a gathering space on those times when people want to use it, and part is under a cover) > Plaza seemed really large, wanted to make sure I understood what you intended it for, not sure what you would do with that space if wasn't a plaza, worry about it being grand open space that doesn't get used very much. (Higgins: It's not a grand civic plaza or union square, but rather a plaza that is relative in scale to the building, location and the number of people that will be working here.) > Can see it being used incidentally. (Martin: Depending on the tenant that is in one of the office or commercial spaces, there is an opportunity for outside movable tables and chairs that will further activate it.) > Does it get good sun? (Martin: Yes.) > Is it possible,. both in terms of where the property line falls and in terms of the architecture or City or Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 1210/2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2019 structural articulation, to add an awning structure so that it provides emphasis to that corner? (Higgins: The cantilevered slab is still within the setbacks, it could go another couple of feet, so yes it's possible.) > Was thinking about how travelers may be coming from the Millbrae BART/Caltrain Multimodal Station. Is there a way to incorporate a secondary entrance on Trousdale Drive so that one who is walking from the multimodal station doesn't have to travel all the way around into almost a second half of the frontage on El Camino Real to get into the office building? Where you have an entrance to the fitness center, it seems like a natural secondary entrance to get to the core of the building. (Higgins: It also depends on the pedestrian foot traffic of whether they're walking along El Camino Real or along California Drive. Don't have any sort of population patterns of what that pedestrian movement might be. Currently, it's an egress point from the stairs, but we do have the fitness center and commercial space in this comer. The point would be to get them to the building by the enhancement of the landscaping and the sidewalk treatment and then lead them to the office lobby; we could look at that, but we don't want to create too many security points in an office like this, so that's the only challenge.) > There are hundreds of parking spaces below in the garage, and a majority is for the office and residential uses, but it would seem like a nice opportunity to have direct access to the commercial spaces without having to come out into the plaza and walking around to go to the fitness center or into one of two entrances to the commercial spaces. (Higgins: Yes, we could review that. We have these shuttle elevators that lead from the garage out to the office lobby, we could look at putting them on the perimeter. Do you allow them to open up into the lobby or open to the landscape. We prefer from a weather and security point of view to open up into the lobby. We could look at whether the elevators open up to a more public zone verses a semi-public zone.) > Think that's the kind of activity that can help enliven the street a little bit. If office workers are coming down into the lobby and jogging around the corner, and over to the recreation area, as opposed to everything being internal, there's that gated community verses it being open.) > Just for reference, what is the height of this building and the height of the hospital across the street? (Higgins: This building is 85 feet to the roof deck and 95 feet to the top of the elevator. Believe hospital is between 70 and 80 feet. The mass of that building is much larger than this one because it wraps the comer.) Public Comments., Carolyn Scott, 1755 California Drive: People that work across the street from the Police station at the rehab center park in this area right now, but there's not a lot of packing around because the parking on that frontage road on El Camino Real is limited to two or four-hour parking. The place across the street is not going to have a place to park so they're going to end up parking over in the shopping center and the hospital. We lost parking in front of our complex because we've got the bike lane and the cars, and there is no street parking from 5:00 to 7:00 pm, so we've lost two hours of parking there. Parking is a real big deal and if this project is going to have 60 residential units and only 69 spaces, you're going to end up having no place to park. Jill Young, 1755 California Drive: Want to echo the issue about parking, it's a huge issue in the area. We have to have cars towed off of our guest spaces on our property because there is no place to park, whether it be for the multimodal station or offices in the area. Concerned that the proposed rental units will reduce the property values in the area. Concerned with the height of the building next to our two-story building. lMll there be limitations to the windows on the south and east side to protect our privacy? Unidentified speaker: On behalf of our neighbor who had to leave, he is concerned about our neighborhood being provided with complete environmental information and about the traffic impact to the neighborhood with an addition of a massive structure like this. Would reiterate that the parking is a horrible problem for people who have lived there for many years, and we do not want any parking reduction. The city has taken away parking spaces and parking hours from the area in front of our residences. Would also like to note that the terrace, which not only violates our privacy looking into backyards, is located on the east side of the building, and will be impacted by noise at all hours of the day by trains, factories to the east of the railroad track, and the police department. Doesn't seem that it will be very City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 1211012019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2019 amenable to potential residents, seems like the design is not even considering factual information from real people who reside or frequent the area. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Think this project is headed in the right direction and has come a long way. > Think the enhancement of the corner reinforcing the comer is a big deal. > Asked the question at the last meeting, why this building at this site?. How does it answer the urban design question? Things that have been done to try to reinforce that corner have gone a long way of doing that, like suggestion to reinforce if further. > Think the architectural enhancement of the residential has helped to stratify the building and give it structure. > Not convinced about the grand canopies. More convinced by the lower level canopy because it has a function, it can be seen as a cover for entry, however the upper canopy seems superfluous. Think the least successful thing at the hospital across the street are those flying elements, the structural beams that are hanging out off the building, they don't make any sense, they seem to be money spent with not much return on that investment. Feel the same way about the upper canopy, not sure what you're getting out of that, the fins at both ends also seem superfluous. > Like the way that the building is starting to talk to the medical office building across the street, which I think is a nice piece of quiet modern architecture, with the big punched opening and the double height punched opening in the middle of the building, and it's a calm facade. Think this is starting to work, but 1 donY think it's there yet. > Think you're being too literal about the grand canopy, which is trying to capture an angle of the street which really is not that useful. With that said, the fact it's functional at the ground level makes some sense. > Like the upper extended fin because of what it does in terms of unifying that element along the facade in terms of separating the office from the residential, like what's happening in terms of the vertical piece. Agree that the fins toward the left side don't have to happen, but like the dynamic of what's happening there and the separation of that fin. Also think there is a potential, if the architecture and detailing still works for the opening to make it lattice like, think it's going to create a real dynamic for the light that's coming down the alcove, there's a nice opportunity for some play of light coming through there with that upper fin. > Previously building had bowed elements, now we have something that's actually different and have some component pieces that are working better. Like the angles of the grand canopy, at least at that ground floor, because it adds that cover and think it responds to the angle of the slip street in terms of the site planning. > Think corner element needs a little bit more reinforcement, so think that of kind articulation with the architecture can move forward in parallel with the environmental assessment. > Need to analyze traffic and parking in the vicinity. > Think neighbor raises a good issue in terms of analyzing noise impacts to the residential property because we need to make sure those elements are addressed as a part of the assessment moving forward. > Appreciate the fact they've revised what they're asking for in terms of the revisions to the parking ratio, think the 1:400 SF ratio works much better, am more comfortable with that than the 1:500 SF ratio previously requested, think that's a good change to the entitlement. > Think the project needs to move forward into the environmental assessment so we can look closely at the impacts, comfortable with project moving forward. > This is a large project that's going to have a big demand. Environmental assessment should carefully look at impact on City's sewer and water service. > Need to look into how this project could potentially affect the police department's communication system and how this potentially could be blocking some of their radio signals. > Like some of the things that are developing with this rendition of the building, appreciate the bowed City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1211QQ019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2019 facade being turned more rectilinear. > Like the upper fin as it relates to the one at the street level, which provides a great opportunity for signage and shade, agree that there's an opportunity to allow light infiltration through that upper canopy and although it provides shade, it can act arbor -like or like a fin, can be a nice element rather than a solid piece that carries across the whole frontage. > Comer at Trousdale Drive can still be strengthened further, would like to see a little more of an experience on that corner, other than a corner of glass. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 1211012019 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 PM Council Chambers b. 1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU: a. Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers for a new seven -story, mixed -use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking (Certosa Inc. applicant and property owner; Architecture International, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. Application for Zoning Code Amendment to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the NBMU Zone. Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 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., > What is the parking ratio in other commercial zones? (Keylon: Packing ratio for office is the same throughout the city and is 1:300 SF. Parking ratio for medical uses is 1:250 SF, except in the Inner Bayshore area where it is 1:300 SF in buildings over 20,000 SF in area; that's the nexus we used for this application on the north end of Burlingame.) > Please clarify the residential linkage fee. (Keylon: Projects that are developing residential units can either provide affordable units on site or pay an in -lieu fee based on their density and type of labor. The rate is different if the project is prevailing wage or non -prevailing wage. In this case, the community benefit they've chosen is to provide affordable units at 5% low income, and therefore the residential linkage fee would not be required since affordable units are being provided. > In reading through the reduced parking requirements and the modifications being proposed in this area for the office ratio, what's being presented to us is changing the ordinances so that the parking ratio is 1 space per 500 SF, or 2 spaces per 1,000 SF as it's being presented in the parking table provide by Hexagon. Even with reductions allowing for projects that are close to multimodal transportation or in downtown areas, not seeing too many that get as low as 2 parking spaces per 1,000 SF. There are various considerations, for example Mountain View says parking reduction and shared parking may be implemented if it can be justified that there will be no resulting parking deficiency, however that doesn't tell me they're getting as low as 2 parking spaces per 1,000 SF on a regular basis. If we're going to 2 spaces per 1,000 SF, there doesn't seem to be too many other communities that are going that low, am 1 correct in reading this? (Keylon: For Millbrae, their ratio comes down to approximately 1 space per 660 SF within 800 feet of the multimodal station. Outside of that boundary, It's 1 space per 400 SF; San Mateo is almost 1 per 400 SF because they're 2.6 per 1,000 SF, and South San Francisco within their downtown near the train station is 1 per 400 SF. The case study also provides additional information. (Kane: The table referring to TOD buildings demonstrates a considerably lower ratio than the default ratio for the City's.) Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Mario Muzzi, Bill Higgins, Dave LoCoco and John Martin, represented the applicant. City of Burlingame Pagel Printed on 1012212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Commission Questions/Comments: > Staff report shows 20 parking spaces dedicated or assigned for the commercial spaces. Where would those spaces be located? (Higgins: It's an unbundled garage, but they could be assigned spaces for the commercial tenants, probably off the Celifomia Drive side since that's the easiest entry point without going deep into the garage. We haven't explored exactly the actual assignment or location, but that's one idea.) > Are the 20 parking spaces for employees working in the commercial space or are those for customers or clients coming to visit the commercial space? (Keylon: The intent is that they would be for both.) (LoCoco: From an accessibility and electric vehicle point of view, the code requires certain percentages of those types of parking spaces for commercial and residential uses, and this project has those. The final signage of which are retail are not designated at this point, but it would get evolved as the leases are made. Assume there would be some spaces underneath and some along the back edge for employees; want to make your most comfortable retail spaces available for the customer.) > If I am a customer or employee coming to the commercial area and I park in the garage, how would I get to the commercial space? (LoCoco: You would use the once elevator to the front lobby, which will provide access to the retail spaces through the outdoor plaza area. We're not trying to create a mall or an internal streetscape.) > Are you confident that people coming to the retail businesses will use the garage parking and walk out to the street and then back into a store? (Higgins: Yes, it's all protected so they can park in a protected area and come through a protected lobby.) > Can there be better identification for the lobby along the El Camino Real facade? Concern is that it's a six -story building and there is a hard line between the first and second floors, and there isnY really a celebration of that lobby. Something is needed to help identify and articulate that entry and create a little bit more pedestrian experience. (Higgins: We could look at adding a canopy extension.) > Have same concern on the residential side; there is a canopy of some sort that is a little better articulated, but some sense of entry is needed. Perhaps some movement into upper floors with the canopy. > In and around the fitness center, the plan is showing an arcade and plaza leading up to building which feels a little harsh. Is there any opportunity to get some softened edges, perhaps some trees along the driveway to soften that transition from the storefront wall of the Fitness center to the arcade. Might filter that view into the fitness center so you donY feel like you're on the driveway. (Higgins: Intent would be the fitness center would be entered from the Trousdale Drive side, it could have a double entry. The pedestrian experience does continue under cover to get to the front entry,there is a planter separating it from the sidewalk area.) May want to revisit that edge between the arcade and driveway, would help to soften that edge. > Plans show artificial turf in the dog play area, however the images show benches and other amenities. Will the dog play area get developed with some articulation besides just a swath of turf over the parking? (Martin: Yes, we want to make sure people can socialize and let the dogs out and sit around and talk to theirneighbor.) > Do you have the trees species identified for what will be planted along the street? (Martin: Patriot elm along El Camino Real and Red Oak along Trousdale Drive. In both of our plans, they are 5-foot tree wells, which is what we understood also from the city was the desired size, and it shifts away from the curb in Option 2 to allow for a step out zone; provides extra space to open your door depending on if you're parking or being dropped off.) > The basement garage wall is at the edge of the public right-of-way. Are you confident that the Patriot elm will have enough room to grow at the height shown on the plans? What height will they grow to? (Martin: Growth height would be approximately 40 feet. The intent is make sure the roots don't encroach on the basement walls with root barriers, as well as how we take an approach to using soil and making sure that the desirable soil for the tree runs closer to the curb where the roots are going to go.) (Higgins: The garage itself is going to be a straight line, so that section was taken at the narrowest point.) > The second layer of trees are in raised planters because they're above the garage, correct? (Martin: Yes, they are in raised planters and there Is an opportunity to look closer into detail the use of the nose of where the cars are packing to be able to more depth along that edge.) What is the species of those trees? (Martin: Those would be Peppermint trees, they have a darker appearance and are more City of Burlingame Page 2 Primed on 10,22/2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 ornamental, intent is to provide more verticality.) What height would you expect those to get if they're in raised planters? (Martin: Depends on the soil, but would likely ge to 10 to 15 feet in height.) > With the dominant comer of .Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real where you're looking to develop a bulb out, there's an opportunity to define that comer more at the building. Having trouble identifying the entrance in the middle of the building along EI Camino Real. Wondering how the comer can either orient or direct people a little bit more in that direction with perhaps some greater depth of landscaping around that comer, and some more activity that could help people to visualize or move in that direction versus having a flat facade. For example, Peninsula Hospital across the street has sculptures at the comer, corner needs more attention. > At the residential turnaround up against masonry wall at the police station, is there some thought as to how you'll present that rear edge of the property? (Higgins: We have to look at the grades and the top of the wall, but wall will have to extend up because the drop off is up near the lobby level, so it is up from the street level about three to four feet; will have to look at the articulation of that wall as a landscape wall since it's going to be the backdrop of our drop off, so that will require some attention.) > You have some punch outs along the residential levels and even in the center part of the commercial level, wondering if there's enough shade for the balcony areas? West side has a really strong sun exposure. (Higgins: Intent is that the balconies create some outdoor living, we have scaled them such that we have about 6 to 8 feet depending on the dimension of the bow. The office ones extend back over ten feet deep and are much bolder due to the floor heights. We think they do provide opportunity for sun shading on that facade. Not carrying them around because we want the balconies off the living dining areas and not just off every room.) > Wondering if there could be some more dimensionality with more projection coming beyond the eve, maybe it's a material or trellis, some type of element that could though define the face of the building a little bit more. Higgins: Sometimes we do articulate the slab edge by extending it out since it's post -tension concrete, that is possible for the slab edge. Right now we're envisioning the office being a more of a curtain wall expression and maybe it can transition to that sort of slab expression as we get to the top.) > How do you see this building fitting into Burlingame? Why this building, on this site, in this town? (Higgins: Architecturally think it will fit in very well, it anchors this location as part of the north Burlingame entry. This is across the street from the hospital, which also has a prominent facade even though it's setback further, it establishes a vocabulary that this office carries across the street and can create a mixed -use district This is a more sophisticated architecture that is compatible with the hospital. Creates a contemporary expression which creates a new zone as an entry to Burlingame, shows the growth of Burlingame and follows the pattern of the new zoning.) > Does this building seem very frontal to you? (Higgins: It is indeed frontal because the longest facade is facing El Camino Real, part of the intent is to not have It be a wall of a building but to articulate the mass so it breaks down the mass, and not try to necessarily read like three buildings, but also address that this facade is an important facade, and it needs to be highly articulated, otherwise it will become a 300-foot wall. Part of the interim zoning guidelines is to breakdown the mass with depth and movement.) > If this is a gateway building, doesn't that mean that the end facade becomes considerably more important? (Higgins: It does and that's one of the reasons we turned the glass around the comer so it reveals a solid edge.) > The end of your building is static and symmetrical and that's very frontal, and the long facade is very frontal. > Why have the tri-part type divisions of the major pieces and what's the bow got to do with anything? It seems very, very symmetrical. (Higgins: It's not perfectly symmetrical because the facades have different dimensions. It's an agled site, so we're gradually moving the facade out into that zone with the bow, so it's stepping the facade forward to address El Camino Real as opposed to being a straight rectangle. Think the bow and notching of the facade helps us create a re-entry zone so that we can articulate the bow, also provides a more panoramic view.) Public Comments: Ladsa Vaserman: Not associated with the museum, however am appalled and upset by the idea that that City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1012212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 museum will have to cease to exist; there doesn't seem to be a solution to relocate the museum. Am a member of the most vulnerable part of the human society, am disabled and an dependent adult. Early lease termination of the Peninsula Museum of Art in Burlingame is making me and members of the community frustrated and upset. Land owner decided to demolish the structure at 1777 California Drive, a museum which includes exhibition galleries, a library, and working studios for professional artists and a wide variety of mediums. Owner plans to build a high rise housing complex, which will no doubt be unaffordable for most. There are a lot of souls being sheltered and nurtured at the museum, museum gives us hope, that our human society will be more humane, better, kinder, loving and compassionate. Museum hosts visitors, special events, exhibit openings, and regular group meetings. Museum receives financial support, understanding the museums' importance in the contribution to a better world. Museum admission is free and provides guided tours and exhibitions for schools, children, seniors and people with disabilities. Museum has made many disabled -accessible upgrades and is extensively used by the elderly and disabled. Museum is needed for people who are confined to a hospital or assisted living facility. Given the difficult health issues in our society, it's imperative that we put our mindset toward art. Museum is an invaluable institution in San Mateo County and what it provides for the community Is priceless and very much needed. Dale Young: Live in condominium building next door, next to the California Drive entrance to the proposed project. This transition creates many more users of these premises between the residents, employees, office tenants, and patrons than are using that building now. Concerned with reduction in the parking, parking already is a problem in the area. I've had people try to come visit me, they have to park a block away because they cannot find parking on California Drive. Concerned with the height of the building because my backyard is there. Not sure how much glass there is on the other side of the building, but i don't know if I like the idea of people peering in my backyard. If you're going to emphasize the transit orientation of the area, you need to focus on how are people are going to get to and from their destinations. Know from personal experience, because I walk from my condominium to the BART and Caltrein station everyday, that traffic at Trousdale and California Drive will be a problem; stepping into the crosswalk across Trousdale Drive is dangerous for pedestrians. People driving eastbound on Trousdale Drive turning south onto California Drive often roll right through that stop sign, even if there's a pedestrian standing on the comer. Have nearly been hit three times travelling southbound on California Drive from the BART station, with northbound traffic on California Drive turning left onto Trousdale Drive, it turns abruptly even though a person is stepping off the curb into the crosswalk or not paying attention. Think there needs to be a recommendation perhaps to City Council or other city department that there be a traffic signal installed at that intersection. Also, there is no way to get across California Drive between Broadway and Murchison Drive, people jaywalk which is very dangerous. If there is going to be more traffic, there should also be another crosswalk across California Dive at Trousdale Drive and not just a traffic signal for the traffic, but a dedicated pedestrian signal as well. No name provided: Live in condominium building next door and have same concerns as previous speaker. Main concern is the parking because the city has taking away parking spaces and parking hours. Nice that you want to have a transit oriented community at this end of town, but it's not the reality of what people do; if people come in their car and there is no place for them to park, they'll park where they're not supposed to which is our driveway or our guest parking spaces. Regarding the transit orientation, most buildings in area are medical buildings that a lot of disabled people come to, so they are not using public transit; there needs to be places for people who come in a car that need help being escorted into the building. Think it's an impractical proposal to reduce the packing and that's not the reality of what people do. Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > This is an Incredible opportunity site and am really excited about the idea of the project. > One of the challenges you face in doing this project is that almost anything you do on a project of this City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 1012212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 size is going to seem out of place in some way, because it's going to stand out even though the hospital is across the street,' it's going to stand out as a new scale of building and a new type of architecture. > Think that transit oriented developments is an important step for us, there is certainly going to be traffic studies completed. > Think there are a lot of good things going on with this building, however it leaves me cold. My first reaction to it was it looks like a Washington, D.C. suburban Virginia office building, it doesn't feel like it belongs here somehow, seems formulaic. Reason I was asking about the bowed front is because it looks like a building from the mid 80's and mid 90's, think it's missing a tremendous opportunity on that site. It's very frontal, stayed and measured, and not exactly symmetrical. The site and the opportunity seems very asymmetrical; it is a gateway project. Has the long 300 foot facade that has to be broken up in some way, but it doesn't have to be broken up necessarily in this way, this is just one option. Don't know exactly where to go with it, really want to see something exceptionally on this corner. Feels uninspired, seems like you have a formula and you put the formula before us, seems like it wants to be strung with buildings that are the same, if you get enough of them you have a pseudo city. It doesn't feet like Burlingame and it doesn't feel like it belongs on this site and it doesn't do what it needs to do on this site. > Feel like this project is so done the way it's been presented, feel like we haven't had the opportunity to provide input. Have provided many details on the plans, but you haven't solved the urban design problem, the most important problem you need to solve. You've got the building completely designed, all the materials and plants chosen, but think you need to take a huge step back. Glad that this is a design review study, but fear is that somebody is going to make a proposal and we bring this back on regular action, we'll look at it one more time and it will be approved. This looks like one of those projects that just has to be worked, and it needs more thought big problem needs to be solved before the small problems. Want so much for this sort of thing to happen in Burlingame, but not like this one. > Generally accepting of the conditional use permit for the mechanical stackers and zoning code amendment, but think those issue are going to be boume out through the environmental review. Need to see what the traffic analysis shows, need to see how that's going to affect traffic in the neighborhood and potential impacts. Unfortunately, this project is not going to be able to solve a lot of the issues elsewhere in the neighborhood. Understand what the neighbors are saying, have witnessed similar experiences in terms of the crossings and the intersections at California Drive. Fortunately, this project can address the intersections and the crossings at El Camino Real and along Trousdale Drive. Grateful that they are considering the bulb -outs to make it an easier crossing for pedestrians across an intersection, you get the those bulb -outs in the sidewalks and you get more territory dedicated to pedestrians and you cause the car to have to slow and navigate through intersections. > Landscaping needs additional work in terms of the detailing and articulation, what is experience going to be like in the dog park area, what are the edges going to be like at the fitness center, and what are the anecdotal or the scenario type experiences in the plaza for the public amenity. What is the expectation for how that's experienced, and when and who is experiencing that because there's not a lot of pedestrian traffic along El Camino Real and along that slip road, for the time being it's still traffic oriented. Mth this office park, there likely will be more people coming from the BART/Caltrain station and arriving to the office and walking into the office park, so there likely would be more scenarios of the office users down in that plaza, but what is that experience like? Are they going to come down and use that? What if the commercial spaces could help support that in terms of accessing that to pick up coffee or a sandwich. > In terms of design review, building is very horizontal. Appreciate the mixed -use nature of the building, really like the commitment to providing the office, commercial and the residential component within this project. Adds for some great dynamic for the interplay of what I was describing in terms of the users for how they experience the street and the building. The mix of users is going to help with the vibrancy of the potential for this comer. > l look at this building versus the hospital building, which has been cited as an example, and the hospital building is much more massive, but it's broken down and articulated in a different way in terms of its component parts and pieces that come together as a building that really helped to experience that building both close up and from a distance in terms of understanding it visually, in terms of different parts and pieces of the architecture. Along El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, the hospital is experienced in a certain way in looking at its architecture, this project has a lot of stretch of the same thing. DonY think City o1 Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 10122/2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 solution is as simple as breaking down the massing down to three component pieces. Needs strong consideration of how architecture defines itself in terms of the pieces of the facade. > There is a great opportunity to define what happens at the corner, both in the architecture, landscaping and In the pedestrian realm. Might help to define end or comer piece because that is going to be prominent for the time being. Would like to know that we're not just looking at a corner that just kind of happened with two facades coming together. > Like the project in terms of what it's doing, know for a fact when we were putting together the plan in this area, there was doubt as to what would happen with these properties, so am grateful that property owners are coming forward and wanting to commit to embracing our area plan and adding some energy to this neighborhood and doing something with those properties along there. > Agree about the mixed -use nature of this project, will be a great addition to this area. > Important to look at dewatering during and after construction, give that the garage is 20 feet below sea level. > Generally in support of reducing the parking ratio in this area. Would parking reduction also apply to hospital or medical uses? (Keylon: It would apply to medical and dental offices, there is a different ratio for hospitals.) > Not convinced that 1:500 SF is the right ratio for this area. Studies that Hexagon presented in their report were really helpful, and by two of them, this building would be under parked everyday, so it doesn't seem to support it. In looking at the other cities referenced, almost none of them had a parking ratio like this, particularly Millbrae which is next to the same intermodal station; even their ratio was not this light and is also limited to 800 feet, which is a significantly tighter radius than the half mile proposed in the amendment. Don't think the data supports 1:500 SF ratio; could see supporting a 1:400 SF, but would like to see additional data to get to that ratio. > Do we know the distance from this property to the intermodal station? Would help to know the distance, should include in next staff report. (Muzzi: Located 0.4 miles from station.) > Not sure if 1 can support the reduced parking ratio, but could still consider it with additional studies. We're in this heavily medical office area, so we do have to think about companions bringing people to their appointments, and maybe the need even for more disabled -accessible parking spaces depending on what the commercial usage of the office spaces may be. > Concerned about access to the main entrance off the slip road. There should be some more exploration of locating a main entrance closer to the comer at Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real, rather than in the middle of the property. Access to a middle entrance would be difficult because you would have to make a u-turn if driving southbound. If you move forward with a middle entrance, wondering if that could be the residential entrance, and the maint entrance and entrance to the fitness center and office spaces could be some where else. > Property is great as a mixed -used designation, thank you for embracing that idea. This is a great opportunity to be a gateway property, much like how the eucalyptus trees along El Camino Real form the entrance to Burlingame. > Building doesn't have to look like the hospital, but definitely could be an interesting architectural feature to the area, and meet a lot of the needs of this part of the city. > When we first started looking at the zoning and discussed the height limits for this particular block of buildings, was concerned because there are homes and backyards just one block away that look up to medical buildings and then this project would extend above that. Given this building and location, it is one floor too tall. > With regards to the design, can see how you arrived at this design; the police station is next door, an old medical building is adjacent to the site, there is a medical facility on Trousdale Drive, and older medical buildings to the north that are certainly due to be rebuilt soon. But that is what makes this building so important, will be setting the standard for new zoning in the area. Focus on the detail of this building is due, and we really have to get it right. Don't feel like I'm truly entering Burlingame until I'm a block south of this site, think you have the potential to change that with this building on this prominent comer. > A contemporary design is the right direction to be headed with this. Not at all suggesting that it doesn't fit into Burlingame because it's not mission slyle, contemporary makes a lot of sense for me in this location. City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 1012212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 > There is a certain homogeneity of the project that makes me uneasy, it's a very homogeneous project except for the indentations splitting the building into three pieces over 300 feet. Needs to have asymmetry and less homogeneity and it needs to address the various urban design requirements of the site which has to do with the entrance and the hospital across the street. > Have a phenomenal opportunity here and would like to see it pushed as fares we possibly can. > In support of the reduced parking, however it does feel light. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 1012212019 PLANNING APPLICATION #LUIgo"`aAitM$COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT —PLANNING DIVISION ' 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-3997 TEL: 650.558.72501 FAX: 650.696.37901 E-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPT(dBURLINGAME.ORG z uk_44� Q Pal_ I IQ N�3 P1 v O PROJECT ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # (APNI ZONING n PROJECT DESCRIPTION e 0 ^� 0 LLf a _•�'1:4�^!_..4L••»i''avv-icl. J`+.II:fl:'d.M[a:r:Y-.i.:. =l". 11m.- ._.._ j VVJN���`-w..wrr-aM..rtrx+'-••.r=..-�ge.�z.wo..mn..ia PLICANT? z O a_ O ARCHITECTIDESIGNER APPLICANT? ADDRESS L e PHONE EMAIL 4 Y BURLINGAME BUSINESS LICENSE # 'led to: I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN fS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE (IF DIFFERENT FROM PROPERTY OWNER) I AM AWARE OF THE PROPOSED APPLICATION AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ABOVE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION TO THE } APPLICATION TYPE Z ; ❑ ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) 0- ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) S ❑ DESIGN REVIEW (DSR) LL L ❑ HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Q ❑ VARIANCE (VAR) ❑ WIRELESS © FENCE EXCEPTION h GI OTHER: Zra i rcAe IWvy�jo"., ' J€JNI 19 ?Oi9 cn ❑ MINOR MODIFICATION CITY OF BURLINGAME ❑ SPECIAL PERMIT (SP) DATE RECEIVED; ^fir,-pL"�Iti^llh�.aDiv October 21, 2019 Via Email Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner City of Burlingame Community Development Department - Planning Division Re: Application to Amend NBMU Interim Zoning Dear Ms. Keylon: This letter is submitted in support of our application to amend the City of Burlingame's ("City") Interim Zoning for the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) area. We believe the NBMU area's office parking ratio fails to conform with the recently updated General Plan since no change was made from the old office space parking requirement of (1) space per 300sf of office that predates the current General Plan which specifically provides: "M-7.3: Parking Requirements: Reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements and/or implement parking maximums for housing, commercial, office, and other land uses in mixed use areas and in proximity to frequent transit services. Comprehensively examine parking requirements in the Zoning Code and adjust as needed to respond to evolving vehicle ownership patterns and parking practices." Given that the NBMU area is within less than one-half mile of the Millbrae CalTrain/BART Station and runs along El Camino Real with SatnTrans bus stops, we contend that the Interim Zoning should have reduced the minimum parking requirement for office space. We contend that one parking stall for every 400 sf or more of gross office space per parking stall is an appropriate amount of parking given the proximity to public transportation and to encourage its use. Please find a letter from Hexagon Transportation Consultants that provides a survey of other cities minimum requirements for office parking and the changes those cities have made to allow for reduced parking ratios in proximity to public transportation. Perhaps more importantly, Hexagon also provides in their letter empirical evidence from three transit -oriented developments in the Bay Area. The average parking demand for these three sites is approximately 1 parking stall for every 500 sq. f. October 21, 2019 Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner Application to Amend NBMU Zoning Page 2 of 2. Since the recently passed General Plan clearly states an intent to eliminate or reduce parking ratios in the NBMU area, we thought it was appropriate to seek a reduction from 1:300 to 1:500. We thought that this ratio would strike the correct balance between current demand for parking in this zone and a forward -looking vision of "evolving vehicle ownership patterns and parking practices" in the proximate future. However, during the September 23, 2019 Design Review Study Session, we heard several commissioners express concern that they did not see clear support from what other cities have done or from the demand surveys to reduce the parking ratio to 1:500. Although we still urge the commissioners to follow through with the vision set out in the General Plan, we have modified our request to reduce the ratio to 1:400. This ratio moves in the right direction and is clearly supported by the demand surveys conducted in these newly inaugurated Transit Oriented Development zones in the Bay Area. As owners/developers, we don't just want to minimize parking simply to cut construction costs. We understand and are concerned that having too little on -site parking can significantly reduce the marketability of the space for our programmed uses. On the other hand, we understand the need to encourage the use of public transportation to reduce local and regional vehicular traffic and to avoid construction of underutilized parking areas. We think our proposed office parking to square footage ratio is reasonable and justified for NBMU. Accordingly, we seek to modify the Interim Zoning for the NBMU area as highlighted below: 25.39.050 Off -Street Vehicle Parking. Parking shall be provided as set forth in Chapter 25.70 (Off -Street Parking), with the following exceptions for "other office" shall be 1 parking space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross office area" and Live/work units, stand-alone residential development, and the residential component of a mixed -use development shall be as follows: Sincerely, By Mario B. Muzzi, As its President n NIXAM TRANSPORTATION (ONSULTANTS, INC. June 18, 2019 Mr. Mario Muzzi Re: Report on Parking Research Completed for the Mixed -use Development at 1766 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California Dear Mr. Muzzi: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc has completed parking research relative to the office portion of your proposed mixed -use development at 1766 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California. The project proposes to provide on -site parking at a reduced parking ratio compared with the City's Zoning Code requirements for the proposed office uses_ We understand the City is considering a reduced parking ratio but would like to see some research supporting a reduced number. Also, the City will allow a reduced ratio in conjunction with appropriate Transportation Demand Management measures. The purpose of this parking research report is to provide information on any cities in San Mateo County or Santa Clara County that allow reduced ratios and to report on some office parking counts the Hexagon has recently completed. Hexagon also recommends a list of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that that can be implemented by the project to reduce its parking demand, which are presented in a separate letter report. Parking Code Requirements Hexagon looked into the parking requirements for office use in all cities of San Mateo County and some cities in Santa Clara County, as well as the parking requirements in any specific area plans in these cities. The attached table shows cities that allow a reduced parking ratio for office and shows the requirements for obtaining reductions. As seen in the table, three cities, including Belmont, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City, allow office developments to reduce parking spaces if parking studies are conducted to show that reductions in parking are reasonable and the resulting parking will be sufficient. The City of San Carlos allows a twenty percent reduction in the normally required number of spaces with implementation of a Transportation Demand Management program. The City of South San Francisco allows a 25 percent reduction in the normally required number of spaces if any portion of the lot is located within % mile of a BART or CaiTrain station. Reduced parking ratios are allowed for office developments in specific plan areas in some cities. For office developments in the Millbrae Station Specific Plan area, the City of Millbrae allows 1.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f (within 800 feet of the Millbrae Transit Station) and 2.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for the rest of the specific plan area. The City of Menlo Park allows reduced rates at 3.8 spaces per 1,000 s.f for the office development in the El Camino real/Downtown Specific Plan area. The City of San Mateo allows a minimum requirement of 2.6 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for office developments in the San Mateo Downtown Specific Plan area. In Santa Clara County, the City of San Jose allows parking ratios for commercial office uses in the San Jose Diridon Station Area Plan to be adjusted to a weighted rate of 1.51 spaces per 1,000 s.f.. The City of San Jose also allows up to a 50% parking reduction in urban growth areas with a TDM plan implemented. 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, California 95113 • phone 408.971.6100 • fax 402.971.6102 • www.hextrans.com PP�"'q Mr. Mario Muzzi June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Table 1 — Cities with Reduced Parking Requirements Parking City Parking SpaceRequired ..ces Per 1000 s.f. Notes 1) City parking requirements allows for reduction of minimum parking spaces with a TDM plan or for locations within one- third mile of transit hubs or along transit 1 space for each 300 s.f. gross floor corridors. 2) Per Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, in - Burlingame 3.33 lieu fees can be paid to the City and used to create area additional shared public parking facilitie instead of providing parking to expand buildings, intensify uses or build new ones. 3) The total parking requirements for mixed -use projects may be reduced. 18.30.050 Parking reduction. In the event that a mixed use development includes uses that have different peaks in parking demand, (e.g., a mixed commercial and residential development) an altemative parking East Palo 1 space per 300 s.f. 3.33 requirement may be established, as determined Alto appropriate by the Director. The applicant shall be required to pay for a parking study to ensure mixed use development projects are adequately parked if the parking reduction request is being made. Reduced parking ratio at 3.8 spaces per 1,000 at. in Menlo Park 1 space per 200 s.f. 5 Menlo Park El Camino real/Downtown Specific Plan For office development within Millbrae Station Area 1 parking space for each 300 s.f. of Specific Plan area, 1.5 spaces per 1,000 gsf (within 800 Millbrae gross floor area 3.33 feet of the Millbrae Transit Station) and 2.5 spaces per 1,000 gsf for rest of the specific plan area Parking data based on well -recognized sources or local Milpitas 1000 s.f. or smaller: 1 per 250 s.f. 3.3-4 parking demand rates can be used to justify parking otherwise 3.3 per 1000 s.f. reduction. Parking reduction and shared parking may be Mountain Under 20,000 s.f: 7 per 150 s.f. Unothder20, per 4.44-6.67 implemented if it can be justified that there will be no Mooiew 1 per 225 s.f resulting parking deficiency. RP and ROLM is 1 per 300 s.f; all Adjustments and reductions can be made with a TOM Palo Alto other is 1per 250 s.f. 3.33-4 plan. 11111" Mr. Mario Muzzi June 18, 2019 `J Page 3 of 4 Table 1 —Continued Required Parking City Parking Space Requirement Spaces Per 1000 s.f. Notes (Possbile Reductions) 30.4 Shared -Use Parking on Multiple Sites. Sites with multiple uses hating different peak demand times may share parking. A parking study shall be submitted that demonstrates how parking demand will be met with a Redwood 1/250 s.f. or 1/300 s.f. 3.334 shared parking arrangement. This study is subject to City renew and approval of the renew authority. Minimum parking ratio at 3 spaces per 1,000 sf (Non-residential use with shared parking') in Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan. 18.20.050 Transportation Demand Management 1 per 300 s.f. of floor area up to Programs. The number of required parking spaces for any San Carlos 100,000 sq. ft. 1 per 350 sq. ft over 2.85-3.33 project subject to Chapter 18.25, Transportation Demand 100,000 sq. ft. Management, shall be reduced by twenty percent of the normally required number of spaces 1) City allows up to a 50% parking reduction in urban growth areas with a TDM plan; 2) San Jose Diridon San Jose 1 per 250 s.f., Downtown office: 2.5 per 2 5-4 Station Area Plan: parking ratios for commercial office 1000 s.f. land uses were adjusted to a weighted rate of 1.51 spaces per 1,000 s.f. San Mateo Bay Meadows Specific Plan encourages shared parking to reduce parking supply with a minimum San Mateo 1 per 335 s.f. if less than 100,000 s.f. 1 .f.s. 3-3.2 of 2.8 spaces per 1,000 s.f. The San Mateo Downtown 1 per 315 s.f. if above 10000 Specific Plan has a minimum requirement of 2.6 spaces per 1000 s.f. 20.330.006 Transit Station Areas. For any land use except residential single -unit and duplex development, if 1 per 300 s.f. of floor area up to any portion of the lot is located within % mile of a BART South San 100,000 sq. ft. 1 per 350 sq. ft over 2.85-3.33 or CalTrain station, the number of required parking Francisco 100.000 sq. ft. spaces may be reduced by 25 percent of the normally required number of spaces stated in Table 20.330.004 with Conditional Use Permit approval. Parking reduction can be made if there are off -site parking agreements, parking management plans Sunnyvale 3 3�3 including valet parking, or uses on site have complementary peak hours (shared parking). Notes: 1. For reference, Shared Parking is defined in Article 2.92.4 ofthe Redwood CityZoning Ordinance. Office Parking Count Results Hexagon recently has conducted parking counts at 3 office buildings in the Bay Area that are near rail transit to see how much parking is being used. • 3050 S. Delaware Street (Station 4) in Bay Meadows II • Franklin Templeton Campus in Bay Meadows I • 200 & 250 S. Mathilda Avenue (Nokia & Apple) in Sunnyvale The result of the parking counts (see Table 2) show that the peak office parking demand for these transit -oriented development (TOD) buildings ranged from 1.91 to 2.26 spaces per 1,000 s.f. The average parking demand for these office buildings was 2.12 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Mr. Mario Muzzi June 18, 2019 HEu I V E D Page 4 0# 4 ; 9 Nis Table 1 t`.ITY OP7 BURLINGAMF Office Parking Demand Survey Results N,,JNIN 3050 S. Delaware St San Mateo Next to Hillsdale Caltrain February 2018 216,428 456 2,11 (Station 4) Station Franklin Templeton San Mateo 0.6 mile to Hillsdale Caltrain November 2016 380,843 862 2.26 Campus Station and shuttles between station and campus 200 & 250 S. Mathilda Ave Sunnyvale 1,800 feet to Sunnyvale February 2018 252,800 482 1.91 (Nokia & Mole) Caltrain Station . Parking survey for each site was conducted on regular weekdays between 10 AM and 2 PM, when office parking demand peaks. I 2. Building area for Franklin Templeton was estimated based on 67% occupancy of total existing 568,423 s.f. J Conclusions Many Peninsula cities are allowing reduced parking ratios for office development. Typically, the reductions are due to proximity to Caltrain stations and/or the implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. Hexagon has conducted parking counts at 3 transit -oriented -development (TOD) office sites in the Bay Area. The average parking demand for these TOD office buildings is 2.12 spaces per 1,000 s.f., Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Ling Jin Associate n � NIXAM TDANSPOPTATION (ONSULTANTS, IN( June 18, 2019 Re: Recommended TDM Measures for the Mixed -use Development at 1766 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California Dear Mr. Muzzi: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc has completed parking research relative to the office portion of your proposed mixed -use development at 1766 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California. The project proposes to provide on -site parking at a reduced parking ratio compared with the City's Zoning Code requirements for the proposed office uses. We understand the City is considering a reduced parking ratio but would like to see some research supporting a reduced number. Also, the City will allow a reduced ratio in conjunction with appropriate Transportation Demand Management measures. Hexagon recommends a list of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that that can be implemented by the project to reduce its parking demand. Recommend TDM Measures Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single —occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution problems. The attached table presents a list of recommended TDM measures that are applicable to the proposed office development, along with an indication of who should have primary responsibility for implementing each measure. The recommended TDM measures include a broad range of TDM measures designed to reduce single -occupant vehicle trips and the project parking demand through a combination of appropriate measures to promote alternative forms of transportation. The objectives of these TDM measures include encouraging employees to use existing transit services and encouraging the use of bicycle travel and walking to, from, and around the area. The recommended TDM measures also include planning and design measures related to the attributes of the site design and on -site amenities. Such design measures encourage walking, biking, and use of transit. Some of the most important TDM measures are described as follows: Transportation Coordinator Experience with other TDM programs indicates that having a TDM contact person (also referred to as a Transportation Coordinator) who focuses on transportation issues and is responsible for implementing the TDM program is key to the plan's success. We recommend the developer appoint an individual as the Transportation Coordinator or TDM contact person to serve the entire mixed -use complex. He/She will be responsible for implementation of the TDM program throughout the project and will be available to answer questions from both residents and employees, and to coordinate as needed with all employers in the building. 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, California 95113 - phone 408.971.6100 • fax 408.971.6102 - www.hextrans.com Mr. Mario Muzzi June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Transit Subsidies The project is located about 0.5 miles from the Millbrae Transit Center, which provides direct access to BART and Caltrain service as well as to multiple shuttle routes and SamTrans bus routes. At a normal walking pace, it would take approximately 10 minutes to walk from the project site to the transit center. This encourages the use of Caltrain and SamTrans for residents and employees of the proposed project. Subsidized transit passes are an effective means of encouraging employees and residents to use transit rather than drive. One way of doing this is to provide a Clipper Card with a certain amount of cash value to the office employees and residents. The Clipper Card is an all -in -one transit card that can be used to pay for rides on all major Bay Area transit providers, including BART, Caltrain, and SamTrans. Emergency Ride Home Program An Emergency Ride Home program will guarantee that office employees within the project need not worry about being stranded at work without a car in the event of illness, family emergency, or unexpected overtime if they bicycle, carpool, or vanpool. The emergency ride home program could offer free taxi service from the workplace to the employee's home. Bicycle Sharing Bike sharing programs provide commuter -style bikes that can be checked out from and returned to self-service bike share stations for short trips. The idea behind bike sharing is to make bikes available to transit users for the short journey between a transit station and the residential location. There are no bike sharing program stations near the project site. Therefore, the project could provide its own bike sharing program by providing bicycles on site that can be checked out by office employees or residents for short trips. Unbundling of On -Site Parking Unbundled parking means separating the cost of parking from office and residential leases and allowing tenants to choose whether to lease a parking space. This program has the benefit of communicating the cost of constructing and maintaining parking to tenants, and it may help increase use of other travel modes. The TDM measures in this letter would reduce trip making and parking demand for the project. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Ling Jin Associate /"'4 Mr. Mario Muzzi June 18, 2019 " Page 3 of 3 1— Program Administration, Monitoring and Reporting Designating a Transportation Coordinator Building developer Online Kiosk/TDM Information Board Transportation Coordinator Transportation Information Packets Transportation Coordinator Participation in Transportation Management Association Building developer Trip Planning Assistance Transportation Coordinator Annual Resident/Employee Surveys Transportation Coordinator Transit Elements Proximity to Transit Center Building developer Resources (schedules, route maps & other info) Trans. Coordinator Transit Subsidy Employer/Property Owner Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Parking Building developer Shower Room Building developer Resources (maps & info) Trans. Coordinator Bike Sharing Building developer Pedestrian Facilities Enhanced Sidewalks Building developer Carpool and Vanpool Programs On -Site Ridematching Transportation Coordinator 511 Ridematching Assistance Available to public Incentives for New Carpools/Vanpools Available to public Discounted Tolls on Bay Area Bridges Available to public Other On -Site Amenities Residential Building developer Retails Building developer Emergency Ride Home Program Reimburse cost of emergency taxi rides Trans. Coordinator Unbundling of On -Site Parking Building developer Notes; (1) The building developerwill have Initial responsibilityfor creating an online kiosk . After the building is occupied, the Transportation Coordinatorwill have ongoing responsibilityforthe online kiosk and various orocram elements. MILLER STARR REGALIA October 23, 2019 Burlingame City Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 1331 N. California Blvd. Fifth Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Travis Brooks travis.brooks@msrlegal, com T 925 935 9400 F 925 933 4126 www.msriegal.com Re: California Environmental Quality Act Review Scopina for Mixed Use Project at 1766 El Camino Real Honorable Commissioners: This office represents Certosa, Inc. ("Certosa") in its efforts to develop a seven - story, mixed use building including retail, office, and residential uses at 1766 El Camino Real in the City of Burlingame (the "Project"). We submit this letter in advance of the City Planning Commission's environmental scoping meeting scheduled for the Project on October 28, 2019. As you know, the Project will require discretionary approval of a design review application, conditional use permit for parking stackers, and a zoning code amendment related to office parking requirements in the applicable zone. Accordingly, staff have taken the position that the Project will require some level of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). As discussed below, we believe that a Tiered Negative Declaration, or Tiered Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"), addressing potential impacts from the Project's adjustments to office parking requirements, is the appropriate level of environmental review for the Project. Such review would be tiered off of the Environmental Impact Report ("General Plan EIR") certified for the City's General Plan update and interim zoning ordinance for the North Burlingame Mixed Use zone ("NBMU") on January 7, 2019. Backaround As noted in the Project application materials, the Project's office, commercial, and residential components, and proposed parking for commercial and residential uses are consistent with the General Plan and interim zoning standards for the NBMU. However, the Project's proposed office parking component is less than current parking requirements in the City's Zoning Code. Accordingly, Certosa is requesting an amendment of the interim zoning code that, consistent with General Plan policy M-7.3, would reduce office parking requirements throughout the NBMU zone. CERT156334\2178923.1 Offices: Walnut Creek / San Francisco / Newport Beach Planning Commission October 23, 2019 Page 2 Specifically, the requested zoning amendment would reduce parking requirements from one space for every 300 square feet of office space to one space required for every 400 square feet of office space in the NBMU zone. II. Tiered environmental review of the Project is appropriate. Tiered environmental review of the Project is appropriate under Public Resources Code section 21094 and CEQA Guideline 15152. Under these provisions, when an EIR has already been prepared for a general plan, a lead agency "shall" examine a later project, subject to that general plan, using a tiered EIR or Negative Declaration if the following requirements are met: • The later project is consistent with the originally adopted general plan or policy (Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b)(1)-(2); 14 CCR § 15152(d)-(e).); • The later project is consistent with applicable zoning ordinances or includes a rezoning to achieve or maintain conformity with the general plan. (Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b)(2); 14 CCR § 15152(e) (emphasis added).); and The project does not reflect changes or new information requiring a subsequent or supplemental original EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b)(3).) Here, each of the above requirements are met. As indicated in the Project application, the Project is designed to be consistent with the City's newly updated General Plan. Next, outside of the Project's proposed levels of office parking, the Project's is consistent with the City's Interim Zoning Code. To remedy the inconsistency between the Project's proposed office Parking requirements and those in the Zoning Code, the proposed zoning amendment would amend Zoning Code section 25.39.050 to achieve conformity with recently added General Plan Policy M-7.3. Policy M-7.3 seeks to reduce, or even eliminate minimum parking requirements in the Zoning Code: Reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements ... for housing, commercial, office, and other land uses in mixed use areas and in proximity to frequent transit services. Comprehensively examine parking requirements in the Zoning Code and adjust as needed to respond to evolving vehicle ownership patterns and parking practices. (Burlingame General Plan Policy M-7.3.) Finally, the Project does not reflect the type of new information or changes to the General Plan that would require issuance of a subsequent or supplemental General Plan EIR, thus meeting the last requirement. C E R1156334 \217892 3.1 Planning Commission October 23, 2019 Page 3 The requirements for tiered environmental review are met and the City should analyze the Project on a tiered basis, based on the General Plan EIR. MND is appropriate. When preparing a tiered EIR or Negative Declaration, a lead agency should only analyze those potentially significant impacts of the later project that were not analyzed in the prior EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21068.5(b.) Here, the Project is consistent with the General Plan and interim zoning standards already analyzed in the General Plan EIR, except for the Project's proposed zoning amendment related to office parking, Thus, the only potentially significant, new impacts resulting from the Project would be those related to parking. We note that reduced parking levels, in -and -of themselves, are generally not recognized as environmental impacts under CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G [revised after 2002 to remove parking capacity from the CEQA environmental checklist].) Instead, parking levels are only relevant under CEQA to the extent they cause secondary transportation or other recognized environmental impacts. (See San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 697; see also Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.AppAth 1013, 1053; see also Pub. Rec. Code 21 099(d)(1) [explicitly exempting parking impacts from review for mixed use infill projects in transit priority areas].) Any Project impacts resulting from changes to the City's parking standards in the NBMU zone would be insignificant. First, the Project's proposed number of parking spaces for office uses is entirely consistent with the results of the office parking demand survey performed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the Project earlier this year. (Report on Parking Research Completed for the Mixed -use Development at 1766 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California, June 18, 2019.) This survey found that similar projects in similar locations had peak parking demand ratios of approximately one parking space for every five -hundred square feet of office space. (Id.) We also note the General Plan EIR found that build out of the General Plan would not result in any significant transportation impacts with the incorporation of a single mitigation measure related to the intersection of California Drive and Broadway. (General Plan EIR at pp. 2-8, 2-9.) Last, from a Project specific standpoint, any conceivably significant impacts resulting from reduced parking requirements for the Project would be mitigated by the Transportation Demand Management measures incorporated in the Project application. (See Recommended TDM Measures for the Mixed -use Development at 1766 El Camino Real, June 18, 2019, Hexagon Transportation Consultants.) CERTM334\2178923.1 Planning Commission October 23, 2019 Page 4 For the foregoing reasons, we believe that a tiered negative declaration, or a tiered mitigated negative declaration (incorporating the TDM measures in the Project application as mitigation measures), is the appropriate level of environmental review for the Project, IV. Conclusion We hope the above information is helpful to you and greatly appreciate your time and attention to this matter. If the Commission has any questions regarding the Project or the above information, we will be happy to answer them at the meeting on October 28, 2019. Very truly yours, cc: Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner Mario Muzzi Arthur Coon, Miller Star Regalia TZB C ERT15633412178923.1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 25.70 TO AMEND THE OFFICE PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE NORTH BURLINGAME MIXED USE DISTRICT TO 1 SPACE PER 400 SQUARE FEET THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, on March 15, 2019 an application for new 7-story, mixed -use building at 1766 El Camino Real, located within the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) zone, was filed by Certosa, Inc.; WHEREAS, as part of the entitlement application, on June 19, 2019 the applicant submitted an application for a Zoning Code Amendment to change the parking requirement for office uses by reducing the office parking ratio for the entire North Burlingame Mixed Use District to 1 space per 500 square feet of office, where the current parking regulations in this district requires 1 space per 300 square feet of office; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this request as a study item at the September 23, 2019 meeting, but expressed concerns in reducing the office parking ratio to 1:500 SF, however noted that a 1:400 SF parking ratio for office may be supportable; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised request as a study item at the October 28, 2019 meeting and noted that an office parking ratio of 1:400 SF was supportable rather than the 1:500 SF ratio as previously requested and directed the applicant to move the project forward with the 1:400 SF office parking ratio request; WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would reduce the office parking requirements in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) zone to 1 parking space per 400 square feet of office and would apply to all professional, medical and dental office parking in the entire NBMU District for all future office uses proposed in this district as reflected in the edits to Title 25, Chapter 25.70.100, as detailed in Exhibit A, attached; WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the zoning code was considered and analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and published for public comments, with a determination that there would be no significant impacts on the environment; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 24, 2020, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing: 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that it adopt amendments to Title 25 (zoning code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapters 25.70, to amend the office parking regulations in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) Zone to 1 space per 400 square feet. Chairperson I, , Secretary of the Burlingame Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of August, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2 Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 25.70 Off -Street Parking is amended as follows: 25.70.100 Office parking in the North Burlingame Mixed Use District. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the North Burlingame Mixed Use District, as shown in the Community Character Section IV of the 2019 General Plan Neighborhoods Context Map, Figure CC-3: (a) There shall be provided parking spaces in the ratio of one space for each four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area for office uses. This parking ratio shall apply to professional, medical and dental offices, all of which are permitted uses in the NBMU District. North Burlingame Mixed Use District Pie �e .tea Sy '4ibe O� mar/P. a P M s%12 3 1766 EL CanniNo Reap PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact: Catherine Keylon PREPARED BY: ICF 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Contact: Leo Mena JULY 2020 *4'ICF ICF. 2020.1766 El Camino Real Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. July. (ICF 00096.20.) San Francisco, CA. Prepared for City of Burlingame, Burlingame, CA. List of Tables .................................... List of Figures ................................... List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Contents u Chapter1 Background....................................................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2 Project Description........................................................................................................... 2-1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................2-1 Existing Conditions at the Project Site...............................................................................................2-1 ProjectComponents............................................................................................................................2-3 ProposedBuilding.........................................................................................................................2-3 Access and Circulation..................................................................................................................2-8 Transportation Demand Management.........................................................................................2-8 Design, Landscaping, and Open Space..........................................................................................2-9 ExteriorLighting............................................................................................................................2-9 Utilities........................................................................................................................................ 2-11 Employees................................................................................................................................... 2-11 Construction...................................................................................................................................... 2-11 Construction Schedule and Phasing............................................................................................2-11 Construction Spoils and Debris...................................................................................................2-12 Construction Equipment and Staging.........................................................................................2-12 ConstructionEmployment..........................................................................................................2-13 ProjectApprovals..............................................................................................................................2-13 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................................... 3-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.......................................................................................3-1 Determination.....................................................................................................................................3-1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.................................................................................................3-2 Introduction..................................................................................................................................3-2 I. Aesthetics and Vehicular Parking Analysis.................................................................................3-3 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources.........................................................................................3-4 III. Air Quality................................................................................................................................ 3-7 IV. Biological Resources..............................................................................................................3-24 V. Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................3-29 VI. Energy.................................................................................................................................... 3-35 VII. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources.....................................................................3-38 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Contents VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................................3-45 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.........................................................................................3-60 X. Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................................3-67 XI. Land Use and Planning...........................................................................................................3-73 XII. Mineral Resources................................................................................................................3-77 XIII. Noise....................................................................................................................................3-78 XIV. Population and Housing.......................................................................................................3-95 XV. Public Services....................................................................................................................3-100 XVI. Recreation..........................................................................................................................3-105 XVII. Transportation..................................................................................................................3-107 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................................................3-111 XX. Wildfire...............................................................................................................................3-120 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance...................................................................................3-121 Appendices Appendix A Transportation Impact Analysis Appendix B Supporting Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Information Appendix C Existing Trees to Be Removed Appendix D DPR Forms Appendix E Native American Outreach 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ii ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Table 1. Construction Schedule and Duration Contents Tables ............ 2-12 Table 2. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data at the Redwood City and San Francisco - Arkansas Street Monitoring Stations(2016-2018)............................................................. Table 3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Thresholds of Significance ............................. Table 4. Estimated Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Construction (pounds per day) ..... Table 5. Estimated Mitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Construction (pounds per day)a ........ Table 6. Existing Land Uses (2020) and Proposed Project (2023) Operational Emissions (pounds perday)................................................................................................................................ Table 7. Net (Project minus Existing) Operational Emissions (pounds per day) ................................... Table 8. Sensitive Land Uses within 1,000 feet of the Project Site ............................ Table 9. Estimated Project -Level Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks from Unmitigated Construction -Related Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions Table 10. Estimated Project -Level Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks from Mitigated Construction - Related Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions ..................................... Table 11. Estimated Project -Level Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks from Operational Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions (pounds per day) ......................... Table 12. Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant Health Risks from Project and Background Sources at the Maximally Affected Receptor...................................................... Table 13. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies within the Project Site......... Table 14. Previously Recorded Resources within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site ................. Table15. Regional Faults.................................................................................................. Table 16. Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Key Greenhouse Gases ............... Table 17. Global, National, State, and Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories.. Table 18. Estimated GHG Emissions from Project Construction (metric tons per year) .. Table 19. Estimated GHG Emissions from Stationary Sources (metric tons per year) ..... Table 20. Consistency of Project with 2017 Scoping Plan Policies• .................................. Table 21. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................... Table 22. Construction Equipment Reference Noise Levels for Proposed Project Constructiona............................................................................................ .... 3-8 .. 3-10 .. 3-13 .. 3-14 .. 3-16 .. 3-16 .. 3-17 WN01 111111101FZI .. 3-21 .. 3-22 .. 3-30 .. 3-31 .. 3-39 .. 3-50 .. 3-51 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iii ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Table 23. LEQ Construction Noise Levels by Phase (dBA)................................................................. Table 24. Traffic Volume Increases Associated with the Project (Existing and Background Conditions).......................................................................................................................... Table 25. Traffic Volume Increases Associated with Proposed Project (Cumulative Conditions).......................................................................................................................... Table 26. Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Guidelines ............................................. Table 27. Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Guidelines......................................................... Table 28. Population Projections (2020 to 2025)............................................................................ Table 29. Household Projections (2020 to 2025)............................................................................. Table 30. Job Projections (2020 to 2025)........................................................................................ Table 31. Public Schools Serving the Project Area........................................................................... Contents 3-85 3-88 ...... 3-89 ...... 3-92 ...... 3-92 ...... 3-95 ...... 3-96 ...... 3-97 .... 3-101 Figures Figure1. Project Location..........................................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2. Project Site Plan — Ground Floor.................................................................................................2-4 Figure 3. Project Site Plan — Office Floors..................................................................................................2-5 Figure 4. Project Site Plan — Sixth Floor..................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure5. Project Sections...........................................................................................................................2-7 Figure6. Visual Rendering.......................................................................................................................2-10 Figure 7. City of Burlingame Outdoor Noise -Level Planning Criteria.......................................................3-83 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iv ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ADT average daily traffic AEP Association of Environmental Professionals ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan AMI average median income APN Assessor's Parcel Number AQAPs Air quality attainment plans BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit Bgs below the ground surface BMPs best management practices BM R below -market -rate BPD Burlingame Police Department BSD Burlingame School District CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California ambient air quality standards Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CaIEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code Caltrans California Department of Transportation CBSC California Building Standards Code California DHS California Department of Health Services Climate Action Plan City of Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan CARB California Air Resources Board C/CAG City/County Association of Governments CCE community -choice energy CCFD Central County Fire Department CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CHRIS California Historical Resources System City City of Burlingame CMP Congestion Management Plan CNEL community noise equivalent level 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration v ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency dB decibel dBA A weighted decibels DOT Department of Transportation DPR Department of Parks and Recreation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EDR Environmental Data Resources EIR environmental impact report EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR floor area ratio FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHSZs Fire Hazard Severity Zones GHG greenhouse gas gpd gallons per day GWP global warming potential HCP habitat conservation plan HFCs Hydroflourocarbons HRA health risk assessment HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change JPA Joint Powers Authority Len day -night level Leq equivalent sound level LID low -impact development LCFS low -carbon fuel standard LOS level -of -service LUST leaking underground storage tank mgd million gallons per day msl mean sea level MRP Municipal Regional Permit MRZ Mineral Resource Zone Contents 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration vi ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame MT metric tons MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission Municipal Code City of Burlingame Municipal Code N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS national ambient air quality standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NMBU North Burlingame Mixed Use NCCP natural community conservation plan NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWIC Northwest Information Center 03 Ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PM2.5 particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PFCs perfluorocarbons PCE Peninsula Clean Energy PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric ppd person per day ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity Project 1766 El Camino Real Project Qc Colma Formation RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ROGs reactive organic gases RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard RTPs Regional Transportation Plans RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board RWS Regional Water System SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District SB Senate Bill SCS sustainable communities strategies sf square feet SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SFO San Francisco International Airport SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SIL significant impact level SIP State Implementation Plan Contents 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration vii ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame SLCP Short -Lived Climate Pollutants SLF Sacred Lands File SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program SMUHSD San Mateo Union High School District SO2 sulfur dioxide SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TACs toxic air contaminants TDM Transportation Demand Management TIA Transportation Impact Analysis TPA Transit Priority Area TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VMT vehicle miles traveled VRF variable refrigerant flow WWTP wastewater treatment plant Zoning Code City of Burlingame Zoning Code Contents 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration viii ICF 00096.20 Chapter 1 Background 1. Project Title: 1766 El Camino Real Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner Telephone: (650) 558-7252 email: ckeylon@burlingame.org 4. Project Location: 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA (see Figure 1) S. San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Number: APN 025-161-110 6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Certosa, Inc. 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 123 Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact: Mario Muzzi 7. General Plan Designation: North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) 8. Zoning North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) 9. Description of Project: Please refer to Chapter 2, Project Description. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Burlingame Police Department is east of and adjacent to the site for the 1766 El Camino Real Project (Project). A convalescent home is located north of the Project site, across Trousdale Drive. Mills -Peninsula Hospital is west of the Project site, across El Camino Real. An office building is south of and adjacent to the Project site. Within the vicinity of the Project site are commercial/office uses (Burlingame Plaza is 0.1 mile from the Project site), institutional uses (Mills High School is 0.4 mile from the Project site), and residential uses (single-family homes are approximately 0.15 mile from the Project site). In addition, the Project site is approximately 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1_1 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Background 0.45 mile from the Millbrae multimodal transit station, which provides Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), and additional transit and shuttle services. 11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, participation agreement), Potential Responsible Agencies, and Trustee Agencies: The following approvals maybe required for the Project: • Design review for construction of a new seven -story, mixed -use building with retail, office, and residential units as well as below -grade parking (City of Burlingame Municipal Code [Municipal Code] Section 25.40.020) • Planning Commission approval of community -benefit bonuses for Tier 3 projects (Municipal Code Section 25.40.030[B][3]) • Conditional use permit for mechanical parking stackers (Municipal Code Section 25.40.050[d]) • City of Burlingame Zoning Code amendment to reduce the office parking ratio from 1:300 square feet (so to 1:400 sf for office uses in the NBMU zone (Municipal Code Section 25.70.040) • Airport Land Use Commission consistency determination 12. Have California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area requested consultation, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on February 11, 2020, to identify any areas of concern within the vicinity of the Project or resources that may be listed in the NAHC's Sacred Lands File (SLF). The NAHC responded on February 13, 2020, stating that a search of its files positively indicated the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate Project area. The NAHC provided a list of six Native American contacts who might have information that would be pertinent to this Project or concerns regarding the proposed actions; two of the contacts might have information regarding the positive SLF search. ICF called Chairperson Irenne Zwierlein of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista and Andrew Galvan of the Ohlone Indian Tribe on March 27, 2020, regarding the SLF search. Neither representative had additional information. Chairperson Zwierlein stated that an archaeologist and tribal monitor should be on -site during ground disturbance and that Project personnel involved with excavating should receive sensitivity training. Mr. Galvan requested the list of tribal contacts from the NAHC. A letter explaining the Project, along with a map depicting the Project area, was sent by email on April 8, 2020, to all contacts provided by the NAHC. The letter solicited responses from each contact, including questions, comments, or concerns regarding the Project. Letters were sent to the following individuals: • lrenne Zwierlein, chairperson of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista • Tony Cerda, chairperson of the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.2 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Background • Ann Marie Sayers, chairperson of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan • Monica Arellano, vice -chairperson of the Mukwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area • Charlene Nijmeh, chairperson of the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area • Andrew Galvan, Chlone Indian Tribe Follow-up phone calls were placed on May 11, 2020. To date, the only responses have been from Mr. Galvan and Chairperson Zwierlein, who, on May 11, 2020, reiterated their requests from March 27, 2020. Due to a typographical error in the original letter, a new letter with updated information was sent to the representatives on May 22, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.3 ICF 00096.20 Chapter 2 Project Description Introduction The 1766 El Camino Real Project (Project) would be located on a 1.70-acre parcel (assessor's parcel number [APN] 025-161-110) in the northern portion of the city of Burlingame (see Figure 1). The Burlingame Police Department is east of and adjacent to the Project site. A convalescent home is north of the Project site, across Trousdale Drive. Mills -Peninsula Hospital is west of the Project site, across El Camino Real. An office building is south of and adjacent to the Project site.' Within the vicinity of the Project site are commercial/office uses (Burlingame Plaza is 0.1 mile from the Project site), institutional uses (Mills High School is 0.4 mile from the Project site), and residential uses (single- family homes are approximately 0.15 mile from the Project site). In addition, the Project site is approximately 0.45 mile from the Millbrae multimodal transit station, which provides Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), and additional transit and shuttle services. Existing Conditions at the Project Site The Project site is developed with a two-story, mixed -use building (23,000 gross square feet [gsf]) that was built in 1959. The building houses the Peninsula Museum of Art and Sutter Health. A portion of the western part of the building (10,000 gsf) was built in 1970. This addition is on the western part of the building. Approximately 92 employees currently work at the Project site, which includes a surface parking lot with approximately 107 parking spaces for employees and others. Access to the site is provided from Trousdale Drive, California Drive, and a frontage road along El Camino Real. A minimal amount of landscape vegetation is found on the Project site. On January 7, 2019, the City of Burlingame (City) adopted its Envision Burlingame Draft General Plan (2040 General Plan), which updated the previous general plan, including the vision, goals, policies, and land use designations, to provide direction through 2040. The Project site is within the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) land use designation. According to the 2040 General Plan, the NBMU land use designation creates a high -intensity development node within walking distance of the Millbrae multimodal transit station. Some of the permitted uses for the NBMU land use designation include retail, office, and high -density residential uses.2 ' For the purpose of describing the Project site, El Camino Real is assumed to run in a north -south direction and Trousdale Drive in an east -west direction. 2 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame General Plan. City Council Hearing Draft. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/departments/planning/general-plan-update.php. Accessed: February 10, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-1 ICF 00096.20 �i r� ancisco atio al port r, fl� c Project Location A'� YAI4� F•pS 15(151011 Cr �y v MARIN 01 \ Cy v COUNTY Novato / 35 y O � QSan Rafael Rich v157A pq E 2 80 ` Sf)L'11C'eI" San like Francisco Pro 4� HILLSBORO ' GH Ec San Mateo + �Pc Redwood 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet N Men Mol 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Mile SAN 4SAN Base Map: US Topo 7.5' series quadrangles y MATE( San Mateo, CA and Montara Mountain, CA (2015). rouNT J4 1Z 4� r ghCj'rC0 Bay r COUANO s�. COUNTY 1 SAN Concord 4 JOAQUIN COUNTY Walnut Creek CONTRA COSTA 680 COUNTY Livermore Hayward Pleasanton lion 84 Fremont ALAMEDA COUNTY SANTA CLARA nta Clara COUNTY �..L,..., San Jose Figure 1 Project Location 1766 El Camino Real Project City of Burlingame Project Description The City of Burlingame Municipal Code (Municipal Code) was updated to include a new zoning designation, North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU), which implements the 2040 General Plan NBMU designation (see Chapter 25.40). The Project site is within the NBMU zoning designation. The NBMU zone is a transit -oriented development district that accommodates housing at progressively higher densities, based on the level of community benefit provided, with the goal of ensuring that new development adds value for all residents in the city. Although an NBMU Specific Plan has not yet been approved for this area, development projects within this zone must fulfill specific interim standards, which will eventually comply with future specific plan policies.3 Development projects fall into one of three categories, or tiers, ranging from Base Standard Intensity (Tier 1) to Maximum Intensity (Tier 3). The Project is proposed as a Tier 3 project. Tier 3 projects within this zone may reach a maximum of nine stories, or 100 feet. Such projects fulfill specific open space and development standard thresholds as well as community benefit objectives. Within this area, developments must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the curb along the front (El Camino Real), 10 feet on the sides, and 20 feet at the rear. In addition, developments are subject to streetscape frontage standards, which require at least 60 percent of the structure (along Trousdale Drive) to be located at the streetscape frontage line. Project Components Proposed Building The Project would demolish the two-story, mixed -use building on -site and other features, such as paving and landscaping, and construct a seven -story, mixed -use building with retail space (7,588 gsf), office space (148,057 gsf), 60 residential units (83,870 gsf), and 385 parking spaces. Together, Project development would total approximately 239,515 gsf. Of the proposed 60 residential units, 45 would be one -bedroom units, 12 would be two -bedroom units, and three would be three -bedroom units. A total of three units (5 percent of the total units) would be below -market -rate (BMR) units for low-income households that do not earn more than 80 percent of the average median income (AMI). The proposed building would be 95 feet ta11,4 which would be within the maximum height allowed for Tier 3 projects within the NBMU zone. Figures 2 through 4 are floor plans for the building. Figure 5 is a preliminary schematic design; the height of the building is indicated in the figure. Parking would be provided in two below -grade levels, as shown in Figure S. The below -grade parking structure would reach a depth of 23 feet. In addition, parking would be provided at ground level within a surface parking lot that connects the Project site to California Drive. In total, the two below -grade levels and the surface parking lot would provide 385 parking spaces, 118 of which would be provided through the use of mechanical stackers, a semi -automatic lift -and -slide system. The applicant is proposing a City of Burlingame Zoning Code (Zoning Code) amendment to reduce the office parking ratio within the NBMU zone from 1:300 square feet (so to 1:400 sf. With the Zoning Code amendment and a 20 percent 3 City of Burlingame. 2019. North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone -Interim Standards. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/North%20Burlingame%20MU%20Zone_Adopted_O 1-07-19.pdf. Accessed: February 10, 2020. 4 Measured to the top of the penthouse. The building is 89.5 feet tall when measured to the top of the parapet. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-3 ICF 00096.20 I N I .// PARKINC _�.■rrrrriii► _ � O -IO __�.■Now M■NNNnn■Nrrrnl. SOON llllililI �G■rrrrrrrrrrxNlF�Trxrrrrrrrrllxr\- • 4�i�i�i�i�i444�i�i�i�i _ • �N �N■INNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNr1NIII.�■■■► ---rv_ ■'`_ I II'Ir�Il�� I I II�II'u , �mmN11I ,-I�-Ij� �oorooe =._r.rz "l1"'1I ■EN,r_--n111'1n;Il� i■i■i irrr �xlr--------------------- �'aorr-"l,-I-l1I r- !r■ :-.rl �x1 — — • Nr■ IINII IIr1 L rr�lr ijjll 3532 SF RESIDENTIAL NNIIx IIrG1 LOBBY, • irrc��l lrx 4660 SF O lirr ° 00 II Kr1� Sol ■II III'- I I III In I I■■■ 44 - - • - • • it n IEm 41 •R ■•- 0 SIF I�n •• I� IU.I I�nl ■■■ ,mom NNI. � Ili�l li■rl I■■■ Solt I:xL. IINr1 • • rr I,xr1 1 • - _ ° ■■ INIICOMMERCIAL • rr Ilxrl. 4240 SIF 1 ■■ IINGIJ ME r■IIrNr --IIN-n--Ir=i_-'lxl----INNNI=fi�NNN��ml��ir=rlrL:NEEV�-`..IN���NNI��1... u■ �onsiolloo^���mm°SONOo l .■ 1 B-t -71 IKKIE PARNG 1014 SF LOF ICE EA CE ING 131 SF I I I BIKEIDOG WASH 917 SF I I 1 I I I 1BR 1034 SF 1BR 815 SF I 1BR 1BIR 853 SF MECH ME 213 SF 213 TRASH O 343 SF I i I I COMMERCIAL 3348 SF +23.0' JIIT I I P F 1 :I 24 — •• f + + + ON WAY + + + i I I I I I •I I I /� I I I EE I E i \ I/ \L 1 1 I I I I I 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'-6" 27'-6" I 27'-6" 1 19'-0" 1 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'-6" 10'-0" 16 0 16 32 Feet Source: Certosa 2019 \1/ Figure 2 NOW — Project Site Plan —Ground Floor �ICF 1766 El Camino Real Project N I I I I 10 16 0 16 32 N H - - T -�- - - - t - - + _ _----------- II ----- Feet N "�_---" "_�-------- ---------------- Source: G f --' Certosa 2019 O � I I _"--f' I I I I I I I I, (,A�. 8 � I'II1 OFFICE 2858 SF ,. o fl OFFICE 0 4464 SF "291 SF OFFICE 3132 SF 0 S III D- I CORE+CORRI OR I I I I I� 70 b M 1 FI l a. D8S QCr EMALE TOILET MALE TOILETS p 'IJ_T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p I I OFFICE 4070 SF OFFICE OFFICE 3980 SF 3980 SF I I OFFI E 4.9 SF I I 525.5 SF 525.5 SF _ I N '-- -- I I I I I I 19'-0" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'-6" - 5'-6° 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Figure 3 7ICF Project Site Plan —Office Floors 1766 El Camino Real Project I I i I I I I I I I I I L IIy I {II N I I 2BR 2BR 1 1229 SF 1229 SF O '16'-0" —��1 16'-0"I - - 88 SF 88 SF - - - - - - - - - � I j I O 2BR 2BR 1 1166SF 1168 SF 1BR 1BR 00 - 900 SF 898 SIF j j 13 'rI 1 III I I DEC K I I is 1 5-6' 0 1 6 41 1BR j T044S 1 11 892SF 16R 11'L3" 1 11'13'• 16R 1 0 _i 1 s 898 SF 2BR 898 SF I , I 1 1300 SF 4 62 F 11 , 6 S I I 1 30- 808 SF O +CORRIDOR 1 4915 SF 1BR 1BR LOUNGE X1BR 1BR 1BR y N �-i s 1 O 732 SF 1798 SIF 1 945 SF 1 798 SF 732 SF 0 1 868 SIF 1 N I' � o I 16R ' ' 892 SF — — — — — — ITOILET TOILET 1 11 1BR 1 '' 847 SIF I � I I O 3BR 1BR 1BR 1BR 1BR 1BR 1BR 1BR 1 1 1 1477 S 1 717 SF 859 SF 1 863 SF 1 889 SF 1 863 SF 1 859 SF 827 SF 1 1 I I I I \ \ 168 SF .I _i 160 SF - - - - o iBR 2BR O 131 SF 1 130 SF 131 SF 160 SIF 1 1 665 SF 1 1089 SF 1 1 ---- -- __ 1 N 29- _i 132 SF 173 SF 29'-7, ------------------ 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" I 27'-611 -I Figure 4 7ICF Project Site Plan —Sixth Floor 1766 El Camino Real Project 2 MAX +109-0"(+22.53AVG. CURB HEIGHT) __________ ________ _______________________________ PARAPETII- +89'-T __________- ROOF a +84'-8" RABI UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT AS LEVEL 7 Z +74'-10" UNIT OR. EL. ELE TOR EL5 R EL CUR UNIT AS UNIT UNIT MECH LOUNGE MECH UNIT UNIT AS LEVEL 6 UNIT COR EL. +65'-0" ELE TOR ELE TOR EL COR UNIT AS OFFICE ELEV. ELEV. LOBBY ELEV. OFFICE PAST OFFICE ELE TOR ELE TOR OFFICE LEVELS Z +52'-6' AS OFFICE ELEV. ELEV. LOBBY ELEV. OFFICE RAST OFFICE EE TOR ELE TOR OFFICE [I N LEVEL +40'-C" TROUSDALE OFFICE AS ELE TOR OFFICE ELEV. ELEV. LOBBY ELEV. OFFICE RAS OFFICE LEVEL 3 +27'-6" ELE TOR AS OFFICE ELEV. ELEV. LOBBY ELEV. OFFICE AS OFFICE LEVEL 2 +15'-0" ELE TOR ELE TOR OFFICE RASF. MAIL ROOM OFFICE LOBBY ELEV. ELEV. LOBBY ELEV. OFFICE LOBBY RETAIL AS RETAIL TRASH LEVEL 1 ±0" (+23') ELEI ITON ELE TOR TRASH MECH LEVEL 1 ±0' (+23') J PARKING ELEV. PARKING ELEV. PARKING AS LEVEL B1� 13'-0'LEVEL AVC PARKING LEVEL B1 Q-13'-0' ELE TOR ELE TOR PARKING ELEV- PARKING ELEV. PARKING AS B2 Q-23'-C" -ELE TOR - ELE TOR- PARKING LEVEL B2�23-d' 16 0 16 32 Feet MAX +LW-0" (+22.53' AVG. CURB HEIGHT) _______________________________________________________________ a PARAPET +89'-0' ROOF +84'-8•' LEVEL 7 +74'-10" UNIT COR UNIT LEVEL +65'-0.. ELEV. ELEV LOUNGE COR UNIT LEVELS +52'-6' OFFICE ELEV ELEV OFFICE `j LEVEL 4 TROUSDALE---4+40`°------------------- OFFICE ELEV -- ELEV --- OFFICE ------- m EL CAMINO LEVEL +27'-6" OFFICE ELEV. ELEV OFFICE LEVEL 2 +15'1Y' OFFICE ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. OFFICE LEVEL 1 Q±p" 1+ _)-- RESIDENPAL LOBBY ELEV. ELEV ELEV. OFFICE LOBBY LEVEL 1 +22.53' PARKING ELEV ELEV ELEV -- PARKING AVG.) FLEVEL -1'-0" PARKING ELEV. ELEV- ELEV PARKING S-23'-0" 16 0 16 32 Feet Figure 5 CF Project Site Plan —Project Sections 1766 El Camino Real Project City of Burlingame Project Description reduction, after implementing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan (see below), the required number of parking spaces would be 367.5 The Project, with 385 parking spaces, would fulfill the parking requirements. The ground floor of the proposed building would include an office lobby, a residential lobby, fitness center, commercial spaces, bicycle parking, a public plaza, and four one -bedroom units. Levels two through five of the building would include areas for office uses. Levels six and seven would include additional residential units. Level six would also include a deck and lounge for residents. Access and Circulation The Project would include three driveway access points. First, vehicles accessing the underground parking lot would use a ramp to the garage on the south side of El Camino Real. Second, vehicles would be able to access the Project site from the driveway off California Drive, which would lead vehicles to a surface parking lot and an access point to the below -grade parking garage. Third, the Project would include a dedicated driveway off Trousdale Drive, which would lead to a circular driveway where three parking spaces for visitors would be provided at the turnaround point. This circular driveway would include a drop-off area for residents of the building. In addition, there would be a drop-off area on El Camino Real. Figure 2 shows the access locations on the Project site. Transportation Demand Management TDM measures would be implemented as a part of the Project to reduce the number of single -occupant vehicle trips generated by the Project. TDM measures are identified in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), which is included in Appendix A. Proposed TDM measures include the following: • Provide secure bicycle storage for residents • Subsidize transit tickets for employees • Operate a commuter assistance center • Install an online alternative -transportation kiosk • Survey employees to examine use and best practices • Implement an alternative -hour workweek program The total number of parking spaces (367) was calculated as follows: 69 spaces would be required for the residential component of the Project 45 spaces for the one -bedroom units (45 units x 1.0 space = 45 spaces) 18 spaces for the two -bedroom units (12 units x 1.5 space = 18 spaces) 6 spaces for the three -bedroom units (3 units x 2.0 spaces = 6 spaces) 19 spaces would be required for the retail component of the Project; requirement is one parking space per 400 gsf of retail (7,588 sf of retail space/400 gsf = 19 spaces) 370 spaces would be required for the office component of the Project, considering the proposed Zoning Code amendment, which calls for one parking space per 400 gsf of office (148,057 gsf of office space/400 gsf = 370 spaces) Total (without TDM plan) is 69 + 19 + 370 = 458 spaces Implementation of the TDM plan would reduce the parking requirement by 20 percent, as follows: 367 spaces = 458 - (458 x 20 percent) 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-8 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Project Description Provide on -site amenities that encourage people to stay on the site during the workday, including a fitness center, bike/dog wash, and dog play/artificial turf area • Implement sidewalk improvements and a pedestrian plaza to make roads and streets more pedestrian and bicycle friendly • Install and maintain safety and security systems for pedestrians and bicyclists, including enhanced crosswalks with bulb -outs, street lighting, and Americans with Disabilities Act - compliant ramps Design, Landscaping, and Open Space The proposed building's exterior would feature a glass curtain wall for the office uses and a combination curtain wall/window wall for the residential units. The proposed building would also include balconies for both office and residential uses. The ground level would include various paving materials, including porcelain and stone tiles. Seating areas included on the ground floor would be made of concrete and/or wood. Building massing would be articulated with breaks along the El Camino Real frontage to reduce the scale of this longer facade. Figure 6 is a visual rendering of the Project. During Project construction, existing landscaping and vegetation would be removed, including 24 trees. The species of trees to be removed include eucalyptus, gingko, evergreen pear, cherry, maple, Monterey pine, and palm trees. Of the 24 trees, seven trees have a circumference greater than 48 inches and are considered private protected trees under Municipal Code Section 11.06.020. Landscaping would be included throughout the Project site (e.g., at the public plaza along El Camino Real, along the Trousdale Drive frontage, at the rear of the residential turn -around, on the residential deck, and in front of the at -grade parking off California Drive). Project landscaping would include grasses, shrubs, succulents, and trees. Planting materials would be drought -tolerant species. The Project would plant a total of 26 new trees on the site. In total, the Project would provide 18,703 sf of landscaped areas, consistent with the requirements of NBMU zoning. The Project would include a combination of common and private open space, totaling 36,064 sf. Private open space for the residents of the building would be included in the private gardens on the ground level and on the balconies on the sixth and seventh floors, totaling 5,876 sf. Private open space for the offices would be provided on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the building, totaling 6,441 sf. Public open space would be provided on the ground floor, totaling 17,622 sf. Exterior Lighting Lighting would be designed to meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 18.16.030, which would prevent light spillage off -site, and comply with the City Exterior Illumination Ordinance. Pedestrian - scale safety lighting would be included within the proposed public plaza as well as street lighting with a minimum intensity of 0.5 foot candle6 on the surrounding sidewalks. 6 Foot candles are used to measure light intensity. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-9 ICF 00096.20 I11®���ill! •4� _ _ ___ �L I�I���ill11 l �,� �11�1Y111111 Source: Certosa 2019 Figure 6 Visual Rendering **ICF 1766 El Camino Real Project City of Burlingame Utilities Project Description The Burlingame Public Works Department provides water and wastewater services at the Project site. Existing sewer lines, storm drains, and water lines are located within El Camino Real, Trousdale Drive, and California Drive. The Project would be required to submit a sewer, water, and storm drain study. Any impacts generated as a result of the Project would require the Project to upgrade existing infrastructure or contribute toward its pro -rated share of the impact. In addition, the Project would be required to install storm drain inlets at the curb face to intercept surrounding storm runoff from the public streets (i.e., the frontage road and Trousdale Drive) and connect to the main storm drain on Trousdale Drive. Stormwater runoff from the rooftop and plaza would be collected and directed to a cistern. Stormwater runoff from the sidewalk would be treated in stormwater planters at bulb -outs or behind the curb. The Project would include an antenna on the roof of the building to ensure uninterrupted police communications; the antenna for the police radio system would be a fiberglass pole (approximately 18 inches tall). A microwave dish (approximately 20 inches in diameter), an equipment rack (approximately 60 inches tall by 32 inches wide by 32 inches deep), and a dedicated electrical circuit would also be installed. The Burlingame Police Department would have 24/7 access to these features for maintenance purposes. Employees The Project would generate a need for approximately 740 to 985 employees within the office space and approximately 20 to 30 employees for the retail component.? Construction The proposed construction methods are considered conceptual and subject to review and approval by the City. For the purposes of this environmental document, the analysis considers the construction plan described below. Construction Schedule and Phasing The Project would consist of six construction phases, which may occur at the same time or overlap. Table 1 identifies the six phases, the start and end dates for the phases, and the number of workdays required for each phase. As shown in Table 1, construction is expected to conclude in March 2023, lasting approximately 733 workdays. The longest construction phase, building construction, would last approximately 288 workdays. 7 These estimates are based on the occupancy requirements set by the 2019 Building Code and the market densities for office uses. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.11 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Project Description Table 1. Construction Schedule and Duration Phase Start Date End Date Number of Workdays Demolition 01/01/2021 05/01/2021 Site Preparation 05/01/2021 10/01/2021 Grading 10/01/2021 02/01/2022 Building Construction 02/01/2022 03/01/2023 :: 112 90 288 Paving 01/01/2023 03/01/2023 43 Architectural Coating 10/01/2022 03/01/2023 111 Total 733 Construction would occur during the hours allowed by Municipal Code Section 18.07.110, specifically: • Weekdays: 8:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. • Saturdays: 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. • Sunday and Holidays: No construction Construction Spoils and Debris The Project would require demolition of a building and on -site features. The Project would generate 2,000 cubic yards of building debris, approximately 60 percent of which would be recycled. The debris would be disposed of at a permitted landfill. Specifically, all non -contaminated soil and debris would be hauled to the Zanker waste management facility in San Jose (32 miles from the Project site). In addition, one truck trip would be needed to haul potentially contaminated soil to Kettleman City (202 miles from the site). Haul trucks traveling from the Zanker waste management facility would enter State Route 237 from Los Esteros Road, merge onto U.S. 101 south, exit at Broadway, turn right onto California Drive, turn left onto Trousdale Drive, then turn left onto El Camino Real to access the Project site. The route from the Project site to the Zanker waste management facility would be the same, only in reverse. Haul trucks would be required to make approximately 98 one-way trips to dispose of demolition materials. The Project would require soil excavation. This would generate approximately 105,000 tons of excavated material, requiring approximately 10,382 one-way truck trips. The Project would implement the following best management practices (BMPs) related to building and demolition materials: • Use building materials that are at least 10 percent local • Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition material Construction Equipment and Staging Typical equipment would be used during Project construction, including an excavator, dump truck, backhoe, drill rig, tie -back rig, bulldozer, compactor, tower crane, and man lift. Potential construction laydown and staging areas would be within the Project site. There would be no pile driving during Project construction; however, some pier drilling would be required. In addition, because the below -grade parking would be 23 feet below grade, excavation is anticipated to reach depths of 28 to 30 feet. Because of the depth of excavation, the site would be dewatered prior to excavation. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-12 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Construction Employment Project Description The size of the construction workforce would vary during the different phases of construction. The average number of construction workers per day would be approximately 34, and the maximum number of construction workers on a peak day would be approximately 50, which would occur during the building construction phase. Project Approvals Chapter 1, Background, identifies the approvals required by the Project. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.13 ICF 00096.20 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below could be affected by the 1766 El Camino Real Project (Project) (i.e., the Project would involve at least one impact that would be a "potentially significant impact"), as indicated by the checklists on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural and Forestry ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ ® Geology/Sails ® Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ ® Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ ❑ Recreation ® Transportation ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Wildfire Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: Air Quality Energy Hazards/Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Tribal Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ 1 find that the Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that, although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 find that the Project MAY have an impact on the environment that is "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," 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 he addressed. ❑ 1 find that although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated, pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Project, nothing further is required. Printed Name July 15, 2020 Date July 15, 2020 For 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3_1 ICF00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Introduction This section identifies the environmental impacts of the Project by answering questions from Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The environmental issues evaluated in this chapter include: • Aesthetics • Agricultural and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Energy • Geology/Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Hydrology/Water Quality • Land Use/Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population/Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation • Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities/Service Systems • Wildfire • Mandatory Findings of Significance The analysis in this document considers all phases of Project planning, construction, implementation, and operation. Pursuant to Section 15063(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the document identifies the Project's environmental setting and discusses its environmental effects. For each impact identified, a level of significance is determined, using the following classifications: • Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant or the established threshold has been exceeded. When a determination of "potentially significant impact" is made, an environmental impact report (EIR) may be required. • Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from "potentially significant impact" to "less -than - significant impact." Mitigation measures are prescribed to reduce the effect to a less -than - significant level. • Less than Significant applies when the Project would affect or be affected by the environment, but based on sources cited in the report, the impact would not have an adverse effect and would not exceed the established thresholds. • No Impact denotes situations in which there is no adverse effect on the environment. Referenced sources show that the impact does not apply to the Project. • Not a CEQA Impact applies to impacts related to the environment that would affect the Project. Pursuant to the recent Supreme Court case decision in the California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District case, CEQA does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions would affect a Project's residents or users, unless the Project would exacerbate those conditions. Therefore, when discussing impacts of the environment on the Project, the analysis first determines if the potential exists for the Project to exacerbate the issue. If evidence indicates that it would not, then the analysis concludes by stating such. If it could exacerbate the issue, then evidence is provided to determine if the exacerbation would or would not be significant. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.2 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist I. Aesthetics and Vehicular Parking Analysis In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21099, Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit -Oriented Projects, aesthetics and parking shall not be considered in determining if a project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects, provided the project meets the following criteria: a. The project is on an infill site b. The project is in a Transit Priority Area (TPA)$ c. The project is a residential, mixed -use residential, or employment -center use "Infill sites" include lots within a previously disturbed urban area. The Project site is within a qualifying infill site that is currently developed with a two-story, mixed -use building and a parking lot. Project implementation would involve demolishing the building and replacing it with a seven -story, mixed -use residential building. Therefore, the Project fulfills the criteria regarding infill sites and mixed -use residential uses. In addition, the Project site is approximately 0.45 mile from the Millbrae multimodal transit station, which provides Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and other transit and shuttle services. The Millbrae multimodal transit station is considered a major transit stop; therefore, the Project site is within a TPA. The Project meets the three criteria above; therefore, this document does not consider aesthetics or parking in determining the significance of impacts under CEQA. 8 A TPA is an area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-3 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts on forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forestland, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use ❑ or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning ❑ of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned for timberland production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g])? d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of ❑ forestland to non -forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ that, because of their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or the conversion of forestland to non -forest use? Setting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ /1 /1 // // ID The Project site is fully developed with an office building and a surface parking lot. The California Department of Conservation 2018 map of important farmland identifies the city of Burlingame, including the Project site, as Urban and Built-up Land. The city of Millbrae, approximately 0.2 mile north of the Project site, is also identified as Urban and Built-up Land.9 9 California Department of Conservation. 2019. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2018. Division of Land Resource Protection: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2018/smtl8.pdf. Accessed: March 27, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-4 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Discussion Environmental Checklist 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? (No Impact) No Impact. The Project site and all surrounding lands are identified as Urban and Built-up Land by the California Department of Conservation. No important farmland, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, exists within or adjacent to the Project site.10 There is therefore no potential for the Project to result in the conversion of important farmland to non- agricultural uses, and there would be no impact. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) No Impact. The Project site is in the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU) zone, which does not allow agricultural land uses. Accordingly, no agricultural land, including agricultural land under a Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone contract, currently exists at the Project site.11 Therefore, the Project would not result in a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and there would be no impact. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned for timberland production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g])? (No Impact) No Impact. The site is not zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland production.12 Therefore, the Project would not conflict with zoning for such land, and accordingly, there would be no impact. d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non forest use? (No Impact) No Impact. As described above, there is no forestland within the Project site.13 Therefore, the Project would not convert such land to an alternative use, and accordingly, there would be no impact. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, because of their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forestland to non forest use? (No Impact) No Impact. Other changes in the existing environment that, because of their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forestland to non - forest use could include actions that would affect livestock on Farmland of Local Importance or actions that would affect forest health. Because there is no livestock at the Project site, there would be no impact 10 California Department of Conservation. 2019. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2018. Division of Land Resource Protection: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2018/smtl8.pdf. Accessed: March 27, 2020. 11 City of Burlingame. 2016. Burlingame General Plan, Zoning. Draft 1. June. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Zoning/ZoningMap-Burlingame-NE.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2020. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3_5 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist related to the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Because there is no forestland at the Project site, there would be no impact related to the conversion of Farmland or forestland to alternative uses. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.6 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist III. Air Quality 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 district 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. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ® ❑ ❑ in any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ® ❑ ❑ concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people? Setting The Project site is in the city of Burlingame in San Mateo County, which is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Concentrations of ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), lead, and particulate matter (PM10 [particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter] and PM2.5 [particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter]) are commonly used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. These pollutants are known as criteria pollutants and regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) through national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), respectively. The NAAQS and CAAQS limit criteria pollutant concentrations to protect human health and prevent environmental and property damage. Other pollutants of concern in the Project area are nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROGs), which are precursors to 03, and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which can cause cancer and other human health concerns. Ambient Criteria Pollutant Conditions and Regional Attainment Status Criteria pollutant concentrations in San Mateo County and the SFBAAB are measured at several monitoring stations. The closest station to the Project site is the Redwood City station, which is approximately 12 miles southeast of the site. However, PM10 is not measured at the Redwood City station; therefore, data from the next -closest station that monitors PM10 (the San Francisco -Arkansas Street station) have been collected as well. Monitoring data in Table 2 show that the monitoring stations near the Project site experienced no violations of CO, NO2, and national PM10 standards between 2016 and 2018, the most recent years with available data. There were two violations of the state 24-hour PM10 standard and six violations of the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2017. There were 13 violations of the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2018. Violations of the 03 and particulate matter ambient air quality standards indicate that exposed individuals may experience certain health effects, including increased incidences of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-7 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 2. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data at the Redwood City and San Francisco -Arkansas Street Monitoring Stations (2016-2018) Pollutant Standards 2016 2017 2018 Ozone (Oa) at Redwood City station Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.075 0.115 0.067 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.060 0.086 0.049 Fourth highest 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.056 0.055 0.048 Number of days standard exceeded CAAQS 1-hour standard (> 0.09 ppm) 0 2 0 CAAQS 8-hour standard (> 0.070 ppm) 0 2 0 NAAQS 8-hour standard (> 0.070 ppm) 0 2 0 Particulate Matter (PM10) at San Francisco -Arkansas Street station Maximum state 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 29.0 77.0 43.0 Maximum national 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 35.7 75.9 40.9 National annual average concentration 8.8 11.0 10.0 Measured number of days standard exceeded CAAQS 24-hour standard (50 µg/m3) 0 2 0 NAAQS 24-hour standard (150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide (CO) at Redwood City station Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.1 1.4 1.7 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 2.2 2.8 2.5 Number of days standard exceeded NAAQS 8-hour standard (> 9 ppm) 0 0 0 CAAQS 8-hour standard (> 9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 NAAQS 1-hour standard (> 35 ppm) 0 0 0 CAAQS 1-hour standard (> 20 ppm) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) at Redwood City station Maximum state 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 19.5 60.8 120.9 Maximum national 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 19.5 60.8 120.9 National annual average concentration 8.3 9.0 10.5 Measured number of days standard exceeded NAAQS 24-hour standard (> 35 µg/m3) 0 6 13 Nitrogen Dioxide (NOz) from Redwood City station Maximum state 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.045 0.067 0.077 Annual average concentration (ppm) 0.009 0.010 0.010 Number of days standard exceeded CAAQS 1-hour standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0 NAAQS 1-hour standard (0.100 ppm) 0 0 0 Sources: California Air Resources Board. 2018. iADAM. Air Quality Data Statistics. Top 4 Summary. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourl.php. Accessed: April 2020. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Monitor Values Report. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report. Accessed: April 2020. Notes: CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards; NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter An exceedance is not necessarily a violation. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-8 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Pollutant Standards 2016 2017 2018 State statistics are based on local conditions data. In addition, state statistics are based on California -approved samplers. National statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, national statistics are based on samplers, using federal reference or equivalent methods. State criteria for ensuring that the data are adequate for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria. Local monitoring data are used to designate areas as nonattainment, maintenance, attainment, or unclassified areas, according to the ambient air quality standards. San Mateo County is currently classified as a nonattainment area for the federal and state Os and PM2.5 standards and a nonattainment area for the state PM1O standard.14, is Regulatory Setting The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for ensuring that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met within the SFBAAB. BAAQMD manages air quality through a comprehensive program that includes long-term planning, regulations, incentives for technical innovation, education, and community outreach. The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides an integrated strategy to reduce Os, particulate matter, TACs, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a manner that is consistent with federal and state air quality programs and regulations. BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines provide guidance for evaluating air quality impacts. The guidelines also contain thresholds of significance for Os, CO, PM2.5, PM1O, TACs, and odors.16 As stated in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make checklist determinations. Accordingly, BAAQMD's thresholds, as outlined in its CEQA Guidelines and summarized in Table 3, are used to evaluate the significance of air quality impacts associated with the Project, as described below. Criteria Air Pollutants BAAQMD's significance thresholds, as shown in Table 3, for criteria pollutants (ROGs, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) are based on the stationary -source emissions limits of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2. The federal New Source Review program, created by the federal CAA, set emissions limits to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed in a manner that is consistent with attainment of the NAAQS. Similarly, to ensure that new stationary sources do not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2, requires any new source that emits criteria air pollutants, above specified emissions limits, to offset those emissions. Although the emission limits are adopted in the regulation to control stationary -source emissions, the amount of the emission is the key determining factor, regardless of source, when addressing public health impacts of 14 California Air Resources Board. 2018a. Area Designation Maps/State and National. October. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed: April 2020. 15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. NonattainmentAreas for Criteria Pollutants. Available: https://www.epa.gov/green-book. Accessed: April 2020. 16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/ cega_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-9 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction Operations ROGs 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day or 10 tons/year NOx 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day or 10 tons/year CO — Violation of CAAQS PM10 (exhaust) 82 pounds/day 82 pounds/day or 15 tons/year PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day or 10 tons/year PM10/PM2.5 (dust) Best management practices — TACs (project level) Increased cancer risk of 10.0 in 1 million, Same as construction increased non -cancer risk more than 1.0 (hazard index), PM2.5 increase more than 0.3 microgram per cubic meter TACs (cumulative) Increased cancer risk of 100 in 1 million, Same as construction increased non -cancer risk more than 10.0, PM2.5 increase more than 0.8 microgram per cubic meter at receptors within 1,000 feet Odors — Five complaints per year, averaged over 3 years Sources: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental QualityAct: Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ cega-guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2020. Notes: CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards; CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxide; PM 2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter; ROGs = reactive organic gases; TACs = toxic air contaminants regional criteria pollutants. Therefore, the emissions limits are appropriate for the evaluation of land use development and construction activities, as well as stationary sources. Those projects that would result in emissions that would be below the thresholds would not be considered projects that would contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation or result in a considerable net increase in criteria pollutant emissions. Note that the federal New Source Review emissions limits and BAAQMD's offset limits are identified in the regulation on an annual basis (in tons per year). For construction activities, the limits are converted to average daily emissions (in pounds per day), as shown in Table 3, because of the short-term and intermittent nature of construction activities. If emissions would not exceed average daily emissions limits, the Project would not exceed annual levels. Localized CO Hot Spots BAAQMD's screening guide for CO impacts requires projects to meet three criteria to result in a less - than -significant impact: 1. Be consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. Not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-10 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist 3. 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., a tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below -grade roadway). If the Project does not meet all of the screening criteria, then CO emissions should be quantified using EMFAC and CALINE4 to determine CO concentrations near affected roadways or facilities. Project CO concentrations plus background concentrations would then be compared against the 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS thresholds of significance to determine whether there would be a significant impact on air quality. Toxic Air Contaminants BAAQMD's TAC thresholds are based on the cancer and non -cancer risk limits for the new and modified sources adopted in BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, and EPA's significant impact level (SIL) for PM2.5 concentrations. The EPA SIL is a measure of whether a source may cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. Health risks due to TACs from construction, though temporary, can still result in substantial public health impacts because of increased cancer and non -cancer risks. Applying quantitative thresholds allows a rigorous standardized method to be used to determine when a construction project will cause a significant increase in cancer and non -cancer risks. The cumulative health risk thresholds are based on EPA guidance for conducting TAC analyses and making risk management decisions at the facility and community levels. The cumulative health risk thresholds are also consistent with the ambient cancer risk in the most pristine portions of the Bay Area and based on BAAQMD's recent regional modeling analysis as well as the non -cancer mandatory risk reduction levels for hot spots with toxic air.17 For evaluation purposes, TACs are separated into carcinogens and non -carcinogens, based on the nature of the physiological effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur; cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per 1 million exposed individuals, typically over a lifetime of exposure. Non -carcinogenic substances differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure, below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant -by -pollutant basis. Acute and chronic exposure to non -carcinogens is expressed as a hazard index, which is the ratio of expected exposure levels to an acceptable reference exposure level.18 BAAQMD's TAC thresholds are presented in Table 3 and used to support the health risk assessment for the Project. Odors The odor threshold is consistent with BAAQMD Regulation 7 for odorous substances and reflects the most stringent standards derived from the air district rule. 17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2009. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update: Proposed Thresholds of Significance. December. Available: https://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning- and-research/ceqa/proposed-thresholds-of-significance-dec-7-09.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2020. 18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. California Environmental QualityAct Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ cega_guidelines_may20l7-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-11 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Discussion a, Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than Significant) The CAA requires a State Implementation Plan (SIP) or an air quality control plan to be prepared for areas with air quality that violates the NAAQS. The SIP sets forth the strategies and pollution control measures that states use to attain the NAAQS. The California CAA requires attainment plans to demonstrate a 5 percent reduction per year in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive 3-year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. Air quality attainment plans (AQAPs) outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date. The current AQAP for the SFBAAB is the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Projects that result in regional growth in population, employment, or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that exceeds the estimates used to develop the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which are based on growth projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and local general plans, would be inconsistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Accordingly, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by ABAG and local general plans would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As described below in Section XI, Land Use and Planning, the Project would be generally consistent with the goals and policies of the 2040 General Plan. In addition, the Project would develop land uses that would be consistent with the land uses permitted for the area under the 2040 General Plan. Because the Project's land uses are accounted for in the 2040 General Plan, the Project would be consistent with the growth anticipated in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The Project would be within 0.5 mile of high -quality public transit, including Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans bus routes. Furthermore, to be consistent with the City of Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan (Climate Action Plan) (see Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the Project would incorporate transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that would achieve a 20 percent reduction in trip generation rates. Therefore, no significant increase in traffic is anticipated with Project implementation. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan; this impact would be less than significant b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) To assist lead agencies in determining whether a project would exceed the criteria air pollutant significance thresholds shown in Table 3, BAAQMD developed screening criteria as part of its CEQA Guidelines. In developing these thresholds, BAAQMD considered the levels at which a project's emissions become cumulatively considerable. As noted in its CEQA Guidelines: In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts on the region's existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. Consequently, exceedances of project -level thresholds would be cumulatively considerable. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-12 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Construction Environmental Checklist Construction criteria pollutant emissions would come from a variety of sources, including off -road construction equipment and on -road vehicles used by employees, vendors, and truck drivers. Criteria pollutant emissions generated during demolition of the building and construction of the Project were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2. CaIEEMod was run with model default values for some construction parameters and supplemented with data provided by the applicant for other construction parameters. The six phases of construction, in sequential order, are demolition, site preparation, grading, architectural coatings, building construction, and paving. Estimated unmitigated construction emissions would be short term, occurring over approximately 26 months. Table 4 summarizes the results of the emissions modeling. Model outputs are provided in Appendix B. Table 4. Estimated Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Construction (pounds per day) Construction Year ROGs NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust 2021 2022 2023 8 25 27 110 36 16 68 30 12 15 12 1 3 2 < 1 7 7 < 1 3 1 < 1 Maximum 27 110 68 15 3 7 3 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 — BMPs 82 BMPs 54 Exceed Threshold? No Yes — — No — No BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BMPs = best management practices; CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxide; PM 2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter; ROGs= reactive organic gases As shown in Table 4, construction of the Project would result in emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD threshold for NOx but not any other pollutant. The exceedance of the NOx threshold is caused by exhaust emissions generated by on -site off -road equipment (e.g., excavators, backhoes, bulldozers) and off -site truck trips (e.g., to haul construction material). These emissions, if left unmitigated, could contribute to the ground -level formation of ozone in the SFBAAB, which, at certain concentrations, could contribute to short- and long-term human health effects. San Mateo County does not currently attain the NAAQS or CAAQS for 03. Certain individuals residing in areas that do not meet the ambient air quality standards, including San Mateo County, could be exposed to pollutant concentrations that could cause or aggravate acute and/or chronic health conditions (e.g., asthma). Although construction of the Project would contribute to future NOx emissions, maximum daily construction -generated NOx emissions represent approximately 0.02 percent of total NOx in the SFBAAB.19,2OAs previously discussed, the magnitude and location of any potential change in ambient air quality, and therefore changes in health consequences, from additional emissions cannot be quantified with a high level of certainty because of the dynamic and complex nature of pollutant formation and distribution. However, it is known that public health will continue to be affected in San Mateo County as long as the region fails to attain the NAAQS or CAAQS. In addition, demolition and earthmoving activities would generate fugitive dust. The 19 NOx emissions reported in the Clean Air Plan totaled 300 tons per day. Maximum Project -generated NOx emissions would be 110 pounds per day, which equates to 0.055 ton per day. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. Clean Air Plan 2017. Available: https: //www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2 017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_- proposed-final-cap-vol-l-pdfpdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-13 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist amount of dust generated would be highly variable and dependent on the size of the area disturbed at any given time, the amount of activity, soil conditions, and meteorological conditions. BAAQMD considers fugitive dust emissions to be potentially significant without implementation of BMPs to control fugitive dust on -site. Consequently, dust emissions generated by Project construction activities would be potentially significant. To mitigate the impact from exceedance of the NOx threshold, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the use of EPA -approved Tier 4 "final" engines in off -road equipment during construction. Construction emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 are shown in Table 5. With implementation of this mitigation measure, emissions would be reduced to below the BAAQMD threshold for NOx emissions, and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines consider fugitive dust impacts to be less than significant with application of BMPs. If BMPs are not implemented, then dust impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which includes BMPs, would be implemented to reduce impacts from construction -related fugitive dust emissions, including any cumulative impacts. Mitigated construction emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 are shown in Table 5. With the BMPs, dust emissions would be reduced, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Table S. Estimated Mitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Construction (pounds per day)a Construction Year ROGs NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust 2021 2022 2023 3 25 26 52 6 6 94 26 17 9 6 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 4 3 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 Maximum 26 52 94 9 < 1 4 < 1 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 — BMPs 82 BMPs 54 Exceed Threshold? No No — — No — No BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BMPs = best management practices; CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxide; PM 2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM 10 = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter; ROGs= reactive organic gases a Mitigated emissions account for implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Because construction -related emissions of all criteria pollutants would be below BAAQMD thresholds, construction of the Project would not be expected to contribute a significant level of air pollution such that air quality within the SFBAAB would be degraded. Consequently, the impact from construction - generated criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant with mitigation. Such emissions would not expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or risks. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The applicant shall ensure that all off -road diesel -powered equipment used during construction is equipped with engines that meet EPA Tier 4 "final" emission standards. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD. The emissions reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the following: 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-14 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day. • All haul trucks shall be covered when transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site. • All visible mud or dirt track -out material on adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet -power vacuum -type street sweepers at least once a day. The use of dry -power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks that are to be paved shall be paved as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers' specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible - emissions evaluator. • 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). • Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Operation The criteria pollutant emissions that would be generated during Project operations were quantified using CaIEEMod and EMFAC2017, with anticipated average daily traffic considered. Long-term emissions would be caused primarily by vehicle trips generated by future occupants, with additional emissions from area sources (e.g., cleaning supplies and paint). Stationary -source emissions would be caused by intermittent use of a 275-kilowatt, diesel -powered emergency generator on the roof of the building. The net effect of the Project is determined by evaluating estimated annual operational emissions from the existing land uses to be replaced by the Project's land uses and subtracting them from the Project's estimated annual operational emissions, as summarized in Table 6. The Project's net estimated annual operational emissions are presented in Table 7 and compared to BAAQMD's operational criteria pollutant thresholds. Model outputs are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 7, below, operation of the Project would not generate ROG, NOW or particulate matter in excess of BAAQMD's numeric thresholds. The Project would have a less -than -significant impact on air quality during operation. It would not contribute a significant level of air pollution that would degrade regional air quality within the SFBAAB. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-15 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 6. Existing Land Uses (2020) and Proposed Project (2023) Operational Emissions (pounds per day) PM10 PM2.5 Emission Source ROG NOx CO Dust Exhaust Total Dust Exhaust Total Existing Land Uses Area 1 <1 <1 — <1 <1 0 <1 <1 Energy <1 <1 <1 — <1 <1 0 <1 <1 Mobile 1 1 5 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Stationary — — — 0 — — — — — Total Existing 1 1 5 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Project Conditions Area 6 <1 4 — <1 <1 — <1 <1 Energy <1 <1 <1 — <1 <1 — <1 <1 Mobile 4 6 38 7 < 1 7 1 < 1 2 Stationary 2 6 5 — < 1 < 1 — < 1 < 1 Total Project 12 11 47 7 < 1 7 1 < 1 2 Table 7. Net (Project minus Existing) Operational Emissions (pounds per day) PM10 PM2.5 Emission Source ROG NOx CO Dust Exhaust Total Dust Exhaust Total Area 5 <1 4 — <1 <1 — <1 <1 Energy <1 <1 <1 — <1 <1 — <1 <1 Mobile 3 5 33 6 < 1 6 1 < 1 < 1 Stationary 2 6 5 — < 1 < 1 — < 1 < 1 Total 10 10 41 6 < 1 6 1 < 1 2 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 — — — 82 — — 54 Exceed Threshold? No No — No — — No c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Sensitive land uses are defined as locations where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are located and where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure, according to the averaging period for the air quality standards (i.e., 24 hours, 8 hours). Per BAAQMD, typical sensitive receptors are residences, hospitals, and schools. Parks and playgrounds where sensitive receptors (e.g., children and seniors) are present would also be considered sensitive receptors.21 The nearest sensitive land use is an apartment complex approximately 70 feet southeast of the Project site. All sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of the Project site are listed in Table 8. 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/cega_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-16 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 8. Sensitive Land Uses within 1,000 feet of the Project Site Building Name Address Receptor Type Distance (feet) Direction from Project Unnamed Apartment Complex 1755 California Dr Residential 70 Southeast Burlingame Skilled Nursing 1100 Trousdale Dr Senior care center 80 Northeast Peninsula Pediatric Medical Group 1720 El Camino Real Medical center 190 Southwest Mills -Peninsula Medical Center 1501 Trousdale Dr Medical center 200 West Mills Estate Villa 1733 California Dr Senior care center 240 South Burlingame Pacifica Medical 1828 El Camino Real Medical center 360 North Single -Family Homes Multiple Residential 560 South The Trousdale 1601 Trousdale Dr Senior care center 680 Northwest The primary pollutants of concern with regard to health risks for sensitive receptors are criteria pollutants (including localized CO hot spots), asbestos, diesel particulate matter, and localized PM2.5. Each of these pollutants, including the potential impact on nearby receptors, is analyzed in the paragraphs that follow. Criteria Pollutants As discussed above, BAAQMD has developed region -specific CEQA thresholds of significance in consideration of existing air quality concentrations and attainment designations under the NAAQS and CAAQS. The NAAQS and CAAQS are informed by a wide range of scientific evidence that demonstrates that there are known safe concentrations of criteria pollutants. Although recognizing that air quality is a cumulative problem, BAAQMD considers the impacts of projects that generate criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions that are below the thresholds to be minor in nature. Such projects would not adversely affect air quality or cause the NAAQS or CAAQS to be exceeded. As shown in Table 5, construction of the Project would not generate regional criteria pollutants in excess of BAAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires the use of Tier 4 "final" off -road construction equipment, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires implementation of all feasible dust control measures. As such, construction of the Project would not be expected to contribute a significant level of air pollution that would degrade air quality within the SFBAAB. Consequently, the impact from construction -generated criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant with mitigation. The Project would not expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or risks. As shown in Table 7, operation of the Project would not generate regional criteria pollutants or precursors that would exceed BAAQMD's thresholds of significance. Consequently, the impact from operational criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant. The Project would not expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or risks. Localized CO Hot Spots Continuous engine exhaust may elevate localized CO concentrations, resulting in "hot spots." Receptors who are exposed to these CO hot spots may have a greater likelihood of developing adverse health effects. CO hot spots are typically observed at heavily congested intersections where a substantial number of gasoline -powered vehicles idle for prolonged durations throughout the day. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-17 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Peak -hour traffic volumes at 14 intersections in the Project vicinity were analyzed to determine whether the Project would meet BAAQMD screening criteria. With implementation of the Project, the traffic volume in the PM peak hour at the intersection with the highest volumes, El Camino Real/Millbrae Avenue, would be 5,921 vehicles per hour.22 Maximum traffic volumes at the intersection under all scenarios would be well below the 44,000-vehicle-per-hour screening threshold. Also, intersection traffic volumes under all scenarios would be below the 24,000-vehicle-per-hour screening threshold for areas where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited; therefore, there would be no exceedance of either the non -limited mixing threshold (44,000 vehicles per hour) or the limited vertical/horizontal mixing threshold (24,000 vehicles per hour). The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County is the presiding congestion management agency. Of the 14 intersections analyzed in the Project vicinity, C/CAG has set level -of - service (LOS) standards for two intersections. Both El Camino Real/Millbrae Avenue and El Camino Real/Broadway must operate at or above LOS E.23 These intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS. The additional Project trips24 would not cause the intersections to operate below the standard. Consequently, the Project would be consistent with the applicable congestion management plan and would not result in an exceedance of BAAQMD screening criteria. Furthermore, CO concentrations would not exceed the CAAQS. This impact would be less than significant. Asbestos Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was once used in building construction because of its heat resistance and strong insulating properties. Exposure to asbestos, however, has been shown to cause many disabling or fatal diseases, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and pleural plaques. Demolition of the buildings on the Project site may expose workers and nearby receptors to asbestos if the material was used during construction of the existing building. However, the Project would comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing. The purpose of this rule is to control emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition and building renovation. Because the applicant would be required to control asbestos emissions according to BAAQMD regulations, impacts associated with asbestos emissions would be less than significant. Construction -Generated Diesel Particulate Matter and Localized PM2.5 Cancer health risks associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter are typically associated with chronic exposure (i.e., a 30-year exposure period). BAAQMD has determined that construction activities occurring more than 1,000 feet from a sensitive receptor most likely do not pose a significant health risk. As shown in Table 8, there are sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of the Project site. Accordingly, a health risk assessment (HRA) was undertaken to assess inhalation cancer risks, non -cancer hazard impacts, and PM2.5 concentrations, as recommended in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines. 22 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2020. Trip Generation Analysis for the Proposed Project Located at 1776 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California. 23 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2020. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2019. April. Available: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2019-CMP-Final- 040920.pdf. Accessed: April 2020. 24 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2020. Trip Generation Analysis for the Proposed Project Located at 1776 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3_18 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist During construction activities, diesel particulate matter and PM2.5 exhaust emissions would be generated by heavy-duty off -road equipment as well as on -road vehicles. Fugitive dust emissions would be generated during grading and excavation. The HRA was prepared consistent with guidance from EPA, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and BAAQMD. More specifically, the HRA relied on EPA's most recent dispersion model, AERMOD (version 19191). Calculations of acute and chronic cancer risks relied on the assessment values developed from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's Air Toxics Hot -spots Program, Risk Analysis Guidelines;25 BAAQMD's Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards,26 and BAAQMD's Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.27 Refer to Appendix B for more detailed modeling assumptions and AERMOD outputs. Table 9 presents the health risks for the receptor that would receive the highest concentrations of construction -related diesel particulate matter and PM2.5 and, therefore, the greatest potential health risks from the Project. As shown in Table 9, unmitigated construction emissions would result in a significant increase in the cancer risk as well as annual PM2.5 concentrations at this receptor, although the chronic hazard index would be below BAAQMD's significance thresholds. As shown in Table 10, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce construction emissions. As a result, both the cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations would be below BAAQMD's significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Table 9. Estimated Project -Level Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks from Unmitigated Construction -Related Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions Receptor Cancer Risk (cases per million) Non -Cancer Hazard Index Annual PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Maximally affected residence 58.6 < 0.1 0_7 Significance Threshold 10.0 1.0 0.3 Exceed Threshold? Yes No Yes µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; PM 2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter Exceedances denoted with underline. 25 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot -spots Program, Risk Analysis Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed: April 2020. 26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdPla=en. Accessed: April 2020. 27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2016. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/ permit-modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf. Accessed: April 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-19 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 10. Estimated Project -Level Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks from Mitigated Construction -Related Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions Cancer Risk Non -Cancer Annual PM2.5 (cases per Hazard Concentration Receptor million) Index (µg/m3) Maximally affected residence 5.1 < 0.1 0.2 Significance Threshold 10.0 1.0 0.3 Exceed Threshold? No No No Operational Diesel Particulate Matter and Localized PM2.5 The Project would contribute operational diesel particulate matter from use of the proposed emergency generator. The generator would operate a maximum of 3.25 hours a day during initial load testing and up to 50 hours per year for periodic testing. The hours of operation would be consistent with the testing limit for generators described in CARB's Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines and Section 330.3 of BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 8. BAAQMD's Permit Handbook, Section 2.3.1, indicates that "typically, any stationary diesel engines over 50 horsepower will require a risk screening analysis." Explicitly, BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, Section 302, specifies that an Authority to Construct permit or Permit to Operate from BAAQMD will be denied if any new and modified sources of TACs, including generators, in excess of 50 horsepower would result in cancer risks in excess of 10.0 in 1 million or a hazard index of 1.0. Furthermore, BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, Section 302, is cited as evidence in support of BAAQMD's health risk thresholds in the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, an HRA to estimate exposure to operational diesel particulate matter was undertaken to assess the inhalation cancer risk, non -cancer hazard impacts, and PM2.5 concentrations, as recommended in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines. The HRA was prepared consistent with the guidance followed in the construction HRA. Refer to Appendix B for more detailed modeling assumptions and AERMOD outputs. The generator would be located on the roof of the building, approximately 85 feet above the ground floor. On -site residences would be located on the ground floor as well as the sixth and seventh floors. The HRA determined the inhalation cancer risks, non -cancer hazard impacts, and PM2.5 concentrations for each floor with residents as well as off -site receptors. Table 11 presents the health risks for the on -site and off -site receptors that would receive the highest concentrations of operational diesel particulate matter and PM2.5 and, therefore, the greatest potential health risks from the Project. As shown in Table 11, operation of the Project would not result in a significant increase in the cancer risk at nearby sensitive receptors. Chronic hazard index and annual PM2.5 concentrations would be below BAAQMD's significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.20 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 11. Estimated Project -Level Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks from Operational Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions (pounds per day) Cancer Risk Non -Cancer Annual PM2.5 (cases per Hazard Concentration Receptor million) Index (µg/m3) On -site First -floor maximally affected residence < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Sixth -floor maximally affected residence 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 Seventh -floor maximally affected residence 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 Off -site Maximally affected receptor (residence) 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 Significance Threshold 10.0 1.0 0.3 Exceed Threshold? No No No µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; PM 2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter Cumulative Construction- and Operation -generated Diesel Particulate Matter, PM2.5 Exhaust, and Fugitive Dust According to BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines, combined risk levels should be determined for all TAC sources within 1,000 feet of a project site, and the combined risk levels should be compared to BAAQMD's cumulative health risk thresholds.28 This analysis is presented in the following paragraphs. Nearby TAC sources as well as Project construction and operation could contribute to a cumulative health risk for sensitive receptors near the Project site. BAAQMD's inventory of stationary health risks and the distance multiplier too129,30 were used to estimate excess impacts for existing stationary sources. GIS raster files and Google Earth map files provided by BAAQMD were used to estimate roadway and railway source emissions.31 The methods used to estimate Project -related TAC emissions are described above and in Appendix B. The results of the cumulative impact assessment are summarized in Table 12. Individual source contributions are provided in Appendix B. 28 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. California Environmental QualityActAir Quality Guidelines. May. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ cega_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2020. 29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2020a. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Available: https://baagmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b 10717l5daa6 s. Accessed: April 2020. 30 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2020b. Health Risks Calculator with Distance Multipliers. Available: https://www.baagmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. Accessed: April 2020. 31 Winkel, Jackie. Principal environmental planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. April 12, 2018- email to Darrin Trageser, ICF, Sacramento, CA, regarding GIS files containing data regarding background health risks from railroads, major roads, and highway sources within BAAQMD jurisdiction. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-21 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 12. Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant Health Risks from Project and Background Sources at the Maximally Affected Receptor Increased Cancer Non -Cancer PM2.5 Exposure Risk (per million) Hazard Index (µg/m3) (unmitigated/ (unmitigated/ (unmitigated/ Sources mitigated) mitigated) mitigated) Existing Sources Stationary 24 < 0.1 4.3 Mobile 8 < 0.1 0.2 Project Construction 59/5 < 0.1/< 0.1 0.7/0.2 Project Operation < 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Total Cumulative 91/37 0.1/< 0.1 5_2/4_8 BAAQMD Thresholds 100 10.0 0.8 Exceeds Threshold? No No No a Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Exceedances denoted with underline. a Exceedance of threshold is due to existing ambient sources located within the vicinity of the Project area. As shown in Table 12, the cumulative cancer risk and hazard index at the receptor with the highest impact would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Although the cumulative PM2.5 concentration would exceed the BAAQMD threshold, this exceedance is primarily the result of existing sources in the Project vicinity, which contribute to more than 90 percent of the cumulative PM2.5 exposure. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project's relative contribution to an exceedance of the screening threshold would be less than BAAQMD's project -level health thresholds and less than 10 percent of the cumulative PM2.5 exposure compared to existing sources. Accordingly, the contribution of the Project to a significant impact would not be considerable. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people? (Less than Significant) Although offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public. In addition, they often generate citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. According to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and manufacturing plants.32 Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, and schools, warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, work sites, and commercial areas. Odors during construction could be emitted from diesel exhaust, asphalt paving, and architectural coatings. However, construction activities near existing receptors would be temporary and would not result in nuisance odors that would violate BAAQMD Regulation 7. During operation, odors could emanate from vehicle exhaust, intermittent use of the backup generator during emergencies, and the 32 California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. A Community Health Perspective. April. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-22 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist reapplication of architectural coatings. However, odor impacts would be limited to circulation routes, parking areas, and areas immediately adjacent to recently painted structures. Although such brief exhaust- and paint -related odors may be considered adverse, they would not affect a substantial number of people. Because the Project is not anticipated to result in substantial or long-term odors, this impact would be less than significant. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-23 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist IV. Biological Resources Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact 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 Wildlife 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, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or ❑ ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ® ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ® ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Setting The Project site and surrounding area are characterized by dense urban development, with minimal amounts of landscape vegetation. Because the Project site is completely developed, it does not contain natural land cover or communities, protected wetlands, and waters,33 riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities.34 The on -site ornamental vegetation is not considered a sensitive natural community. No water features or waterways are on or within the vicinity of the Project site. The nearest public parks, Village Park and Ray Park, are approximately 0.4 mile south and 0.5 mile west of the Project site, respectively. The nearest water bodies, a concrete channel (El Portal Canal) and Mills Creek, are approximately 0.25 mile north and 0.5 mile south of the Project site, respectively. 33 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. National Wetland Inventory Wetland Mapper. Available: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 34 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. California Sensitive Natural Communities. November 8. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-24 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist This biological resource impact analysis is based on a desktop review and evaluation of the following sources: • A California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database3s (CNDDB) species list query for the Project site and a 1-mile buffer area • A California Native Plant Society (CNPS)36 species list query for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) San Francisco South (3712264), Hunters Point (3712263), Montara Mountain (3712254), and San Mateo (3712253) 7.5-minute series quadrangles • A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)37 query for the Project site • The 2040 General Plan EIR38 • The USFWS National Wetland Inventory and EPA data for the identification of waters and wetlands39, 40 • Google Earth for aerial imagery4l Discussion a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Because the Project site and surrounding area are completely developed and no sensitive natural community is present on the site or in the immediate vicinity, special -status species are not anticipated to occur, with the exception of the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and nesting migratory birds. Although pallid bat may forage over the area on occasion, the Project site does not provide suitable foraging or breeding habitat for the species. In addition, because of the abundance of similar landscaped foraging habitat in the surrounding area, it is considered unlikely that pallid bat would be present at the Project site. There are no CNDDB42 occurrences of pallid bat in San Francisco County and no recent CNDDB occurrences of pallid bat in San Mateo County. The most recent CNDDB occurrence of pallid bat (occurrence # 297) is from 1960. Therefore, impacts on pallid bat foraging habitat are not considered substantial, and the impact on pallid bat would be less than significant. 35 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. California Natural Diversity Database RareFind Records Search, RareFind Version 5. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 36 California Native Plant Society. 2019. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.html. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 37 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. IPaC Species List. Available: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 38 City of Burlingame. 2018. Burlingame 2040 General Plan Draft EIR. Available: https://www.envisionburlingame.org/app_pages/view/17. Accessed: April 8, 2020. 39 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. National Wetland Inventory Wetland Mapper. Available: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. WATERS GeoViewer. Available: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 41 Google Earth Pro. 2019. Aerial imagery: 3131 Homestead Road, 37°35'41.12"N and 122°22'51.69"W. Accessed: April 8, 2020. 42 Ibid. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.25 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist The structures and landscaping (e.g., shrubs and trees) on or near the Project site offer suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. The Project would remove all nesting and roosting habitat (i.e., vegetation, trees, structures) within the Project site. A potentially significant impact could occur if migratory bird individuals were injured or killed during tree removal and/or building demolition, substantially affected by construction noise, or affected by light during Project operations at night. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require pre -construction surveys for nesting birds, avoidance during the nesting period to the extent feasible, and avoidance of nesting birds found during pre -construction surveys. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (discussed below) would require implementation of noise reduction measures to minimize noise generated during construction, which would also serve to reduce potential impacts. Existing regulations, including the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) and Municipal Code Section 18.16.030, require lighting designs to minimize impacts from light and glare. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and NOI-1 and compliance with existing lighting regulations would ensure that migratory bird individuals would be protected. Impacts on special -status species would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pre -construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Protection Measures The applicant shall implement the measures that follow prior to structure demolition and tree removal or trimming. Construction shall avoid the avian nesting period (March 15 through August 31) to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas as well as areas within 250 feet of the boundaries of these areas or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 50 feet of a passerine nest and 250 feet of a raptor nest until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) The Project site and surrounding area are completely developed with mixed -use commercial/office and residential uses. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is present on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity. The nearest riparian habitat is an area associated with Mills Creek, approximately 0.5 mile south of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact) No federally protected wetlands or other jurisdictional waters are present on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity. The nearest federally protected wetland in proximity to the Project site is the riverine habitat approximately 0.25 mile north of the site, in an area associated with a concrete channel 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-26 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist (El Portal Canal) that carries water to San Francisco Bay. 43 The Project site is separated from this habitat by dense urban development, including multiple paved roads. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) No wetlands or running waters are present in the vicinity of the Project site; therefore, the Project would not affect fish movement. All Project activities would occur within an already -developed footprint that is surrounded by development. Therefore, the Project would not result in fragmentation within natural habitats that would interfere with the movement of wildlife. Any common urban -adapted species that currently move through the Project site would continue to be able to do so following construction. Wildlife corridors are described as pathways or habitat linkages that connect discrete areas of natural open space that would otherwise be separated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation, or other natural or manmade obstacles, such as urbanization. Because the Project site, as well as the surrounded area, is developed, it does not connect directly to areas of natural open space. Nonetheless, the likelihood exists for trees on the Project site to be used by migratory birds. A potentially significant impact could occur if a substantial number of nesting migratory birds were injured or killed during construction or operation of the Project. As described in Impact IV(a), impacts on nesting birds, including migratory birds, would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and NOI-1 and compliance with existing lighting regulations, which require pre -construction surveys for nesting birds, avoidance of the nesting period to the extent feasible, avoidance of nesting birds found during pre -construction surveys, measures to reduce lighting impacts, and measures to reduce noise impacts. The impact on migratory birds due to construction would be less than significant after mitigation. Operation of the Project would include new lighting and a new vertical structure with potentially reflective surfaces. The new lighting and the new surfaces of the building could misdirect or confuse migratory birds, resulting in disruption of natural behavioral patterns and possible injury or death from exhaustion or collisions with buildings. The potential for these types of impacts could be heightened because of the Project's location within the Pacific Flyway, a bird migration route, and the site's proximity to San Francisco Bay. Impacts on migratory birds from proposed buildings and increased lighting levels would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would require implementation of design standards that would reduce hazards for birds. The impact on migratory birds due to operation of the Project would be less than significant after mitigation. Mitigation Measure 13I0-2: Implement Bird -safe Design Standards into Project Buildings and the Lighting Design. The applicant, or contractor, shall implement the following measures to minimize hazards for birds: Reduce large areas of transparent or reflective glass Locate water features, trees, and bird habitat away from building exteriors to reduce reflection 43 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. National Wetland Inventory Wetland Mapper. Available: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.27 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Reduce or eliminate the visibility of landscaped areas behind glass • Turn non -emergency lighting off at night, especially during bird migration season (February - May and August -November) Include window coverings that adequately block light transmission from rooms where interior lighting is used at night and install motion sensors or controls to extinguish lights in unoccupied spaces o Design and/or install lighting fixtures that minimize light pollution, including light trespass, over -illumination, glare, light clutter, and skyglow, and use bird -friendly colors for lighting when possible. The City of San Francisco's Standards for Bird -safe Buildings44 provides an overview of building design and lighting guidelines to minimize bird/building collisions that could be used to guide the applicant. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Less than Significant) Municipal Code Section 11.06.020 defines a "protected tree" as any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade. A total of 24 trees were documented on the Project site (Appendix C), all of which would be removed. The species of the trees to be removed include eucalyptus, gingko, evergreen pear, cherry, maple, Monterey pine, and palm trees. Of the 24 trees on the Project site, seven have a circumference of 48 inches or more at 54 inches above natural grade and therefore are considered protected trees. The applicant will abide by all conditions specified in the Municipal Code, which requires the applicant to obtain permits before removing protected trees and compensate for the removal of protected trees. To compensate for the removal of protected trees, Municipal Code Section 11.06.090 requires trees to be planted at a ratio of 3:1 when using 15-gallon trees, 2:1 when using 24-inch trees, and 1:1 when using 36-inch trees. A total of 26 new trees would be planted as a part of the Project, thereby exceeding the replacement requirements of the Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources. The impact would be less than significant. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact) The Project site is not part of or near an adopted or proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP) or any other local, regional, or state HCP. The nearest area covered by an HCP is the San Bruno Mountain HCP, which is more than 5 miles north of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP, and no impact would occur. 44 City and County of San Francisco. 2011. Standards for Bird -safe Buildings. San Francisco Planning Department. July 14. Available: http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/bird_safe_bldgs/ Stan dards_for_Bird_Safe_Buildings_7-5-11.pdf. Accessed: April 20, 2018. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.28 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame V. Cultural Resources Environmental Checklist 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 pursuant to Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ® ❑ ❑ interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Setting Historical Resources Historically, the Project site was within the Mexican -era Buri Rancho. El Camino Real, which borders the Project site, was established in the mid-18th century as a colonial mission trail between today's cities of San Diego and San Francisco. In 1959, State Route 82 (then U.S. 101) was officially designated as part of El Camino Real. In 1964, rerouting of part of U.S. 101 led to redesignation of El Camino Real on the Peninsula as State Route 82. The Project site is near Burlingame's northern border, within an area of the former Darius Ogden Mills Estate, which was annexed by Burlingame in 1954 and then subdivided and redeveloped for commercial use in the mid- to late 1950s. One building is currently on the Project site (1766 El Camino Real). The building was constructed in 1959 as offices for the American Can Company. Designed in the Midcentury Modern style, 1766 El Camino Real employs the following characteristics of the style: emphasis on the building's horizontality, minimal ornamentation, projected fins that extend down past each window, a flat roof, terrazzo paving, stylized address signage on the building, and a free-standing address sign. Historic research conducted through City building permits, local newspapers, and context studies on Midcentury Modern architecture in the Bay Area failed to identify the original architect of the building. However, Burlingame architect Mogens Mogensen, A.I.A., designed a circa 1968 rear addition, which incorporates design elements that are compatible with those on the original 1959 building volume. The remainder of the lot contains a surface parking lot and areas of landscaping adjacent to 1766 El Camino Real, including a landscaped courtyard. The building on the Project site (APN 025-161-110) is more than 50 years old and evaluated as a potential historical resource because of its age.45 It has not been previously evaluated for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or otherwise considered for historical resource status for the purpose of CEQA review. As part of this analysis, the building at 1766 El Camino Real was evaluated for listing in the CRHR and recorded during an intensive -level historical resources survey on February 12, 45 Buildings more than 50 years of age require evaluation under the California Register of Historical Resources and may be considered to be cultural resources for the purposes of CEQA. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-29 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist 2020.46 The CRHR evaluation was documented on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A (Primary Record) and 523B (Building, Structure, Object) forms. These forms are included in Appendix D. The CRHR evaluation concluded that the building on the Project site does not meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR. Therefore, 1766 El Camino Real does not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA. A summary of the evaluation for 1766 El Camino Real under CRHR Criteria 1 through 4 is provided below. 1. No commercial tenants that occupied office space in the building appear to have contributed significantly to the economic growth of Burlingame or the San Francisco Peninsula at large. 2. No individuals associated with 1766 El Camino Real have made significant contributions to local, state, or national history. 3. Although the building at 1766 El Camino Real features elements of the Midcentury Modern architectural style, it lacks the innovative use of materials, massing, and fenestration that characterize significant examples of Midcentury Modern commercial office buildings built between 1945 and 1965. The building does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or possesses high artistic values. 4. The building appears unlikely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies. Archaeological Resources ICF archaeologist Yuka Oiwa conducted a review of existing literature in the California Historical Resources System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) on February 21, 2020. The archaeologist examined the Project site, as well as a 0.5-mile buffer, to identify any previously conducted archaeological or cultural resource studies. Two previously conducted cultural resource studies were found that cover the Project site (see Table 13) and seven previously conducted cultural resource studies were found that cover areas within 0.5 mile of the Project site. Table 13. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies within the Project Site Study Number Author Date Title Description S-38063 Neil 2009 Smart Corridors No cultural resources were identified within the Kaptain Geoarchaeological Project site. Two previously recorded precontact Sensitivity Research shell mounds (CA-SMA-74 and CA-SMA-76) were identified west of the 1766 El Camino Project site. 5-39104 Far 2012 Archaeological No cultural resources were identified within the Western Investigations for the State Project site. Two previously recorded Route 82 Signal Interconnect archaeological sites (CA-SMA-6/H and CA-SMA- and Intersection 300), a newly recorded site (CA-SMA-397H), and Modification Project, San disarticulated human remains, all outside the Mateo County, California 1766 El Camino site, were recorded in this study. 46 In order to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, a property must meet at least one of the following criteria: The property (1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns for California's history and cultural heritage; (2) is associated with the lives of persons important in history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values; (4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-30 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist No previously recorded archaeological resources were identified within the Project site. However, seven previously recorded archaeological resources were identified within 0.5 mile of the Project site. One resource is an informally recorded site on the previous Mortara Mountain base map (C-118); the remaining six are recorded as precontact midden deposits. The presence of these resources in the vicinity of the Project site indicates that the area has high sensitivity for other precontact occupation sites. Table 14 identifies the seven archaeological resources. Table 14. Previously Recorded Resources within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site Formally Evaluated for Trinomial P-Number CRHR or NRHP Description n/a C-11847 No The brief, informal site record reads, "[u]nnumbered site on the previous Mortara Mtn. base map, archived in the spring of 1987." No additional details, such as study number, field name, or report author, were provided. CA-SMA-74 P-41- No Originally recorded in 1952 as a group of shell mounds 00007748 that have been disturbed by construction of Magnolia Avenue. A surface survey conducted in 1990 noted that the site consisted of a large, open field containing surface scatters of shell, lithic material, and a few fire -cracked rocks. Buried deposits may still be present. n/a P-41- No Recorded in 1951 as a 6-foot-high shell mound, 00007949 consisting mostly of oysters. Part of the mound was recorded as "dug away to use for walks." CA-SMA-90 P-41- No Recorded in 1954 as either a series of shell mounds or 00009350 one large mound that had been completely destroyed by tract development. One mano (a grinding stone) was recovered from the site. CA-SMA-91 P-41- No This resource was recorded in 1954 as a possible midden 00009451 deposit. A flat area of dark sand was observed "almost adjacent" to CA-SMA-90. L.L. Valdivia remarked that the site was most likely not associated with CA-SMA-90 because the artifacts, quartz projectile points, charmstones, and chert scrapers may represent a different time of occupation. CA-SMA- P-41- Yes. Originally recorded in 1968 as a shell mound mixed with 102 00010552 Recommended as surrounding floodplain sediments and disturbed by eligible for listing construction. A mortar and some mammal bones were in NRHP under observed 2 years prior. A pedestrian survey conducted in Criterion D. 2009 failed to relocate the site, most likely due to low visibility. The subsurface indicated a midden deposit within 500 of the resource. 47 Anonymous. 1987. Informal site record for C-118. Record on file at the NWIC. 48 Bocek, Barb. 1990. Site record for P-41-000077 (CA-SMA-74). Record on file at the NWIC. 49 Meighan and Valvidia. 1952. Site record for P-41-000079. Record on file at the NWIC. 50 Klasser, A. 1954. Site record for P-41-0000093 (CA-SMA-90). Record on file at the NWIC. 51 Valvidia, L.L. 1954. Site record for P-41-000094 (CA-SMA-91). Record on file at the NWIC. 52 Bocek, Barb. 1989. Site record for P-41-000302 (CA-SMA-300). Record on file at the NWIC. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-31 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Formally Evaluated for Trinomial P-Number CRHR or NRHP Description CA-SMA- P-41- No Recorded in 1968 as a large shell mound heavily 300 00030153 disturbed by development associated with El Camino Real, cross streets, utilities, and residences. Artifacts included oysters, mussels, clams, crab claws, burned rock, and occasional flakes, which were visible on the surface, along the roads, and on a portion of the unlandscaped ground. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places The geologic setting in the vicinity of the Project site has been altered over time. The Project site sits on the Pleistocene -age Colma Formation.54 This formation, which predates human occupation in California, is composed of yellowish -orange, brown, and grey marine sediments, with smaller amounts of clay, silt, and gravel.55 Geotechnical analysis conducted by BAGG Engineers in 2006, and updated in 2019, reported 3 feet of artificial fill sitting on top of Colma Formation.56 This fill was most likely imported during early to mid-20th-century development in the area. The Oakland Museum's Creek and Watershed Map of San Mateo County shows tidal marshes immediately west of the Project site.57 Tidal marshes were important resource collection areas for the native people of the Bay Area and are often associated with human occupation. The presence of freshwater creeks north (Millbrae Creek) and south (Mills Creek) of the Project site, shore birds, and marine resources makes the tidal marshes rich in dietary material. Historic aerial photographs depict the Burlingame marshlands gradually succumbing to commercial and small residential developments in the 1940s.58 In the 1950s, the area of tidal marshes east of the Project site was filled and subdivided.S9 By 1968, the Project site and adjacent lands were completely developed and covered by buildings or pavement. The presence of precontact resources in the vicinity of the Project site, combined with historic nearshore tidal marshes, indicates increased sensitivity for subsurface archaeological materials. In addition, the lack of cultural resource studies for the Project site indicates that the area has not been thoroughly analyzed; therefore, there may be increased potential for encountering as -yet unknown archaeological deposits at the Project site. 53 Jones, Jessica. 2010. Site record for P-41-000105 (CA-SMA-102). Record on file at the NWIC. 54 Brabb, E.E., R.W. Graymer, and D.L. Jones. 1998. Geology of the Onshore Part of San Mateo County, California: A Digital Database. U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 98-137. Available: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/of98-137/. Accessed: April 28, 2020. 55 Peterson, C.D. E. Stock, J. Meyer, P. Kaijankoski, and D.M. Price. 2015.Origins of Quaternary Coastal Dune Sheets in San Francisco and Monterey Bay, Central California Coast, U.S.A.: Reflecting Contrasts in Shelf Depocenters and Coastal Neotectonics. In Journal of Coastal Research 31(6):1317-1333. 56 BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Seven -Story Multi -Use Building, 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation; BAGG Engineers. 2008. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Senior Convalescent Center, 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation. 57 Tillery, A.C. J.M. Sowers, and S. Pearce. 2006. Creek and Watershed Map of San Mateo and Vicinity. Oakland Museum of California,1:25,800 scale. 58 Nationwide Environmental Title Research. 2018. Historic Aerials. Available: https://www.historicaerials.com/ viewer. Accessed July 25, 2018; EDR. 2020. The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package for 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. Prepared for ICF. 59 Dumovich, Andrea. 2020. Site Record for 1766 El Camino Real. Prepared for the NWIC. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-32 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Discussion a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5? (No Impact) The Project site contains one age -eligible commercial office building, which currently houses a museum and medical offices at 1766 El Camino Real. The evaluation of the building at the Project site concluded that it does not meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR and, therefore, does not qualify as a CEQA historical resource. The evaluation of the building's CRHR eligibility is documented on the DPR 523A and 523B forms included in Appendix D and summarized previously. The Project site does not contain any historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Therefore, demolition of the building and redevelopment of the site would not alter the significance of a historical resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on historical resources. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) No archaeological resources were identified at the Project site during the literature review conducted at the NWIC. However, the Project site is in an area that has elevated potential for encountering as -yet unknown archaeological resources. As stated above, the Project site is adjacent to an area that was previously a tidal marsh with two creeks, which were important resource collection areas and transportation corridors for the native tribes of the Bay Area. In addition, precontact midden deposits are within 0.5 mile of the Project site, and disarticulated human remains were recorded in a study that overlapped areas of the Project site. The precontact and historical context of the Project site indicates elevated sensitivity for subsurface archaeological deposits. Although the previously developed Project site is in an area with known imported fill, the extent of the fill material is unknown.60 The maximum depth of planned excavation is 28 to 30 feet below the ground surface (bgs). These deep ground - disturbing activities have the potential to affect intact and as -yet undocumented archaeological resources at the interface between fill and Colma Formation during construction.61 Therefore, the Project has the potential to affect as -yet unknown precontact and historic archaeological resources. Such resources may be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If such resources were to be destroyed by Project - related activities, the impact would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would prepare contractors to recognize archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require construction work to stop if an archaeological material or feature is encountered, thereby limiting damage to the resource. It would also require a professional archaeologist to determine the significance of the resource and consult with Native American stakeholders to develop a treatment plan for any archaeological resources found during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would ensure that impacts on as -yet unknown cultural resources would be avoided or minimized, resulting in an impact that would be less than significant after mitigation. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Pre -construction Archaeological Sensitivity Training A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a pre -construction archaeological sensitivity training session for the excavation crew. This training will include an overview of what cultural resources are and provide information regarding why such resources are important, 60 BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Seven -Story Multi -Use Building, 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. Prepared for The Certosa Corporation. 61 Ibid. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-33 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), Project site history, the types of cultural resources that are likely to be uncovered during excavation, the laws that protect cultural resources, and the protocol for unanticipated discoveries (see Mitigation Measure CUL-2). An "Alert Sheet" shall be posted in conspicuous locations on the Project site to alert personnel to the procedures and protocols to follow after discovery of potentially significant precontact archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery Protocol In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery and the area avoided until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan, which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Although no isolated human remains, cemeteries, or archaeological resources that contain human remains were identified within the Project site during the literature review at the NWIC, the potential exists for previously undiscovered human remains to be encountered during Project demolition or construction. Buried deposits may be eligible for listing in the CRHR; therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. The NAHC reported a positive "hit" during a Sacred Lands File search on February 13, 2020. However, the Native American groups the NAHC listed as geographically affiliated with the region did not identify any burials during consultation. The potential exists for previously undiscovered Native American remains to be encountered during Project demolition or construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would require construction work to be stopped if human remains are encountered during ground -disturbing activities and proper procedures regarding notification to be followed, per Section 50977.98 of the Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would ensure that impacts on human remains would be minimized, resulting in an impact that would be less than significant after mitigation. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Stop Work If Human Remains Are Encountered during Ground -disturbing Activities If human remains are unearthed during construction, pursuant to Section 50977.98 of the Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains. The county coroner shall be informed to evaluate the nature of the remains. If the remains are determined to be of Native American in origin, the lead agency shall work with the NAHC and the applicant to develop an agreement for treating or disposing of the human remains. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-34 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist VI. Energy Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Result in a potentially significant environmental ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for ❑ ❑ ® ❑ renewable energy or energy efficiency? Setting Electricity Grid electricity and natural gas service in Burlingame is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE). PG&E is a publicly traded utility company that generates, purchases, and transmits energy under contract with the California Public Utilities Commission. PG&E's service territory is 70,000 square miles in area, roughly extending north to south from Eureka to Bakersfield and east to west from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean. PG&E's electricity distribution system consists of 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines.62 PG&E electricity is generated by a combination of sources, such as hydropower, gas -fired steam, and nuclear energy, as well as newer sources of energy, such as wind turbines and photovoltaic plants, or "solar farms." "The Grid," or bulk electric grid, is a network of high -voltage transmission lines that link power plants to substations. The distribution system, composed of lower - voltage secondary lines, is at the street and neighborhood level. It consists of overhead or underground distribution lines, transformers, switching equipment, and service "drops" that connect to the individual customer.63 The City of Burlingame is part of PCE, San Mateo County's electricity provider, which distributes additional renewable power to the region. PCE is a community -choice energy (CCE) program, which is a locally controlled community organization that enables residents and businesses to have a choice regarding where their energy comes from. CCE programs allow local governments to pool the electricity demands of their communities, purchase power with higher renewable content, and reinvest in local infrastructure. Currently, PG&E delivers the power, maintains the lines, and bills customers, but the power is purchased by the CCE program from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass.64 62 Pacific Gas & Electric. 2020. Company Profile. Available: https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company- information/profile/profjle.page. Accessed: June 1, 2020. 63 Pacific Gas & Electric. 2020. PG&E's Electric System. Available: https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/systemworks/electric/pge_electric_system.pdf Accessed: June 1, 2020. 64 Peninsula Clean Energy. 2015. Community Guide. Available: https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/10/PCE_community_guide_v2_web.pdf. Accessed: June 1, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-35 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Natural Gas PG&E's natural gas (methane) pipe delivery system includes 42,000 miles of distribution pipelines and 6,700 miles of transmission pipelines. Gas delivered by PG&E originates in gas fields in California, the Southwest, Rocky Mountains, and Canada. Transportation pipelines send natural gas from fields and storage facilities in large pipes under high pressure. The smaller distribution pipelines deliver gas to individual businesses or residences. PG&E gas transmission pipeline systems serve approximately 15 million gas and electric energy customers in California. The system is operated under an inspection -and -monitoring program in real time on a 24-hour basis. The program provides leak inspections, surveys, and patrols of the pipelines.65 Discussion a, Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation? (Less than Significant) Construction Project construction activities would require the use of trucks and other types of heavy equipment that operate on fossil fuels. Construction activities are expected to require approximately 11,300 truck trips between the Project site and the Zanker waste management facility, a distance of 32 miles, to remove demolished materials and excavated soil from the site. In addition to haul trucks, Project construction would require the use of hydrocarbon -powered equipment, including an excavator, dump truck, backhoe, drill rig, tie -back rig, bulldozer, compactor, tower crane, and man lift. As discussed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, it is estimated that construction of the Project would generate approximately 2,284 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which is equivalent to 491 typical passenger vehicles being added to the road during the construction period. The emissions generated during construction of the Project would result primarily from the use of diesel -powered construction equipment (e.g., excavators). In addition, the Project would be required to implement relevant policies from the City's Climate Action Plan geared toward reducing construction -related GHG emissions. This is discussed further in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Construction emissions would cease once construction of the Project is complete; therefore, they are considered short term. Construction would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The impact would be less than significant. Operation The Project would consume energy to support normal day-to-day operations associated with the proposed office, retail, and residential uses. Vehicles and mass transit used by employees, residents, and visitors/guests when traveling to and from the Project site would require energy in the form of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and/or electricity. The specific fuel required for transport would depend on the mode of transportation and type of engine used to propel the vehicle. The Project would implement TDM measures to reduce the number of trips generated from the Project (see 65 Pacific Gas & Electric. 2020. Learn about the PG&E Natural Gas System. Available: https: //www. pge. com/en_U S/safety/how-the-system-works/natural-gas-system-overview/natural-gas- system-overview.page. Accessed: June 1, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-36 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Transportation Impact Analysis in Appendix A). In addition, the Project would be located near the Millbrae multimodal transit station. Users of the site would be able to use this transit stop instead of a vehicle. Energy would also be required to heat and cool the proposed building, provide indoor and outdoor lighting, and transport water/wastewater. The Project would be within the 70,000-square-mile PG&E service territory for electricity and natural gas generation, transmission, and distribution. In addition, PG&E continues to expand its renewable energy portfolio. Furthermore, PCE provides additional renewable power to the Project site. Because of the Project's size and location within an urban setting, buildout of the Project would not significantly increase energy demand within the service territory and would not require new energy facilities. Energy projections from energy providers within the state anticipate growth from development, such as the Project. The Project would be required by law to adhere to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), and adopted City energy conservation ordinances and regulations. Unless otherwise noted in the regulation, all newly constructed buildings in California, such as the building constructed as part of the Project, are subject to the requirements of CALGreen, which contains both mandatory and voluntary measures. For non-residential land uses, there are several mandatory measures, including, but not limited to, reductions in exterior light pollution, water - conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycling standards, and specifications for efficient heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. In addition, the Project would be required to implement relevant policies from the City's Climate Action Plan geared toward reducing operation - related GHG emissions. This is discussed further in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Accordingly, with implementation of adopted state and City energy conservation measures, the Project would result in a less -than -significant impact with respect to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Less than Significant) The Project would be required to be use energy -efficient building materials and construction practices, in accordance with CALGreen and Chapter 18.30 of the Municipal Code, which contains the Green Building Standards Code. The Project would also use modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (CCR Title 20, Sections 1601 through 1608). Per these requirements, the Project would use recycled construction materials; environmentally sustainable building materials; designs that reduce the amount of energy used in building heating and cooling systems, compared to conventionally built structures; and landscaping that incorporates water -efficient irrigation systems, all of which would conserve energy. In addition, the City's 2040 General Plan contains goals, policies, and programs that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts on energy resources. The Project would adhere to general plan goals, policies, and programs, which would serve to increase energy conservation and minimize potential impacts associated with energy use. As part of the City's approval process, the Project, would be required to comply with existing regulations, including general plan policies and zoning regulations that promote energy conservation and efficiency by requiring sustainable building practices and reducing automobile dependency. Furthermore, implementation of the City's Climate Action Plan and compliance with CALGreen, as well as other applicable state and local energy efficiency measures, would result in energy conservation and savings. Refer to Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for additional discussion on the Project's consistency with regulations related to sustainability. The Project would result in a less -than -significant impact related to conflicting with a state or local plan for renewable energy and energy efficiency. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-37 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist VII. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as n/a n/a n/a n/a 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. 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? n/a n/a n/a n/a 3. Seismically related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? 4. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ® ❑ unstable or would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in an on -site or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ® ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Setting Burlingame is in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, in eastern San Mateo County, and adjacent to San Francisco Bay.66 The Bay Area is considered one of the most seismically active areas in the country and therefore subject to the effects of earthquakes. The city of Burlingame, as well as the Project site, is situated in the central portion of the San Francisco Peninsula, at the eastern edge of a system of ridges, 66 California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. (Note 36). Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/CGS-Note-36.pdf. Accessed: April 1, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.38 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist valleys, and hills that lie east of the northwesterly -trending rift valley of the active San Andreas fault. The San Andreas fault is a major fault that traverses the Bay Area, extending from the Gulf of California in Mexico to Cape Mendocino in California. The great 1906 earthquake in San Francisco occurred on the San Andreas fault.67 The Project site ranges from approximately 20 feet above mean sea level (msl) on California Drive to 27 feet above msl near El Camino Real. The topography is relatively flat. The site is underlain by Colma Formation deposits of Pleistocene age, consisting of friable to loose fine- to medium -grained arkosic sand with small amounts of gravel, silt, and clay.68 The total thickness of the Colma Formation is unknown but approximated to be more than 200 feet. Cone penetration test probes indicated the presence of dense to very dense silty fine-grained sands, with layers of dense to very dense silty gravel and sands as well as silty sands with gravel within the top 100 feet. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 9.5 to 10 feet bgs; however, the historic high groundwater level in the area was reported to be less than 10 feet above ms1.69 Actual groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally with variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors. As stated previously, the Project site is in an area that is subject to earthquakes. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972) and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) direct the State Geologist to delineate regulatory zones to help cities and counties prevent the construction of buildings for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Project site is not in a currently established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone.70 Furthermore, no active or potentially active faults are known to pass directly beneath the site.71 However, the Project site is near several active faults that are capable of generating large earthquakes. Table 15 shows the regional faults, the distance from the Project site, and the probability of an earthquake with a magnitude greater than 6.7 within 30 years. Table 15. Regional Faults Approximate Distance to Probability of a Magnitude Fault Name Project Site (miles) > 6.7 in 30 years (%) San Andreas (entire) 1.9 33 San Andreas (Peninsula segment) 1.9 9 San Gregorio 8.4 5 Hayward 16.8 32 Calaveras 25.5 25 Source: BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 7-Story Multi -Use Building 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, California. December 20. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation, Burlingame, CA. 67 BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Seven -Story Multi -Use Building 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. December 20. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation, Burlingame, CA. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 California Geological Survey. n.d. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/. Accessed: April 1, 2020. 71 BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Seven -Story Multi -Use Building 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. December 20. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation, Burlingame, CA. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-39 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist The Project site is mapped as having the potential for liquefaction.72 However, because the site is underlain by dense to very dense granular soils, the potential for liquefaction -related settlement is minimal.73 The Project site is not subject to landslides but is located near areas that may be subject to landslides.74 Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of once -living organisms that have been preserved in rocks and sediments, providing evidence of past life on Earth. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 75 states that significant paleontological resources include fossils of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, and uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils. The potential for an area to yield significant paleontological resources depends on the geologic age and origin of the underlying rock. No known paleontological resources have been recorded at the Project site.76 However, paleontological resources have been recovered from multiple locations in the San Francisco Bay Area, including inland San Mateo County.77 In addition, as mentioned above, the Project site is underlain by Colma Formation deposits of Pleistocene age.78 Discussion a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. 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. (Not a CEQA Impact) The Project site is not within an earthquake fault zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972) or the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990), and no known fault or potentially active fault exists within the Project site.79 In seismically active areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, the remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where faults were not previously mapped; however, the likelihood of surface fault rupture as a result of seismic activity at the Project site is low. 72 California Geological Survey. 2018. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation San Mateo Quadrangle. Available: https://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/SAN_MATEO_EZRIM.pdf. Accessed: May 21, 2020. 73 BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Seven -Story Multi -Use Building 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. December 20. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation, Burlingame, CA. 74 California Geological Survey. 2018. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation San Mateo Quadrangle. Available: https://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/SAN_MATEO_EZRIM.pdf. Accessed: May 21, 2020. 75 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation ofAdverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Available: vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Ethics/ SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx. Accessed: May 4, 2018. 76 University of California Museum of Paleontology. 2020. Specimen Search. Available: https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/. Accessed: April 10, 2 02 0. 77 Ibid. 78 BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Seven -Story Multi -Use Building 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. December 20. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation, Burlingame, CA. 79 California Geological Survey. n.d. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/. Accessed: April 1, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-40 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? (NotA CEQA Impact) The city of Burlingame lies close to historically active faults that can generate strong earthquakes. Development within the city is likely to be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. This includes development at the Project site. The intensity of earthquake ground motions would depend on the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the fault and rupture zone, earthquake magnitude, earthquake duration, and site -specific geologic conditions. The San Andreas fault is the closest active fault to the Project site, approximately 1.9 miles to the west. This fault is estimated to have a 33 percent change of producing an earthquake with a magnitude greater than 6.7 sometime within the next 30 years. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would expose people and structures to strong seismic ground shaking in case of earthquake. However, according to Municipal Code Title 18, Chapter 8.010 and Chapter 9.095, Burlingame has adopted the 2016 California Building Standards Code, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2. The code requires a design -level geotechnical study to be performed for structures that would be built in areas with known geological hazards, including seismic hazards. Implementation of the recommendations provided in the design -level Project geotechnical study would minimize risks to public safety. 3. Seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than Significant) As discussed above, the city of Burlingame lies close to historically active faults that can generate strong earthquakes. In addition, as explained under Setting, the Project site is mapped as having very high susceptibility to liquefaction. Furthermore, the Project would exacerbate risks related to liquefaction. For example, the weight of structures constructed as part of the Project on liquefiable soils would make displacement more likely. The geotechnical report notes that the Project site is underlain by dense to very dense granular soils and that liquefaction -related settlement is expected to be on the order of 1 inch. According to Municipal Code Title 18, Chapters 8.010 and 9.095, Burlingame has adopted the 2016 California Building Standards Code, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2. The code requires a design -level geotechnical study to be performed for structures that would be built in areas with known geological hazards. With implementation of the recommendations provided in the design -level Project geotechnical study, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. 4. Landslides? (No Impact) As discussed above, the Project site is not within a mapped landslide zone or a designated earthquake - induced landslide zone, as shown on the California Geological Survey seismic hazard zone map for the area. The Project site is relatively flat, with minor grade variations for drainage purposes. Therefore, the Project would not exacerbate landslide risks. There would be no impact related to landslide hazards. b. Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less than Significant) The Project site is fully developed and occupied with a two-story, mixed -use building and grade -level parking. The two-story building and asphalt parking lot would be demolished and removed as part of the Project. Construction activities would be required to comply with the provisions in Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code with respect to grading, excavating, and earthwork. In addition, because more than 1 acre of soil would be affected by the Project, the Project would be subject to a Construction General Permit, which stipulates erosion control requirements. These requirements include preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that contains BMPs. The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify potential sediment sources and prescribe BMPs to ensure that potential adverse erosion impacts would not occur during construction. Implementation of the SWPPP 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-41 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist with BMPs would control stormwater runoff emanating from the construction site. BMPs may include damp street sweeping; appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas; and temporary cover for disturbed surfaces, which would help to minimize erosion. Furthermore, Project conformance to City grading standards and the San Mateo County Stormwater Management Plan would prevent substantial erosion as a result of construction and implementation. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in an on -site or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (Less than Significant) Liquefaction occurs when saturated soils lose strength and stiffness with applied stress, such as during an earthquake. The lack of cohesion causes solid soil to behave like a liquid, resulting in ground deformation. Ground deformation can take on many forms, including, but not limited to, flow failure, lateral spreading, lowering of the ground surface, ground settlement, loss of bearing strength, ground fissures, and sand boils. Liquefaction within subsurface layers, which can occur during ground shaking associated with an earthquake, could result in ground settlement. The soil types most susceptible to liquefaction are loose to moderately dense, saturated non -cohesive soils with poor drainage, such as sands and silts with interbedded or capping layers of relatively low permeability. Lateral spreading typically occurs on gentle slopes with a rapid fluid -like flow. It can also occur when the potential exists for liquefaction in underlying saturated soils. As discussed above, the Project site is in an area with the potential for liquefaction.80 The analysis conducted in the geotechnical report suggests that up to 1 inch of ground surface settlement could result from liquefaction after a seismic event. In addition, because the density of the layers is very likely not even across the Project site, there may be differential settlement. 81 Therefore, the risk of liquefaction at the Project site is high. However, the Project would be required to conform to the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) to withstand earthquakes and other soil hazards and implement all building design recommendations made by the Geotechnical Engineer, as further explained below. With incorporation of code requirements and recommendations made by the Geotechnical Engineer, the potential for liquefaction at the Project site would be less than significant. According to USGS, subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the surface due to the movement of subsurface materials. The main cause of subsidence in California is excessive groundwater pumping;82 however, subsidence can also be caused by peat loss and oil extraction. Burlingame has not experienced subsidence as a result of the aforementioned factors, either historically or recently; therefore, the potential for subsidence at the Project site is 10w.83 Soil collapse can occur after wetting collapsible soils, load application, or some combination of both.84 Collapsible soils, which are generally found in and or 80 California Geological Survey. 2018. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation San Mateo Quadrangle. Available https://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/SAN_MATEO_EZRIM.pdf. Accessed: May 21, 2020. 81 BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Seven -Story Multi -Use Building 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. December 20. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation, Burlingame, CA. 82 U.S. Geological Survey. n.d. Land Subsidence in California. Available: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ca-water-Is. Accessed: May 22, 2020. 83 Ibid. 84 U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992. Characteristics and Problems of Collapsible Soils. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office, Research and Laboratory Services Division, Materials Engineering Branch. Available: https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/rec/R9202.pdf. Accessed: May 22, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-42 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist semi -arid regions, are low -density silty soils with large air spaces or gaps between the grains of soil.85 Because the Project site is underlain by dense to very dense granular soils, the potential for soil collapse at the site is IOW.86 As identified by the California Geological Survey, the Project site is not within a landslide hazard zone; therefore, it would not result in on -site or off -site landslides.87 Although the Project site has the potential for liquefaction, the Project would not cause lateral spreading because of the developed nature of the site and surrounding area. Furthermore, there are no open faces or slopes near the Project site.88 According to Municipal Code Title 18, Chapter 8.010 and Chapter 9.095, the City has adopted the 2016 CBSC, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2. The code requires a design -level geotechnical study to be performed for structures that would be built in areas with known geological hazards. With implementation of the Geotechnical Engineer's recommendations provided in the design -level Project geotechnical study, the Project would be designed to withstand soil hazards at the site. The Project impact would be less than significant. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less than Significant) Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (i.e., shrink and swell) with variations in moisture content. Expansive soils are typically very fine grained and have a high to very high percentage of clay. They can damage structures and buried utilities and increase maintenance requirements. The Project site is underlain by dense to very dense, silty fine-grained sands, the expansive properties of which are unknown but should be assumed to be expansive.89 Although the Project would involve excavation in areas with weak soils and/or yielding or pumping soils, recommendations made in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer and outlined in the preliminary geotechnical investigation would be followed. If required, fill soil would be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before import to the site. The fill would be predominantly granular and free of organics, debris, and rocks measuring more than 4 inches to minimize susceptibility to expansion. According to Municipal Code Title 18, Chapter 8.010 and Chapter 9.095, the City has adopted the 2016 CBSC, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2. The code requires a design -level geotechnical study to be performed for structures that would be built in areas with known geological hazards. With implementation of the recommendations provided in the design -level Project geotechnical study, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. 85 Colorado Geological Survey. 2018. Collapsible Soils. Available: https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/2018/28848-collapsible-soils/. Accessed: May 22, 2020. 86 BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Seven -Story Multi -Use Building 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. December 20. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation, Burlingame, CA. 87 California Geological Survey. 2018. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation San Mateo Quadrangle. Available: https://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/SAN_MATEO_EZRIM.pdf. Accessed: May 21, 2020. 88 BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Seven -Story Multi -Use Building 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. December 20. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation, Burlingame, CA. 89 Ibid. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-43 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) The Project site would dispose of wastewater by using the existing wastewater infrastructure operated by the City. No aspect of the Project would entail any new use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The Project site is underlain by the Colma Formation (Qc), which dates to the Pleistocene age. Therefore, the potential exists for paleontological resources to be present in the soil.90 The Project would require excavation to a maximum depth of 28 to 30 feet bgs. Accordingly, excavation at the Project site has the potential to disturb significant paleontological resources. Such disturbance would constitute a significant impact. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require all work to stop if a paleontological resource is discovered and a professional paleontologist to evaluate the resource and implement protective measures, as needed. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Stop Work in Case of Discovery of Paleontological Resources Discovery of a paleontological specimen during any phase of the Project shall result in work stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional paleontologist. Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or further action (e.g., resource removal), as determined by the professional paleontologist, shall be implemented to mitigate the impact prior to the continuation of work. 90 Ibid. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-44 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Checklist Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ® ❑ ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Regulatory Setting State California has established various regulations to address GHG emissions. The most relevant of these regulations are described below. State Legislative Reduction Targets Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill (SB) 32 (2016) requires the state to reduce emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. The state's plan to reach these targets is presented in periodic scoping plans. CARB adopted the 2017 climate change scoping plan in November 2017 to meet the GHG reduction requirement set forth in SB 3291 and proposes continuing the major programs of the previous scoping plan (e.g., programs involving cap -and -trade regulation, low -carbon fuel standards, more efficient cars and trucks, more efficient freight movement, the Renewables Portfolio Standard [RPS], methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes). The current scoping plan articulates a key role for local governments, recommending that they establish GHG reduction goals for both their municipal operations and the community consistent with those of the state. Executive Order Reduction Targets In 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 established goals to reduce California's GHG emissions to (1) 2000 levels by 2010 (achieved), (2) 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) a level 80 percent below the 1990 levels by 2050. In 2018, EO B-55-18 established a new state goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible (no later than 2045) and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. EOs are binding on state government agencies but are not legally binding on cities and counties or on private development. Renewables Portfolio Standard SBs 1078 (2002), 107 (2006), 2 (2011), and 100 (2015) govern California's RPS, under which investor - owned utilities, energy service providers, and Community Choice Aggregators must procure additional retail sales each year from eligible renewable sources. The current goals for renewable sources are 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. 91 California Air Resources Board. 2017a. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Strategy for Achieving California's 2030 GHG Target. January. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed: April 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-45 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Energy Efficiency Standards The California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, proposed Part 11) was adopted as part of the CBSC (CCR Title 24). Part 11 established voluntary standards (known as the CALGreen standards) that became mandatory under the 2010 edition of the code. The standards concerned sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The current energy efficiency standards were adopted in 2019 and took effect on January 1, 2020. Vehicle Efficiency Standards AB 1493 requires CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light -truck GHG emissions. Stricter emissions standards for automobiles and light trucks went into effect beginning with the 2009 model year. In 2012, additional strengthening of the Pavley standards (referred to previously as Pavley H and now referred to as the Advanced Clean Cars measure) was adopted for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. Together, the two standards are expected to increase average fuel economy to roughly 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Low Carbon Fuel Standard With EO 5-01-07, Governor Schwarzenegger set forth the low -carbon fuel standard (LCFS) for California. Under this 2007 EO, the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels would be reduced by at least 10 percent by 2020. In September 2018, to help achieve the SB 32 emissions reduction target, the LCFS regulation was amended; the statewide goal became a 20 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 2030. Note that the majority of the emissions benefits related to the LCFS come from the fuel production cycle (upstream emissions) rather than the combustion cycle (tailpipe emissions). Regional Land Use and Transportation Planning to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled SB 375, signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 30, 2008, became effective January 1, 2009. This law requires the state's 18 metropolitan planning organizations to develop sustainable communities strategies (SCSs) as part of their regional transportation plans (RTPs) through integrated land use and transportation planning and demonstrate the ability to attain the 2020 and 2035 GHG emissions reduction targets that CARB established for the region. This would be accomplished through either the financially constrained SCS as part of the RTP or an unconstrained alternative planning strategy. If regions develop integrated land use, housing, and transportation plans that meet the SB 375 targets, new projects in these regions can be relieved of certain CEQA review requirements. Short -Lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Strategy SB 605 directed CARB, in coordination with other state agencies and local air districts, to develop the comprehensive Short -Lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Strategy (SLCP Reduction Strategy). SB 1383 directed CARB to approve and implement the SLCP Reduction Strategy to achieve the following reductions: • 40 percent reduction in methane, below 2013 levels, by 2030 • 40 percent reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases, below 2013 levels, by 2030 • 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, below 2013 levels, by 2030 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-46 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist CARB adopted the SLOP Reduction Strategy in March 2017 as a framework for achieving the methane, hydrofluorocarbon, and anthropogenic black carbon reduction targets set by SB 1383. The SLOP Reduction Strategy includes 10 measures that fit within a wide range of ongoing planning efforts throughout the state. CARB and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery are currently developing regulations to achieve these goals. Local Metropolitan Transportation Commission The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the metropolitan planning organization for the nine counties that make up the San Francisco Bay Area and the SFBAAB, which includes the city of Burlingame. As described above, SB 375 requires the metropolitan planning organizations to prepare RTPs/SCSs that present integrated regional land use and transportation approaches for reducing VMT and their associated GHG emissions. CARB identified an initial goal for the SFBAAB, which is to reduce VMT per capita by 7 percent by 2020 and 15 percent by 2035 compared to 2005 levels. The MTC adopted a RTP/SCS in 2013 known as Plan Bay Area, which was updated in 2017 and named Plan Bay Area 2040, to meet the initial goal. In 2018, CARB updated the per capita GHG emissions reduction targets, which called for a 10 percent per capita GHG reduction by 2020 and 19 percent per capita reduction by 2035 compared to 2005 levels.92 MTC will be addressing the revised goals in the next RTP/SCS. Plan Bay Area 2040 and the next RTP/SCS are relevant to the Project because the CEQA Guidelines require an assessment of a project's consistency with plans to reduce GHG emissions. Bay Area Air Quality Management District As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, BAAQMD is responsible for air quality planning within the SFBAAB, including projects in the city of Burlingame. BAAQMD has adopted advisory emissions thresholds to assist CEQA lead agencies in determining the level of significance of a project's GHG emissions; the thresholds are outlined in the agency's California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines.93 The emissions thresholds apply only to projects with build -out years prior to 2020. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines also outline methods for quantifying GHG emissions as well as potential mitigation measures. City of Burlingame General Plan The 2040 General Plan includes policies to address issues related to GHG emissions during the planning horizon (2015 to 2040). Sustainability goals and policies are aimed at reducing the city's contribution to GHG emissions. 92 California Air Resources Board. 2018b. Regional Plan Targets. March. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets. Accessed: April 2020. 93 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ cega_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-47 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan The Climate Action Plan, adopted in 2019, is a comprehensive GHG emissions reduction strategy for achieving the city's fair share of statewide emissions reductions within the 2020 and 2030 timeframe, consistent with AB 32 and SB 32. The Climate Action Plan also forecasts annual GHG emissions and provides reduction targets for 2040 and 2050. However, the Climate Action Plan notes that: It is speculative to demonstrate achievement with longer -term goals for 2040 and 2050, based on the information known today. Furthermore, the BAAQMD does not currently recommend demonstrating compliance with these future years.94 The City's Climate Action Plan specifies general plan policies as well as Climate Action Plan actions, including feasible GHG emissions reduction measures, which are implemented on a project -by -project basis, to achieve the City's reduction targets through 2030. CEQA clearance for discretionary development proposals is required to address the consistency of individual projects with the reduction measures in a jurisdiction's qualified Climate Action Plan as well as the goals and policies in the general plan to reduce GHG emissions. Compliance with appropriate measures in the Climate Action Plan would ensure an individual project's consistency with an adopted GHG reduction plan. Projects that are consistent with the qualified Climate Action Plan would have a less -than -significant impact related to GHG emissions generated through the 2030 planning horizon of the Climate Action Plan. The City's 2019 Climate Action Plan was prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and is therefore a qualified strategy, and the Project is eligible to tier from it. The Climate Action Plan provides a consistency checklist application to ensure that development projects in the city are consistent with the Climate Action Plan and provide a streamlined review process for projects while undergoing CEQA review. The Climate Action Plan states that "projects that are consistent with the Climate Action Plan (as demonstrated using the checklist) may rely on the Climate Action Plan for the impact analysis of GHG emissions, as required under CEQA." Environmental Setting Global Climate Change The process known as the greenhouse effect keeps the atmosphere near Earth's surface warm enough for the successful habitation of humans and other life forms. The greenhouse effect is created by sunlight that passes through the atmosphere. Some of the sunlight striking Earth is absorbed and converted to heat, which warms the surface. The surface emits a portion of this heat as infrared radiation, some of which is re -emitted toward the surface by GHGs. Human activities that generate GHGs increase the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, thereby enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the warming of Earth. 94 City of Burlingame. 2019. City of Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Sustainability/CAP/Climate%2 0Action%20PIan_FINAL.pdf#p age=50. Accessed: April 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.48 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Increases in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have exponentially increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.95 Rising atmospheric concentrations of GHGs in excess of natural levels result in increasing global surface temperatures —a process commonly referred to as global warming. Higher global surface temperatures, in turn, result in changes to Earth's climate system, including increased ocean temperatures and acidity, reduced areas of sea ice, variable precipitation, and increased frequencies and intensities during extreme weather events.96 Large-scale changes to Earth's system are collectively referred to as climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC estimates that human -induced warming reached a level approximately VC above pre -industrial levels in 2017 and is increasing at a rate of 0.2°C per decade. Under the current nationally determined contributions of mitigation from each country through 2030, global warming is expected to increase the temperature YC by 2100, with warming to continue afterwards.97 Large increases in global temperatures could have substantial adverse effects on the natural and human environments worldwide. Greenhouse Gases The principal anthropogenic (human -made) GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), and fluorinated compounds, including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic sources. The primary GHGs of concern associated with the Project are CO2, CH4, and N20. The principal characteristics of these pollutants are discussed below. CO2 enters the atmosphere through fossil fuel (i.e., oil, natural gas, coal) combustion, solid waste decomposition, plant and animal respiration, and chemical reactions (e.g., cement manufacturing). CO2 is also removed from the atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. CH4 is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. CH4 emissions also result from livestock and agricultural practices as well as the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. N20 is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. 95 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf. Accessed: April 2020. 96 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C. Contribution of Working Group 1,11, and III. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. Accessed: April 2020. 97 Ibid. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-49 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Methods have been set forth to describe emissions of GHGs in terms of a single gas to simplify reporting and analysis. The most commonly accepted method for comparing GHG emissions is the global warming potential (GWP) methodology defined in IPCC reference documents. IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of CO2e emissions, which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of CO2 (CO2 has a global warming potential of 1 by definition). Table 16 lists the global warming potential of CO2, CH4, and N20 and their lifetimes in the atmosphere. Table 16. Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Key Greenhouse Gases98 Global Warming Potential Lifetime Greenhouse Gas (100 years) (years) CO2 1 50-200 CH4 25 9-15 N20 298 121 CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N20 = nitrous oxide All GWPs used for CARB's GHG inventory and assessing attainment of the state's 2020 and 2030 reduction targets are considered over a 100-year timeframe (as shown in Table 16). However, CARB recognizes the importance of short-lived climate pollutants as well as the importance of reducing emissions to achieve the state's overall climate change goals. Short-lived climate pollutants have atmospheric lifetimes on the order of a few days to a few decades. Their relative climate forcing impacts, when measured in terms of how they heat the atmosphere, can be tens, hundreds, or even thousands of times greater than that of CO2.99 Recognizing their short-term lifespan and warming impact, short-lived climate pollutants are measured in terms of CO2e, using a 20-year time period. The use of GWPs with a time horizon of 20 years captures the importance of the short-lived climate pollutants and gives a better perspective on the speed at which emission controls affect the atmosphere relative to CO2 emission controls. The SLCP Reduction Strategy, discussed in the Regulatory Setting, addresses CH4, HFC gases, and anthropogenic black carbon. CH4 has lifetime of 12 years and a 20-year GWP of 72. HFC gases have lifetimes of 1.4 to 52 years and a 20-year GWP of 437 to 6,350. Anthropogenic black carbon has a lifetime of a few days to weeks and a 20-year GWP of 3,200.100 Greenhouse Gas Reporting A GHG inventory is a quantification of all GHG emissions and sinks101 within a selected physical and/or economic boundary. GHG inventories can be performed on a large scale (e.g., for global and national entities) or on a small scale (e.g., for a building or person). Although many processes are difficult to evaluate, several agencies have developed tools to quantify emissions from certain sources. Table 17 outlines the most recent global, national, statewide, and local GHG inventories to help contextualize the magnitude of potential Project -related emissions. 98 California Air Resources Board. 2018c. Global Warming Potentials. Last reviewed: June 22. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/background/gwp.htm#transition. Accessed: April 2020. 99 California Air Resources Board. 2017b. Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/final_sicp_report%2OFina1%202017.pdf. Accessed: April, 2020. 100 Ibid. 101 A GHG sink is a process, activity, or mechanism that removes GHG from the atmosphere. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-50 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 17. Global, National, State, and Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories Emissions Inventory CO2e (metric tons) 2010 IPCC Global GHG Emissions Inventory 52,000,000,000 2018 EPA National GHG Emissions Inventory 6,677,000,000 2017 CARB State GHG Emissions Inventory 424,100,000 2015 BAAQMD GHG Emissions Inventory 85,000,000 Sources: California Air Resources Board. 2019. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - 2018 Edition. Last revised: August 12, 2019. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed: April 2020. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate Change Synthesis Report. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR-AR5-FINAL-full.pdf. Accessed: April 2020. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2018. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed: April 2020. IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; CARB = California Air Resources Board; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District Discussion Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant GHG emissions impact if it would: • Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs? CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides guidance to lead agencies for determining the significance of environmental impacts pertaining to GHG emissions. Section 15064.4(a) states that a lead agency should make a good -faith effort that is based, to the extent possible, on scientific and factual data to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions that would result from implementation of a project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) also states that, when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, a lead agency should consider (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared with existing conditions, (2) whether the project's GHG emissions would exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency has determined to be applicable to the project, and (3) the extent to which the project would comply with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The approach to evaluating the significance of the Project's emissions with respect to the two questions above is further assessed in terms of construction emissions and operational emissions. The approach for both construction and operational emissions is discussed below. Construction Emissions The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not identify a GHG emission threshold for construction emissions. Instead, BAAQMD recommends that GHG emissions from construction be quantified and disclosed. BAAQMD further recommends incorporation of BMPs to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as feasible and applicable. This approach is used to evaluate construction -generated emissions. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-51 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Operational Emissions The California Supreme Court's decision in Center for Biological Diversity et al. vs. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Newhall Land and Farming Company (62 Ca1.4th 204) confirmed that there are multiple potential pathways for evaluating GHG emissions consistent with CEQA. Several air quality management agencies throughout the state have also drafted or adopted varying threshold approaches and guidelines for analyzing GHG emissions in CEQA documents. Common threshold approaches include (1) compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, (2) numeric "bright -line" thresholds, (3) efficiency -based thresholds, (4) performance -based reductions,102 and (5) compliance with regulatory programs. Of the above threshold approaches and guidelines recommended by the various air quality management agencies across the state to determine the significance of GHG emissions, analysis of the Project (excluding stationary -source GHG emissions) is based on compliance with the City's 2019 Climate Action Plan, which is a qualified GHG reduction strategy that extends through 2030. The Project's non - stationary -source emissions are evaluated with the Climate Action Plan's consistency checklist, which is provided in Appendix B. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that "if a project, including stationary sources, is located in a community with an adopted qualified GHG reduction strategy, the project may be considered less than significant if it is consistent with the GHG reduction strategy."103 However, the City's 2019 Climate Action Plan does not address generators in its consistency checklist. To more comprehensively evaluate Project emissions sources, stationary -source GHG emissions are analyzed with use of BAAQMD's bright - line threshold of 10,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2e, consistent with stationary -source thresholds adopted by other air quality management districts throughout the state. The threshold level is intended to capture 95 percent of all GHG emissions from stationary sources in the SFBAAB with new permit applications. The emergency generator included as part of this Project is a stationary source, and as such, BAAQMD's 10,000 MT CO2e threshold is appropriate for analyzing the significance of emissions from the generator. However, the analysis of emissions from other Project sources (e.g., sources related to energy consumption, water consumption, waste generation, mobile sources) is based on the Climate Action Plan's consistency checklist. Accordingly, emissions from non -stationary sources are qualitatively analyzed. Impacts a, Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction Construction is anticipated to span approximately 26 months, beginning in 2021. Construction activities would generate direct emissions of CO2, CHa, and N20 from mobile and stationary construction equipment as well as employees'/vendors' vehicles and trucks for hauling materials. Indirect emissions 102 performance -based thresholds are based on a percentage reduction from a projected future condition (e.g., reducing future business -as -usual emissions to meet the SB 32 target [40% below 1990 levels] through a combination of state measures; project design features, such as renewable energy; or mitigation. 103 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/cega_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdPla=en. Accessed: April 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-52 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist would occur with the use of electricity to power mobile offices and equipment. The emissions generated during construction of the Project were estimated using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2, as summarized in Table 18. As shown in Table 18, it is estimated that construction of the Project would generate approximately 2,272 MT of CO2e in total. This is equivalent to adding 491 typical passenger vehicles to the road during the construction period.104 Emissions generated during construction of the Project would be associated primarily with diesel -powered construction equipment (e.g., excavators) and on - road vehicle trips, with minor indirect emissions from powering construction equipment and mobile offices. Construction emissions would cease once construction of the Project is complete; therefore, they are considered short term. Table 18. Estimated GHG Emissions from Project Construction (metric tons per year) Year CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 2020 1,870 0.4 < 0.1 1,881 2021 298 < 0.1 < 0.1 299 2022 104 < 0.1 < 0.1 105 Total 2,272 0.5 < 0.1 2,284 CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N20 = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent, including the relative warming capacity (i.e., global warming potential) of each GHG The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not identify a GHG emissions threshold for construction -related emissions; however, they do recommend that GHG emissions from construction be quantified and disclosed and a determination regarding the significance of the GHG emissions be made with respect to whether the project in question is consistent with state goals regarding reductions in GHG emissions. As discussed below, the Project would be consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan, an adopted and qualified GHG reduction strategy. The Climate Action Plan's consistency checklist would require the Project to comply with BAAQMD's BMPs for reducing GHG emissions from construction (see Appendix B). The Project would ensure that GHG emissions during construction would be minimized through implementation of BAAQMD's BMPs. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Project would reduce this less -than -significant impact even further with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which would reduce GHG emissions from construction activities by requiring equipment to be maintained and properly tuned and idling times to be limited. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Operation BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines state that "if a project, including stationary sources, is located in a community with an adopted qualified GHG reduction strategy, the project may be considered less than significant if it is consistent with the GHG reduction strategy." However, the City's 2019 Climate Action Plan does not address generators in its consistency checklist. To comprehensively evaluate Project emissions sources, stationary -source GHG emissions are analyzed with use of BAAQMD's bright -line threshold of 10,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2e, consistent with stationary -source thresholds adopted by 104 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. March. Available: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator. Accessed: April 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-53 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist other air quality management districts throughout the state. However, the analysis of emissions from other Project sources (e.g., sources related to energy consumption, water consumption, waste generation, mobile sources) is based on the Climate Action Plan's consistency checklist. As discussed below, the Project would be consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan, an adopted and qualified GHG reduction strategy (see Appendix B). Therefore, quantification of non -stationary operational emissions is not required as part of the GHG analysis. The Project's non -stationary GHG emissions are not used to determine the significance of the Project's impacts since the impact determination is made through consistency with the Climate Action Plan. Stationary Sources Stationary -source emissions would be associated with the intermittent use of the 275-kilowatt diesel emergency generator on the roof of the proposed building. Emissions from the emergency generator during startup and maintenance testing are presented in Table 19. Table 19. Estimated GHG Emissions from Stationary Sources (metric tons per year) Stationary Source CO2e Emergency generator 7 BAAQMD Threshold 10,000 Exceed Threshold? No BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent The evaluation of stationary -source impacts in this analysis is based on BAAQMD's 10,000 MT of CO2e threshold. As shown in Table 19, emissions from emergency generator testing would be below BAAQMD's stationary -source threshold. Because emissions from the generator would be below the threshold, stationary sources would result in GHG emissions impacts that would be less than significant. Non -Stationary Sources Non -stationary GHG emissions sources include on -road vehicles, landscaping equipment, landfill waste, electricity for building energy and water, and changes to land uses. Operational activities would result in GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips, energy consumption, water consumption, and waste. The discussion of energy sources normally considers electricity and natural gas; however, because the Project would not use natural gas, the GHG analysis of energy is limited to emissions associated with electricity. Water consumption would result in indirect GHG emissions from the conveyance, distribution, and treatment of water. Waste emissions would be generated with the release of fugitive CH4 and N20 emissions from the decomposition of organic matter at landfills. Area -source emissions would be associated with the electricity used to power landscaping equipment. Potential impacts from these sources are determined by using the City's 2019 Climate Action Plan consistency checklist. To be consistent with the City's 2019 Climate Action Plan, the Project would be subject to the measures in the Climate Action Plan consistency checklist. As discussed in Appendix B and summarized below, the Project would satisfy all requirements of the checklist and therefore be consistent with the Climate Action Plan. The Project features that would be consistent with the Climate Action Plan checklist measures are described by each emission source category. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-54 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Construction: Compliance with BAAQMD BMPs. Environmental Checklist • Transportation: Access to transit within 0.5 mile; TDM strategies that reduce VMT by 20 percent; pedestrian, transit, or cycling improvements; strategies to reduce parking demand; and access to a nearby shuttle station. • Energy use: Use of electric landscaping equipment; use of electric construction equipment; achievement of the Tier 2 energy efficiency provisions of the CALGreen measures, and use of electric water heaters. Water consumption: Compliance with the City's water conservation requirements for new residential developments. • Waste disposal: Inclusion of facilities for recycling and composting. • Land use changes: A net increase in the number of trees in the Project area. With these features, it was determined that the Project would be consistent with the City's GHG reduction strategy (see Appendix B). The City's local GHG reduction targets are consistent with the long- term GHG reduction goals of SB 32. Because the Project would consistent with the City's GHG reduction strategy, it would also be consistent with the GHG reduction goals of SB 32 and would not conflict with this plan. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the Project's incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable if the Project complies with the requirements of the Climate Action Plan. Therefore, GHG impacts from non -stationary sources would be less than significant. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions ofgreenhousegases? (Less than Significant) Regarding plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, AB 32 and SB 32 have been adopted at the statewide level. At the local level, the Climate Action Plan is the City's plan to reduce GHG emissions. The Project's consistency with these three plans is assessed to determine the significance of this impact. In addition, the Project's consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan, SB 375/Plan Bay Area 2040, and EO B-SS-18 is also reviewed. Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32 AB 32 codifies the state's GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020. CARB adopted the 2008 scoping plan and 2014 first update as a framework for achieving AB 32. The 2008 scoping plan and 2014 first update outlined a series of technologically feasible and cost-effective measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions. CARB adopted the 2017 climate change scoping plan in November 2017 as a framework for achieving the 2030 GHG reduction goal described in SB 32. Transportation -related GHG reduction strategies and policies applicable to the Project outlined in the 2008, 2014, and 2017 scoping plans include the mobile -source strategy, which encourages a reduction in VMT through implementation of SB 375 and regional SCSs as well as other VMT reduction strategies. The scoping plans also discuss existing and proposed water conservation measures (e.g., implementing water reuse systems and reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on land). GHG reduction strategies related to trees and vegetation are also described in the scoping plans. The Project includes numerous sustainability features that are consistent with scoping plan strategies and policies to reduce construction -related and operational GHG emissions. The Project would include a TDM plan, incorporating strategies to achieve a 20 percent reduction in trip generation rates. The 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-55 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Project would provide three parking spaces with charging stations for electric vehicles as well as 20 designated spaces for electric -vehicle parking. There would be 40 Class I bicycle lockers inside the storage room on the ground floor and four Class II bicycle racks in the public plaza to support trips from non -emitting modes. Landscaping equipment (e.g., trimmers, mowers) would be electrically powered as opposed to being gasoline or diesel powered. The preliminary intent of the design is to avoid the use of natural gas in the building (e.g., the building could have electric water heaters and electric stovetops). In addition, the Project would install Energy Star appliances and achieve the Tier 1 voluntary energy efficiency provisions of the Title 24 building standards, which are 15 percent more efficient than the baseline standard. The building would include water -conserving appliances and low -flow fixtures. Outdoor water conservation measures would include installing and maintaining water -efficient landscaping, such as plant material with low water usage to minimize irrigation requirements. Lastly, the Project would provide a net increase in the number of trees. These Project features would be consistent with the energy, vehicle, water conservation, and vegetation -related measures in the scoping plans. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with applicable policies described in the scoping plans for AB 32 and SB 32. Consistency with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan The consistency of the Project with the policies in the 2017 climate change scoping plan for achieving the 2030 GHG target is analyzed in Table 20. Table 20. Consistency of Project with 2017 Scoping Plan Policies' Policy SB 350 Low -Carbon Fuel Standard Mobile -Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) Primary Objective Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through implementation of the 50 percent RPS, doubling energy savings, and taking other actions as appropriate to achieve GHG emissions reductions and planning targets in the Integrated Resource Plan process. Transition to cleaner/less-polluting fuels that have a lower carbon footprint. Reduce GHGs and other pollutants from the transportation sector through a transition to zero -emission and low - emission vehicles, cleaner transit systems, and reductions in VMT. Proposed Plan Consistency Analysis This policy is a state program that requires no action at the local or project level. Nonetheless, development of the Project would be consistent with the energy -saving objective of this measure. The Project would install Energy Star appliances and achieve the Tier 1 voluntary energy efficiency provisions of the Title 24 building standards, which are 15 percent more efficient than the baseline standard. These policies are a state program that requires no action at the local or project level. Nonetheless, the Project would optimize public transit as well as bicyclist and pedestrian access to the site by locating the Project within 0.5 mile of the Millbrae multimodal transit station, adjacent to local bus routes, and adjacent to routes that provide safe and convenient access for bicyclists and pedestrians. There would be 33 Class I bicycle lockers inside the storage room on the ground floor and four Class II bicycle racks in the public plaza. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-56 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Policy Primary Objective Proposed Plan Consistency Analysis SB 1383 Approve and implement the SLCP Reduction Strategy to reduce highly potent GHGs. California Improve freight efficiency, transition to Sustainable zero -emission technologies, and Freight Action increase competitiveness in California's Plan freight system. Post-2020 Cap- Reduce GHGs across the largest GHG and -Trade emissions sources. Program These policies represent a state program that requires no action at the local or project level. It is not applicable to the Project. Note: a The scoping plan policies included in this table are those representing the state strategy for meeting the 2030 GHG target of SB 32. As shown, the Project would not conflict with or hinder implementation of the policies in the 2017 climate change scoping plan. City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan The City's 2019 Climate Action Plan identifies a series of GHG emissions reduction measures for implementation by development projects, thereby allowing the City to achieve its GHG reduction goals for 2020 and 2030. The Project would be evaluated against the City's Climate Action Plan by using the consistency checklist. As discussed in Appendix B, the Project would satisfy all requirements of the checklist and therefore be consistent with the Climate Action Plan. Because the Project would satisfy the requirements of the Climate Action Plan consistency checklist, it would not conflict with the City's Climate Action Plan. Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes performance objectives, consistent with the state's climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and a level 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. The 2017 Clean Air Plan identifies a range of transportation control measures, land use and local impact measures, and energy and climate measures, which make up the Clean Air Plan's control strategy for emissions, including GHGs. As described above, the Project would include numerous objectives and measures to reduce construction and operational GHG emissions. The Project would be consistent with the following Clean Air Plan measures. • BL1: Green Buildings • BL2: Decarbonized Buildings • NW2: Urban Tree Planting • TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities • TR10: Land Use Strategies • TR13: Parking Policies to Reduce VNIT 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-57 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist • TR22: Construction, Freight, and Farming Equipment • TR23: Lawn Care Equipment • WR2: Support Water Conservation Plan Bay Area 2040/California Senate Bill 375 Under the requirements of SB 375, the MTC and ABAG developed an SCS, along with the adopted Plan Bay Area 2040, to achieve the Bay Area's regional GHG reduction target. Targets for the San Francisco Bay Area, approved by CARB in March 2018, include a 10 percent reduction in GHG per capita from passenger vehicles by 2020 compared with emissions in 2005. The adopted target for 2035 is a 19 percent reduction in GHG per capita from passenger vehicles compared with emissions in 2005. The emission reduction targets are associated with land use and transportation strategies only. It is estimated that the Project would generate up to 1,799 daily trips.105 However, the Project would include a TDM plan, incorporating strategies to achieve a 20 percent reduction in trip generation rates (i.e., approximately 1,440 daily Project trips). In addition, implementation of the Project would optimize public transit as well as bicyclist and pedestrian access to the site by locating the Project within 0.5 mile of the Millbrae multimodal transit station, adjacent to local bus routes, and adjacent to routes that provide safe and convenient access for bicyclists and pedestrians. There would be 40 Class I bicycle lockers inside the storage room on the ground floor and four Class II bicycle racks in the public plaza. These features would support alternative transportation within the community, which could help reduce the number of vehicle trips, VMT, and per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040. Executive Order B-55-18 Although many GHG reduction measures outlined in the 2017 scoping plan will continue to be implemented and enhanced beyond 2030, no plan for meeting the carbon neutrality goal described in EO B-55-18 has yet been adopted. In addition, EOs are binding only on state agencies and do not expressly apply to private residential developments, such as the Project. The Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) Climate Change Committee recommended in a 2016 white paper that CEQA analyses for projects with post-2020 development, such as the Project, not only consider "consistency with the 2020/AB 32-based framework but also analyze the consequences of post-2020 GHG emissions in terms of their impacts on the reduction trajectory from 2020 toward 2050." AEP further recommends that the "significance determination ... should be based on consistency with 'substantial progress' along a post-2020 trajectory." The 2016 AEP white paper is advisory only and not binding guidance or an adopted set of CEQA thresholds. However, the CEQA Guidelines do authorize a lead agency to consider thresholds of significance recommended by experts, such as members of the AEP Climate Change Committee, which consists of leaders from climate action planning practices as well as the consulting firms and agencies that have lead many of the local GHG reduction planning efforts across California. As stated above, the Project would include numerous sustainability features to reduce construction - related and operational GHG emissions. The Project would include a TDM plan, incorporating strategies 105 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2020. Trip Generation Analysis for the Proposed Project Located at 1776 El Camino Real in Burlingame, California. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3_58 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist to achieve a 20 percent reduction in trip generation rates. In addition, the Project would provide three parking spaces with charging stations for electric vehicles as well as 20 designated spaces for electric - vehicle parking. There would be 40 Class I bicycle lockers inside the storage room on the ground floor and four Class II bicycle racks in the public plaza to support trips from non -emitting modes. Landscaping equipment (e.g., trimmers, mowers) would be electrically powered as opposed to gasoline or diesel powered. The preliminary intent of the design is to avoid the use of natural gas in the building (e.g., the building could have electric water heaters and electric stovetops). In addition, the Project would install Energy Star appliances and achieve the Tier 1 voluntary energy efficiency provisions of the Title 24 building standards, which are 15 percent more efficient than the baseline standard. The building would include water -conserving appliances and low -flow fixtures. Outdoor water conservation measures would include installing and maintaining water -efficient landscaping, such as plant material with low water usage to minimize irrigation requirements. Lastly, the Project would provide a net increase in the number of trees. It is also possible that future adopted state and federal actions would further reduce the Project's emissions. Accordingly, it is assumed that the Project's emission levels would be consistent with the goals in EO B-55-18. Conclusion The Project includes numerous objectives and measures that are consistent with applicable policies described in the scoping plans for AB 32, SB 32, the City Climate Action Plan, the Bay Area 2017 Climate Action Plan, and Plan Bay Area 2040. Consequently, the Project would not conflict with achievement of the AB 32 reduction goal for 2020, SB 32 reduction goals for 2030, or the RTP/SCS reduction goals for 2020 and 2035. The Project would therefore be consistent with the state's GHG emission reduction trajectory. This impact would be less than significant. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-59 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact 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 involve handling ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. Be located within an airport land use plan area or, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ® ❑ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g. Expose people or structures, either directly or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Setting Hazardous Materials This setting for hazards and hazardous materials is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) that was prepared for the Project site in 1997 by Phase One, Inc.106 The information was updated by Environmental Data Resources (EDR) in 2020.107 106 Phase One, Inc. 1997. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for Eureka Bank 1766 El Camino Real. Phase One, Inc., PN: 2769. 107 Environmental Data Resources. 2020. The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck. Final. Shelton CT. Inquiry Number 5991384.2s. Prepared for ICF Irvine CA. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-60 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to assess the likelihood of contamination at the site as a result of either past or present land practices as well as the potential for future environmental contamination that may occur as a result of current conditions or operations or maintenance activities at either the Project site or properties adjoining the Project site. The Phase I ESA did not identify any significant concerns associated with the Project site. One minor concern identified was associated with the suspected presence of asbestos -containing materials in on -site structures. Building materials, in particular those manufactured before 1973, have the potential to contain asbestos. Because of the age of the existing building, which was built in 1959, asbestos may be present. Potential or possible environmental conditions108 include the following: • Mills -Peninsula Hospital and a Chevron service station within 0.1 mile of the Project site were listed in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database and have a history of releases. • A pad -mounted transformer was located on -site. The transformer was suspected of containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in hydraulic fluids or dielectric insulating fluids. The federal government banned the manufacture of lead -based paint in 1978; therefore, paints manufactured before 1978 may contain lead. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the California Department of Health Services (California DHS) have defined lead -based paint as any paint that is more than 0.5 percent lead by weight. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) states that work that involves the disturbance of materials that are more than 0.06 percent lead by weight must be conducted in accordance with the Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1). Because of the age of building at the Project site (built in 1959), lead -based paint may be present at the site. At the time of preparation of the Phase I ESA, the Project site was not identified as a site with releases of hazardous materials or violations. Off -site properties with some potential to affect the Project site (because of the off -site location's environmental history) included the two sites mentioned above (Mills - Peninsula Hospital and the Chevron service station). The Project site was identified in various environmental databases during the EDR update of 2020 as a site with a history of hazardous material handling. The Project site was listed in the EDR report as Pacific Motor Trucking Co./Southern Pacific Trans Pacific Motor/Mills-Peninsula and Certosa, Inc. However, the Project site was not identified with releases of hazardous materials into the environment or violations associated with any of the aforementioned listings. The 2020 EDR update identified the following off -site properties (within 0.25 mile of the Project site) as having the potential to affect the Project site because of the off -site location's environmental history: • Burlingame Police Station/City of Burlingame, 1111 Trousdale Drive. The site is located approximately 0.01 mile to the east of the Project site. The site is listed in the LUST database with an Open - Active status. Gasoline contamination in subsurface soil has not been defined. Confirmation soil samples collected beneath a gasoline tank (during removal) identified gasoline -affected soils. The site is hydraulically downgradient from the Project site. 108 Phase One classifies an environmental condition as a potential or possible condition when it involves issues that appear to pose no immediate threat to a site, given current knowledge of site conditions, or it is the current commercial or customary practice to do so. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-61 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist • Primo Cleaners,1560 Trousdale Drive. The site is approximately 0.1 mile south of the Project site. It is listed as a LUST site with tetrachloroethylene- and trichloroethylene-affected indoor air, soil, and soil vapor. The site is listed as Open and undergoing a site assessment. • Union Oil SS 3798, 1876 El Camino Real. The site is approximately 0.2 mile west of the Project site. It is listed as a LUST site with gasoline -affected groundwater. The site is listed as Open and undergoing remediation. The Second Semi -Annual 2019 Groundwater Monitoring Report,109 reviewed using GeoTracker (discussed below), identified groundwater flows to the northeast and not toward the Project site. The two sites listed below were identified as potential or possible environmental conditions in the 1997 Phase I ESA. They have since been granted closure by the San Mateo County Local Oversight Program. A summary of their current status (as presented in the 2020 EDR) is provided below. • Chevron 9-8165, 1810 El Camino Real. The site is approximately 0.035 mile west-northwest of the Project site. The site is listed as a LUST site with gasoline -affected groundwater. Case granted closure by the San Mateo County Local Oversight Program in November 2012. • Mills Peninsula Medical Center/Peninsula Hospital and Medical, 1783 El Camino Real. The site is approximately 0.087 mile south-southeast of the Project site. The site is listed as a LUST site with diesel -affected groundwater. Case granted closure by the San Mateo County Local Oversight Program in September 2000. In addition to the five sites listed above, there were four additional sites within 0.25 mile of the Project site with a history of releases to the environment (two LUST sites, one in the EnviroStor database, and one in the Statewide Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup database). However, all four were granted closure or "no further action" status by the applicable oversight agency. GeoTracker is the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB's) data management system for sites that affect, or have the potential to affect, water quality in California, with emphasis placed on groundwater. GeoTracker contains records for sites that require cleanup, such as LUST sites, Department of Defense sites, and cleanup program sites. GeoTracker also contains records of various unregulated projects as well as permitted facilities (e.g., irrigated lands, oil and gas production sites, permitted and operating underground storage tanks, land disposal sites). A GeoTracker database query yielded no results for the Project site.110 EnviroStor is the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) data management system for tracking cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination or sites where there may be reasons to investigate further. An EnviroStor database query yielded no results for the Project site."' 109 GHD. 2019. Second Semi-Annua12019 Groundwater Monitoring Report. Available: https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/l811928808/T0608100575.PDF. Accessed: May 13, 2020 110 State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. GeoTracker. Available: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed: May 18, 2020. 111 Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020. EnviroStor. Available: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed: May 18, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-62 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Schools, Airports, and Wildfire The closest school to the Project site is Learning Links Preschool, located at 1764 Marco Polo Way, approximately 0.25 mile west of the Project site. The Project site is approximately 0.7 mile west of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). An Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) has been adopted for SFO.112 The Project is not within 2 miles of a private airstrip. The city of Burlingame falls within a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Local Responsibility Area.113 The city is zoned as a Non -Very High Fire Hazard Security Zone. Regulatory Requirements Many federal, state, and local regulations regarding the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would apply to the Project. The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established an EPA -administered program to regulate the generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the "cradle to grave' system of regulating hazardous waste. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations cover all aspects of hazardous materials packaging, handling, and transportation. Parts 107 (Hazard Materials Program), 130 (Oil Spill Prevention and Response), 172 (Emergency Response), and 177 (Highway Transportation) would all apply to the Project and/or surrounding uses. The DTSC, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is the primary agency in California for regulating hazardous waste, cleaning up existing contamination, and finding ways to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced in California. Division 20, Chapter 6.5, of the California Health and Safety Code deals with hazardous waste control through regulations pertaining to the transport, treatment, recycling, disposal, enforcement, and permitting of hazardous waste. Division 20, Chapter 6.10, contains regulations applicable to the cleanup of hazardous materials releases. Title 22, Division 4.5, contains the environmental health standards for the management of hazardous waste. This includes standards for identification of hazardous waste (Chapter 11) and standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste (Chapter 13). The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program) (California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.11, Sections 25404-25404.9) consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of environmental and emergency response programs and provides authority to the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The CUPA is designed to protect public health and the environment from accidental releases and improper handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. This is accomplished through inspections, emergency response, enforcement, and site mitigation oversight. The CUPA for Burlingame is San Mateo County Health.114 112 Ricondo & Associates, Jacobs Consultancy, and Clarion Associates. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport November. Available: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: May 15, 2020. 113 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2008. San Mateo County FHSZMap: Local Responsibility Area. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6800/fliszl-map4l.pdf. Accessed: May 15, 2020. 114 San Mateo County Health. n.d. Certified Unified Program Agency. Available: https://www.smchealth.org/hazardous-materials-cupa. Accessed: May 11, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-63 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Cal/OSHA and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforce occupational safety standards to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing standards for safe workplaces and work practices, all of which would be applicable to construction of the Project. The standards included in Cal/OSHA's Title 8 include regulations pertaining to hazard control (including administrative and engineering controls), hazardous chemical labeling and training requirements, hazardous exposure prevention, hazardous material management, and hazardous waste operations. The California Labor Code is a collection of regulations that include regulation of the workplace to ensure appropriate training on the use and handling of hazardous materials and the operation of equipment and machines that use, store, transport, or dispose of hazardous materials. Division 5, Part 1, Chapter 2.5, ensures that employees who handle hazardous materials are appropriately trained. Division 5, Part 7, ensures that employees who work with volatile flammable liquids are outfitted with appropriate safety gear and clothing. Dischargers whose projects disturb 1 or more acres of soil, such as the Project, are required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit (Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires completion and implementation of a site - specific SWPPP. Discussion a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than Significant) The depth to groundwater is estimated to be between 9.5 and 10 feet bgs. Below -grade parking to be constructed as part of the Project would require excavations to approximately 28 to 30 feet. Because of the depth of excavation, the site is expected to require dewatering prior to excavation. The SWRCB's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires discharges of groundwater associated with dewatering not to cause, have reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an in -stream incursion that would exceed applicable state or federal water quality objectives/criteria or cause acute or chronic toxicity in the receiving water. Project construction would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking. During Project operation, hazardous materials that are commonly found in residential, office, and retail spaces (e.g., paints, solvents, cleaning agents) would be stored and used on -site. Hazardous materials used during operations would be used in small quantities, and spills would be cleaned as they occur. The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be required to comply with applicable regulations, as discussed under Setting. These include the RCRA, DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations, and the local CUPA regulations. Although these materials would be transported, used, and disposed of during construction and operation, they are commonly used in construction projects and would not represent the transport, use, or disposal of acutely hazardous materials. The impact would be less than significant. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-64 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist 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? (Less than Significant) Hazardous materials, including fuel, solvents, paints, oils, grease, etc., would be transported, stored, used, and disposed of on -site during both Project construction and operation. It is possible that any of these substances could be released to the environment during transport, storage, use, or disposal. However, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, in combination with temporary construction BMPs (as part of Construction General Permit requirements) would ensure that all hazardous materials would be used, stored, and disposed of properly, which would minimize potential impacts related to a hazardous materials release during construction and operation of the Project. As discussed under Setting, the 1997 Phase I ESA, the 2020 EDR update, and GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases indicate that off -site properties are unlikely to affect implementation of the Project. This was determined by taking into account the site's location, environmental history and status, and affected media. Because of the build date of the on -site structures, asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paint are most likely present. Demolition activities could release these hazardous materials into the environment and create exposure risks for construction personnel and the surrounding environment. The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides EPA with the authority to require reporting, record -keeping, testing, and restrictions related to chemical substances and/or mixtures. The TSCA addresses issues regarding the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals, including PCBs, asbestos, radon, and lead -based paint. The DTSC considers asbestos a hazardous substance and requires removal. Asbestos -containing materials must be removed in accordance with local and state regulations as well as local air district, Cal/OSHA, and California DHS requirements. This includes materials that could be disturbed by demolition and construction activities. Local and state regulations require the following: Prior to construction, asbestos -containing material and lead -based paint surveys would be conducted to determine if these materials are present. If detected on the site, appropriate safety measures would be implemented for their removal, transport, and disposal. Adherence to existing regulations (as mentioned above), as well as asbestos -containing material and lead -based paint surveys, would reduce the impact to less than significant by identifying and abating materials that contain asbestos or lead. c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less than Significant) The Project site is within 0.25 mile of Learning Links Preschool. As discussed in Impact IX(a), the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking would occur during both construction and operation of the Project Such transport, use, and disposal would comply with applicable regulations, such as the RCRA, DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations, and the local CUPA regulations. Although small amounts of hazardous materials would be transported, used, and disposed of during construction, these materials are commonly used in construction projects and would not represent the transport, use, and disposal of acutely hazardous materials. Asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paint both likely occur at the Project site. Demolition could release these contaminants near a school. However, asbestos -containing material and lead -based paint surveys would be conducted, in compliance with existing regulations. If these materials are detected on the site, appropriate safety measures would be implemented for their removal, transport, and disposal. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the impact on schools within 0.25 mile of the Project site would be less than significant. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-65 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact) United States Code Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, California DHS-listed contaminated wells for drinking water, SWRCB-listed sites with LUSTS or discharges of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites with a known migration of hazardous waste/material. The Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to United States Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and there would be no impact. e. Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? (Less than Significant) The Project site is within the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 sphere of influence and the boundary of the SFO ALUCP. Development on the Project site is limited to a height of 100 feet above msl, according to the SFO ALUCP,115 but may be further restricted after notification of and consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under Part 77.9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The proposed structure would be below the established height limits and would not pose a safety hazard. Impacts would be less than significant. f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than Significant) The Project would construct a new structure on previously developed commercial land. Access points to the site would be provided to ensure proper access for emergency vehicles. Although the City does not have an established evacuation plan, the Project would adhere to the guidelines established by the Community Safety Element of the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, and the impact would be less than significant g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? (Less than Significant) The Project site, which is in an urbanized setting, does not lie within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone of either the State Responsibility Area or the Local Responsibility Area. Wildfire is unlikely to occur at the Project site. However, there have been occurrences in which wildfire has spread from non -urban to urban areas (e.g., the Tubbs Fire of 2017, a wildfire that spread to urbanized areas in Napa, Sonoma, and Lake Counties). Accordingly, although it is unlikely that the Project would expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risks involving wildland fires, there is a slight risk. The impact would be less than significant. lls Ricondo & Associates, Jacobs Consultancy, and Clarion Associates. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November. Available: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: May 15, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-66 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist X. Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would: 1. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on -site ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or off -site; 2. Substantially increase the rate or amount of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on -site or off -site; 3. Create or contribute runoff water that would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or 4. Impede or redirect floodflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ release of pollutants due to Project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Setting The Project site is within the Millbrae Creek watershed.116 The Millbrae Creek watershed includes Millbrae Creek as well as underground storm drains and an engineered channel (El Portal Canal), which drains into San Francisco Bay. The SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) monitor water quality in the Bay Area. These agencies oversee implementation of NPDES stormwater discharge permits. The SWRCB has implemented a NPDES Construction General Permit for the State of California (Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Dischargers whose projects disturb 1 or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. Furthermore, the Construction General Permit requires a SWPPP to be prepared prior to commencement of construction. 116 Oakland Museum of California. n.d. Guide to San Francisco Bay Area Creeks, Millbrae Creek Watershed. Available: http://explore.museumca.org/creeks/1570-RescMilbrae.html. Accessed: May 11, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-67 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist The City of Burlingame participates in the San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and is required to implement low -impact development (LID) BMPs under NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, Order No. Order R2-2009-0074, adopted October 14, 2009. This NPDES permit is also known as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Provision C.3 of the MRP is directly applicable to the Project. This provision allows permittees to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development as well as redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from both new development and redevelopment projects. This goal is to be accomplished primarily through implementation of LID techniques. LID practices include source -control BMPs, site design BMPs, and stormwater treatment BMPs on -site or at a joint stormwater treatment facility. The City purchases all its potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Regional Water System (RWS). Approximately 85 percent of the SFPUC RWS water supply originates in the Hetch Hetchy watershed, located in Yosemite National Park, and flows down the Tuolumne River into Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.117 The remaining 15 percent of the SFPUC RWS water supply originates locally in the Alameda and Peninsula watershed and is stored in six different reservoirs in Alameda and San Mateo Counties.118 There are no surface waters at the Project site. El Portal Canal, a concrete channel, is located approximately 0.25 mile north of the Project site. During the geotechnical investigation, groundwater was encountered at a depth of 9.5 to 10 feet bgs.119 Actual groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally with variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors. The city of Burlingame is within the Westside Groundwater Basin, which is designated as a Very Low Priority Area, per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.120,121 The South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan122 established a goal for the area that would ensure a sustainable, high - quality, reliable water supply at a fair price through local groundwater management for beneficial uses.123 The City is part of the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan, which is a voluntary groundwater management plan. The Project site is categorized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as an area that is subject to inundation by a flood event with a 0.2 percent annual chance.124 117 Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. 2016.2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_Center/Water/2 015%2OUrban%2 0 Water%2OManagement%20PIan.p df. Accessed: May 11, 2020. 118 Ibid. 119 BAGG Engineers. 2019. Report Update: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Seven -Story Multi -Use Building 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA. December 20. Prepared for the Certosa Corporation, Burlingame, CA. 120 California Department of Water Resources. 2020. SGMA Data Viewer. Available: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels. Accessed: May 18, 2020. 121 California Department of Water Resources. 2020. Sustainable Groundwater ManagementAct, 2019 Basin Prioritization. May. Available: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Basin-Prioritization. Accessed: May 18, 2020. 122 WRIME. 2012. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. July. Available: https://sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3104. Accessed: May 18, 2020. 123Ibid. 124 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Mateo County, California, and Incorporated Areas. Panel 132 of 510. Map revised: April 5, 2019. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Stormwater/FEMA%20Brochures/06081 CO 132 F.pdf. Accessed: May 18, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.68 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Discussion a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface orgroundwater quality? (Less than Significant) Construction of the Project would involve ground -disturbing activities, such as excavation, that could require dewatering. Construction activities have the potential to result in runoff that contains sediment and other pollutants, which could degrade water quality if not properly controlled. Sources of pollution associated with construction include chemical substances from construction materials as well as hazardous or toxic materials, such as fuels. As described in Impact IX(a), the Project would be subject to state and federal hazardous materials laws and regulations, which would minimize the risk of affecting the quality of surface water and groundwater. More than 1 acre of soil would be affected by the Project; therefore, the Project would be subject to the Construction General Permit. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with the MRP. Erosion control requirements are stipulated in the Construction General Permit and the MRP. These requirements include preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that contains BMPs. The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify potential sources of sediment and other pollutants and prescribe BMPs to ensure that potential adverse erosion, siltation, and contamination impacts do not occur during construction activities. Implementation of a SWPPP with BMPs would control erosion and protect water quality from potential contaminants in stormwater runoff emanating from the construction site. BMPs may include damp street sweeping; appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas; temporary cover for disturbed surfaces; and sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, check dams, soil blankets or mats, covers for stock piles, or other BMPs to trap sediments. Such BMPs would help to protect surface water and groundwater quality. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Pollutants in stormwater runoff from urban development, such as the Project, have the potential to violate water quality standards if the types and amounts are not adequately reduced. Stormwater runoff from the types of urban uses that would be facilitated by Project approval is regulated under the MRP. The applicant would be required to submit the SMCWPPP checklist to the City to show compliance with NPDES regional permit requirements. BMPs included in site designs and plans for the Project would be reviewed by the City's engineering staff to ensure appropriateness and adequate design capacity prior to permit issuance. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has incorporated requirements in the MRP to protect water quality and approved the SMCWPPP, which is in compliance with the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. The City review and permitting process would ensure that the permit's waste discharge requirements would not be violated by the Project. For these reasons, the Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation, including standards and requirements regarding surface water and groundwater quality. Operational impacts would be less than significant. b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less than Significant) Per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, all of California's 515 groundwater basins are classified into one of four categories: High, Medium, Low, or Very Low Priority. The Project site is within the Westside Groundwater Basin, which is classified as Very Low Priority. Groundwater is not a supply or recharge source; the City's sole source of potable water is the SFPUC RWS, which obtains approximately 85 percent of its water supply from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Nonetheless, the City is part of the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan, a voluntary groundwater management plan. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-69 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Groundwater was encountered at 9.5 to 10 feet bgs. Excavation is expected to extend to 28 to 30 feet bgs; therefore, groundwater could be encountered, requiring dewatering at the site. Although dewatering could be required, it would represent a short-term, less -than -significant impact because groundwater is not a supply or recharge source. Furthermore, dewatering would not have a substantial adverse effect on surface water/groundwater interactions. Dewatering would not adversely affect groundwater supplies because the City's sole source of potable water is the SFPUC RWS. The Project would, therefore, not substantially decrease groundwater supplies and would not impede sustainable groundwater management of this "Very Low Priority" groundwater basin. Therefore, the Project's impact would be less than significant. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would. 1. Result insubstantial erosion or siltation on -site or off -site? (Less than Significant) The nearest surface water to the Project site is El Portal Canal, which is approximately 0.25 mile north of the site. Therefore, no drainage patterns of surface waters would be directly altered by construction of the Project. Under existing conditions, stormwater from the Project site is conveyed to existing stormwater drains and inlets. Stormwater drains and stormwater inlets are located on Trousdale Drive and behind the residential areas off Dufferin Avenue.125 Implementation of the Project would alter existing drainage patterns on the site with construction of a new building; however, stormwater would be discharged to the same stormwater drains and inlets that currently exist. In addition, stormwater runoff from the rooftop and plaza of the Project would be collected and directed to a cistern. Stormwater runoff within the public sidewalk right-of-way would be treated in stormwater planters at bulb -outs or behind the curb. Stormwater would. As described in Impact X(a), the Project would implement BMPs, per NPDES regional permit requirements; it would not result in any violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project site would include 18,703 sf of landscaping. Aerial imagery of the site was reviewed to estimate the existing amount of landscaping. Approximately 11,000 sf is currently landscaped.126 Therefore, it is expected that the Project would increase the amount of landscaping. It is also expected that the amount of stormwater that would be discharged with implementation of the Project would be similar to what is currently discharged. Furthermore, the Project would implement BMPs to treat stormwater runoff. Therefore, changes to drainage patterns due to the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on -site or off -site. This impact would be less than significant. 2. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on -site or off -site? (Less than Significant) As described above in Impact X(c)(1), the Project would not directly alter the drainage patterns of surface waters. However, the Project would remove an existing building and landscaped areas and replace them with a new building and new landscaped areas. In addition, the Project would include a cistern and stormwater planters. Overall, the amount of stormwater that would be discharged with 125 City of Burlingame. 2020. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. Available: http://bgmaps.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8f4f7accd3054ba5a4fde95lfc45b601. Accessed: May 19, 2020. 126 Google. 2020. Google Earth. Accessed: May 19, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-70 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist implementation of the Project would be similar to what is currently discharged. Therefore, changes to drainage patterns due to the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on -site or off -site. This impact would be less than significant 3. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Less than Significant) As stated previously in Impact X(c)(1), the amount of stormwater that would be discharged with implementation of the Project would be similar to what is currently discharged. Furthermore, as stated previously in Impact X(a), the Construction General Permit would require the Project to implement a SWPPP with BMPs during construction to protect water from contaminants in stormwater runoff emanating from the site. The Project would also be subject to the requirements of Provision C.3 of the MRP. Finally, no new significant sources of polluted runoff would be created. Through compliance with state and local regulations, as well as implementation of BMPs, any impacts related to surface runoff, including additional sources of polluted runoff, would be less than significant. 4. Impede or redirectfloodflows? (No Impact) During construction, the drainage pattern of the site or area may be temporarily altered. However, construction equipment would be placed around the site so that construction impacts associated with impeding or redirecting floodflows would be minimized. In addition, the Project would include a cistern and stormwater planters. Overall, the amount of stormwater that would be discharged with implementation of the Project would be similar to what is currently discharged. The Project would include stormwater treatment controls, in compliance with the requirements of Provision C.3 of the MRP. The Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect floodflows. Therefore, there would be no impact. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? (Less than Significant) The Project site is not subject to flooding from tsunami or seiche or risks from mudflows or landslides. The Project site is not within a tsunami inundation zone.127 Conditions with the Project would be similar to existing conditions and would not increase the potential for site inundation. Seiche can occur in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, such as a lake or reservoir. There are no large bodies of fresh water, such as reservoirs or lakes, in the Project vicinity. Although San Francisco Bay is a large and open body of water, there is no immediate risk of seiche. Large waves, both sea and swell, generated in the Pacific Ocean undergo considerable refraction and diffraction upon passing through the Golden Gate, resulting in greatly reduced heights by the time they reach the Project site. Therefore, there is no risk of seiche that would affect the Project site. To reduce the risk of a pollutant release associated with a flood hazard, the Project would comply with the requirements of local water quality programs and associated municipal stormwater NPDES permits as well as municipal separate storm sewer system and MRP permits to manage flood risks and water quality. Conformance to these requirements would ensure that 127 California Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California - County of San Mateo. June 15, 2009. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/ Tsunami/Maps/Tsunami-Inundation-SanMateo-Quad-SanMateo.pdf. Accessed: May 18, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-71 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist any risk of a release of pollutants due to inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone would be minimized. The Project site would not release pollutants due to inundation by flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche. The impact would be less than significant. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less than Significant) Project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The applicant would comply with the appropriate water quality objectives for the region, including the MRP. The City's review and permitting process would ensure that the permit's waste discharge requirements would not be violated by the Project. As part of compliance with permit requirements during ground -disturbing activities or construction, water quality control measures and BMPs would be implemented to ensure that water quality standards would be achieved, including water quality objectives that protect designated beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater, as defined in San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control P1an.128 The NPDES Construction General Permit requires stormwater discharges not to contain pollutants that cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality objectives or water quality standards, including designated beneficial uses. In addition, as described in Impact X(b), the City of Burlingame is part of the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan, which is a voluntary groundwater management plan. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this plan because the Project would not conflict with the plan's goal of ensuring a sustainable, high -quality, reliable water supply. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and the impact would be less than significant. 128 San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan. May 4, 2017. Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html. Accessed: June 1, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-72 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame XI. Land Use and Planning Environmental Checklist Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 b. Result in a significant environmental impact due ❑ ❑ ® ❑ to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Setting The Project site is within the Burlingame city limits and governed by the 2040 General Plan as well as the Municipal Code. Burlingame is divided into a series of planning areas with a variety of land uses, including commercial, office, cultural, civic, and quasi -civic uses. Land uses in the vicinity of the Project site include commercial/office, institutional, and residential uses. The City adopted the 2040 General Plan in 2019 to accommodate planned housing and employment growth through 2040. The 2040 General Plan has assigned the Project site a land use designation of NBMU,129 which allows for high -intensity development within walking distance of the Millbrae multimodal transit station. Permitted uses include retail, office, and high -density residential uses. Accordingly, the Project site is zoned NBMU (see Municipal Code Chapter 25.40). The purpose of the NBMU zone is to implement the 2040 General Plan NBMU land use designation. NBMU standards encourage progressively higher densities, based on the level of community benefits provided within proximity to the multimodal transit station. A NBMU specific plan has not yet been approved; however, development projects must still comply with interim standards and be categorized as one of three tiers, ranging from Base Standard Intensity (Tier 1) to Maximum Intensity (Tier 3). Currently, the Project site is developed with a two-story, mixed use building (approximately 23,000 gsf) that was constructed in 1959. Minimal landscape vegetation exists at the site, mainly in areas adjacent to El Camino Real and in front of the entrance to the building. The site also includes a surface parking lot with approximately 107 parking spaces. Access to the site is currently provided from driveways on El Camino Real, Trousdale Drive, and California Drive. Discussion a, Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) The Project would redevelop the site to provide a seven -story, mixed -use building with retail space, office space, residential units, and below -ground parking. This would be consistent with the planned land uses established under the NBMU designation in the 2040 General Plan, which is applicable to the Project site. No residential uses or established communities are immediately adjacent to the Project site; however, single-family homes are found approximately 0.15 mile from the site. The Project would not 129 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame General Plan. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/General%20and%2OSpecific%20Plans/Burlingame GP_Adopted_Jan2019_FulI.pdf. Accessed: March 30, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-73 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist limit access to existing streets or bicycle/pedestrian pathways within the Project site or the surrounding community, including the residential uses. Furthermore, the Project would not create new streets; rather, it would create new pedestrian pathways within the Project site that would ultimately improve pedestrian circulation throughout the site and in surrounding areas. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in physical division of an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur. b. Result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less than Significant) The Project site is designated NBMU under the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Code. The Project would be consistent with the Municipal Code and 2040 General Plan land use designations. The Project would include uses that would be consistent with those permitted under the 2040 General Plan as well as the Municipal Code. However, a Zoning Code amendment and a conditional use permit would be needed to reduce the ratio for office parking and install the proposed mechanical stackers for parking, respectively. As mentioned previously, the NBMU zoning designation has a range of zoning designations, from Tier 1 to Tier 3. The Project is proposed as a Tier 3 (Maximum Intensity) project. The NBMU zoning includes the additional following standards for Tier 3 projects: • Maximum density of 140 dwelling units per acre • Maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 for commercial and 2.0 for office components • Maximum height of nine stories (100 feet) for properties on the east side of El Camino Real • Setback requirements • Maximum lot coverage of 80 percent • Minimum open space of 100 square feet per housing unit (6,000 sf for 60 units) • Minimum of 10 percent landscape coverage With respect to density, the Project would have approximately 35 dwelling units per acre. The FAR would be 0.10 for commercial uses and 1.99 for office uses. The height of the building would be 95 feet. Adequate setbacks would be provided. Lot coverage would total 50 percent, with approximately 36,064 sf of open space. Landscape coverage would total approximately 25 percent. Therefore, the Project would fulfill the standards and be consistent with NBMU zoning. The 2040 General Plan includes various goals, policies, and guidelines pertaining to growth, development, design standards, and roadways and infrastructure in Burlingame. In addition to the existing land use designation, as outlined in the 2040 General Plan, numerous policies have been adopted for the purpose of reducing environmental impacts. In particular, the following goals and policies would apply to the Project: • Goal CC-1: Incorporate sustainable practices in all development. • CC-1.2: Mixed -Use, Transit -Oriented Infill Development —Promote higher -density infill development with a mix of uses on underutilized parcels, particularly near transit stations and stops. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.74 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist • CC-1.5: Transportation Demand Management —Require that all major development projects include a TDM program, as defined in the City's TDM regulations, to reduce single -occupancy car trips. "Major development" shall be defined in the TDM regulations by square footage for commercial development or a minimum number of units for residential development. • CC-1.6: Water Conservation: Promote water conservation by encouraging and incentivizing property owners to incorporate drought -tolerant landscaping, "smart" irrigation systems, water -efficient appliances, and recycled water systems. Continue to enforce the water -efficiency landscaping ordinance. Encourage recycling and reuse of graywater in new buildings. • Goal CC-2: Ensure that public and private trees are beautiful, healthy, and safe and that they remain an integral feature of the community. • CC-2.2: Increase the Public Street Tree Population —Identify ways to increase the overall population of street trees in Burlingame to stem the natural decline of the urban forest and create a more equitable distribution of the tree canopy. • Goal CC-4: Ensure high -quality, integrated, and appropriately scaled residential development within Burlingame's neighborhoods. • CC-4.3: Mass and Scale —Ensure that the scale and interrelationships of new and old residential development complement each other. • Goal CC-11: Establish a high -intensity, mixed -use development node at the north end of El Camino Real to take advantage of the proximity to the Millbrae multimodal transit station and SamTrans commuter routes. • CC-11.1: Mix of Uses and Activities —Promote a mix of residential and commercial uses, including a range of housing types and a mix of office, service, and retail uses that serve residents and complement the adjacent medical center. • CC-11.2: Transit -Oriented Development —Allow and encourage higher -density, transit -oriented development along El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive to provide housing, employment, and retail opportunities that are easily accessible from the Millbrae multimodal transit station and SamTrans commuter routes. • CC-11.3: Housing —Encourage and support the development of new housing in North Burlingame. Ensure that new residential development provides a range of housing types for different income levels and includes provisions for affordable housing. • M-6.1: Transit -Supportive Land Use —Plan for and accommodate land uses that facilitate the development of compact, mixed -use development with the density, diversity of use, and local accessibility needed to support transit use. • M-6.2: Mixed Use Areas —Promote residential, employment, recreational, and commercial uses within designated mixed -use areas to reduce walking distances between destinations and create an active street environment throughout the day. • M-7.5: Creative Parking Approaches —Promote and support creative approaches to parking, including, but not limited to, the use of parking lifts and shared parking, particularly in mixed - use and retail areas. In downtown and within the Live/Work designation, consider "unbundling" parking from residential development projects, whereby parking is provided as an amenity that is paid for separately from a lease. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-75 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist • HP-1.3: Recreation, Parks, and Open Spaces —Provide convenient access to a variety of recreational opportunities, parks, and open spaces for all community members. • Goal HP-4: Provide a diversity of City -owned parks, recreation facilities, natural open spaces, and public gathering places citywide and ensure that every Burlingame resident lives within 0.5 mile of such resources. • HP-4.4: Potential New Open Spaces —In concert with development proposals in the North Burlingame and North Rollins Road Districts, require plans for publicly accessible plazas and open spaces. Develop guidelines so that these spaces fit within the overall parks and recreation system in Burlingame. In general, the Project would be consistent with 2040 General Plan goals and policies. However, it should be noted that the ultimate determination regarding 2040 General Plan consistency will be made by the Planning Commission. In addition, the ultimate findings regarding 2040 General Plan consistency do not require the Project to be entirely consistent with each individual goal and policy. A project can be generally consistent with a general plan, even though the project may not promote every applicable goal and policy. The Project would be generally consistent with the 2040 General Plan goals and policies, resulting in an impact that would be less than significant. The ALUCP identified policies for projects within the airport influence area. Because of the Project's location in an airport influence area, this Project would require review and approval from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) which is managed by C/CAG in San Mateo County. ALUC review is required in this case because the ALUC did not review the North Burlingame Mixed Use zoning, which was passed by urgency ordinance. As a condition of approval, the applicant would need to apply to C/CAG, and the ALUC will need to make a "determination of consistency" prior to City Council action. After ALUC review, the applicant would comply with the requirements identified by the ALUC, if any are identified. The Project would be consistent with the ALUCP, resulting in an impact that would be less than significant. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-76 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame XII. Mineral Resources Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the Project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Setting Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the California Geological Survey is responsible for classifying land as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ), based on the known or inferred mineral resource potential of that land. According to available data, the Project site and the area surrounding the Project site have been classified as MRZ-1.130 The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, defines MRZ-1 as follows: MRZ-1: Areas where adequate geologic information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. This zone is applied where well -developed lines of reasoning, based on economic geologic principles and adequate data, indicate that the likelihood for occurrence of significant mineral deposits is nil or slight.131 Discussion 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? (No Impact) Because the Project site is identified as MRZ-1, it is not underlain by any known significant mineral deposits. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources, and there would be no impact. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (No Impact) The Project site is developed but not used for mineral recovery. Moreover, no known mineral resources, including locally important mineral resources, are known to exist within the Project site or the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources, and there would be no impact. 130 California Department of Conservation. 1996. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of the South San Francisco Bay Production —Consumption Region. Map prepared by Susan Kohler-Antablin. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_96-03/ Accessed: February 20, 2020. 131 California Department of Conservation. 2000. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/ClassDesig.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-77 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame XIII. Noise Would the Project: Environmental Checklist Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ❑ ground -borne noise levels? c. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip ❑ or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? Setting Overview of Noise and Sound ® ❑ El E Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and potentially causes an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health. Because noise is an environmental pollutant that can interfere with human activities, an evaluation of noise is necessary when considering the environmental impacts of a proposed project. Sound is characterized by various parameters, including the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient (existing) sound level. Although the decibel scale, a logarithmic scale, is used to quantify sound intensity, it does not accurately describe how sound intensity is perceived by human hearing. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the entire spectrum; therefore, noise measurements are weighted more heavily toward frequencies to which humans are sensitive through a process referred to as A -weighting. Human sound perception, in general, is such that a change in sound level of 1 decibel (dB) cannot typically be perceived by the human ear, a change in sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level. A doubling of actual sound energy is required to result in a 3 dB (i.e., barely noticeable) increase in noise; in practice, this means that the volume of traffic on a roadway typically needs to double to result in a noticeable increase in noise.132 132 California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3_78 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist The decibel level of a sound decreases (or attenuates) exponentially as the distance from the source of that sound increases. For a point source, such as a stationary compressor or construction equipment, sound attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. For a line source, such as free -flowing traffic on a freeway, sound attenuates at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance. Atmospheric conditions, including wind, temperature gradients, and humidity, can change how sound propagates over distance and affect the level of sound received at a given location. The degree to which the ground surface absorbs acoustical energy also affects sound propagation. Sound that travels over an acoustically absorptive surface, such as grass, attenuates at a greater rate than sound that travels over a hard surface, such as pavement. The increased attenuation is typically in the range of 1 to 2 dB per doubling of distance. Barriers, such as buildings and topographic features that block the line of sight between a source and receiver, also increase the attenuation of sound over distance. In urban environments, simultaneous noise from multiple sources may occur. Because sound pressure levels, expressed in decibels, are based on a logarithmic scale, they cannot be added or subtracted in the usual arithmetical way. Adding a new noise source to an existing noise source, with both producing noise at the same level, will not double the noise level. If the difference between two noise sources is 10 A -weighted decibels (dBA) or more, the higher noise source will dominate, and the resultant noise level will be equal to the noise level of the higher noise source. In general, if the difference between two noise sources is 0 to 1 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 3 dBA higher than the higher noise source, or both sources if both are equal. If the difference between two noise sources is 2 to 3 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 2 dBA above the higher noise source. If the difference between two noise sources is 4 to 10 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 1 dBA higher than the higher noise source. Community noise environments are generally perceived as quiet when the 24-hour average noise level is below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45 to 60 dBA range, and loud above 60 dBA. Very noisy urban residential areas are usually around 70 dBA, community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Along major thoroughfares, roadside noise levels are typically between 65 and 75 dBA CNEL. Incremental increases of 3 to 5 dB to the existing 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leg), or the CNEL, are common thresholds for an adverse community reaction to a noise increase. However, there is evidence that incremental thresholds in this range may not be adequately protective in areas where noise -sensitive uses are located and the CNEL is already high (i.e., above 60 dBA). In these areas, limiting noise increases to 3 dB or less is recommended.133 Noise intrusions that cause short-term interior noise levels to rise above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Exposure to noise levels greater than 85 dBA for 8 hours or longer can cause permanent hearing damage. Overview of Ground -borne Vibration Ground -borne vibration is an oscillatory motion of the soil with respect to the equilibrium position. It can be quantified in terms of velocity or acceleration. Variations in geology and distance result in different vibration levels, including different frequencies and displacements. In all cases, vibration amplitudes decrease with increased distance. 133 Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Office of Planning and Environment. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/ transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_O.pdf. Accessed: May 14, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-79 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Operation of heavy construction equipment creates seismic waves that radiate along the surface of and downward into the ground. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from the operation of construction equipment can result in effects that range from annoyance for people to damage for structures. Perceptible ground -borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of construction activities. As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they cause rock and soil particles to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten -thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity, expressed in inches per second, at which these particles move is the commonly accepted descriptor of vibration amplitude, peak particle velocity, or PPV. Vibration amplitude attenuates (or decreases) over distance. This attenuation is a complex function of how energy is imparted into the ground as well as the soil or rock conditions through which the vibration is traveling (variations in geology can result in different vibration levels). The following equation is used to estimate the vibration level at a given distance for typical soil conditions:134 PPV = PPVref x (25/distance)1.5 Table 21 summarizes the typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment, excluding pile - driving equipment, which is not expected to be used, at a reference distance of 15 feet as well as other distances, as determined with use of the attenuation equation above. Table 21. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment PPV at PPV at PPV at PPV at Equipment 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet PPV at 175 Feet Caisson drill 0.089 0.0315 0.0171 0.0111 0.0048 Large bulldozer 0.089 0.0315 0.0171 0.0111 0.0048 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0269 0.0146 0.0095 0.0041 Jackhammer 0.035 0.0124 0.0067 0.0044 0.0019 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0011 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Office of Planning and Environment. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and- vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: May 14, 2020. Existing Noise Environment The existing noise sources in the Project area include vehicles, trains, and a nearby hospital. Similar to most urban areas, the Project area is dominated by traffic noise. This is because the Project site is adjacent to El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive. There are also railroad tracks approximately 300 feet northeast of the Project site; noise from both locomotives and air horns is generated in that area. In addition, a heliport at Mills -Peninsula Medical Center is approximately 950 feet to the southwest. Occasional helicopter noise is heard at the Project site as flights approach or leave the hospital. Parking lot noises, such as engines starting, doors slamming, car alarms activating, or vehicle backup alarms sounding, also influence the noise environment at the Project site. This is because there are several parking lots on nearby parcels. 134 PPVref is the reference PPV at 25 feet. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3_80 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Existing noise levels in the Project area are best characterized by the short-term measurements from Site 2, as presented in the 2040 General Plan EIR. This measurement site was very close to the Project site at Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real. Measurements had a duration of 30 minutes and were taken during daytime hours. Noise levels at this location ranged from 63.3 to 64.9 dBA Leq.135 Noise -Sensitive Land Uses Noise -sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Noise -sensitive land uses typically include single- and multi -family residential areas, health care facilities, lodging facilities, and schools. Recreational areas where quiet is an important part of the environment can also be considered sensitive to noise. Some commercial areas may be considered noise sensitive as well, such as the outdoor restaurant seating areas. The Project site is surrounded by various types of land uses. Within 1,000 feet of the Project site, there are residences (single-family homes, townhomes, and a nursing home), commercial uses (offices, retail stores, and restaurants), medical uses (medical offices and a hospital), industrial uses (warehouses, food processing facilities), institutional uses (a police station), and transportation uses (Caltrain and BART tracks and stations). A list of the noise -sensitive uses closest to the Project site is included below and referenced in the evaluation of the Project's noise impacts. The nearest building to the Project site is the medical building at 1750 El Camino Real, approximately 25 feet from the site. Burlingame Long -Term Care, a nursing home, is approximately 80 feet northeast of the Project site. The townhomes at 1755 California Drive are adjacent to the Project site; at the nearest point, the townhomes would be approximately 70 feet southeast of future Project development. Additional medical buildings in the vicinity of the Project site are approximately 190 feet to the southwest at 1720 El Camino Real and approximately 200 feet to the west at 1501 Trousdale Drive, on the opposite side of El Camino Real. The latter is the Mills -Peninsula Medical Center complex. Other sensitive land uses, which are farther from the Project site, include Burlingame Pacifica Medical (360 feet north), single-family homes (560 south), and a senior care center (680 feet northwest). The land uses noted here could be adversely affected by substantial increases in noise. Regulatory Setting There are no federal noise standards that are directly applicable to the Project. With regard to state regulations, CCR Title 24, Part 2, establishes minimum noise insulation standards to protect persons within hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, apartments, and dwellings other than single- family residences. Under this regulation, interior noise levels that are attributable to exterior noise sources cannot exceed 45 dBA, day -night level (Ld„), in any habitable room. When such land uses are in an environment where exterior noise is 60 dBA Ld„ or greater, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45 dBA Ldn interior standard. With respect to local noise standards, two regulatory sources are applicable to the Project: the 2040 General Plan and the Municipal Code. The applicable noise standards from these two sources are described below. 135 City of Burlingame. 2018. Burlingame 2040 General Plan Draft EIR. Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration. Available: https://www.envisionburlingame.org/files/managed/Document/360/Chapter%2015_Noise_BurlingameGP- EIR_06-26-2018.pd£ Accessed: May 14, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-81 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist 2040 General Plan Chapter 8, Community Safety Element, of the 2040 General Plan establishes noise and land use compatibility standards to guide new development. It provides goals and policies to reduce the harmful and annoying effects of excessive noise in the city. The policies relevant to the Project include: • Locating noise -sensitive uses away from major sources of noise (Policy CS-4.1) • Requiring the design of both new residential development and office development to comply with protective noise standards (Policies CS-4.2 and CS-4.3, respectively) • Monitoring noise impacts from aircraft operations at SFO as well as noise at Mills -Peninsula Medical Center (Policy CS-4.7) • Requiring the evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation of airport noise impacts if a project is within the 60 dBA CNEL contour line of SFO (Policy CS-4.8) • Complying with real estate disclosure requirements pertaining to existing and planned airports within 2 miles of any sale or lease of a property (Policy CS-4.9) • Requiring development projects that are subject to discretionary approval to assess potential construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive uses and minimize impacts consistent with the Municipal Code (Policy CS-4.10) • Requiring a vibration impact assessment for projects that would use heavy-duty equipment and be within 200 feet of an existing structure or sensitive receptor (Policy CS-4.13) Also in the Community Safety Element of the 2040 General Plan are noise compatibility criteria for each category of land use in the city. Multi -family residential land uses are considered conditionally acceptable at noise levels between 60 dB and 70 dB Ldn, which means that new development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is conducted and noise insulation features have been included in the design. Less noise -sensitive land uses, such as commercial and industrial uses, are considered compatible with higher levels of outdoor noise (refer to Figure 7, below, from the Community Safety Element, which shows the outdoor noise levels that are suitable for the various land use categories). City of Burlingame Municipal Code The Building Construction section of the Municipal Code establishes daily hours for construction in the city. Chapter 18.07.110 states that no person shall erect, demolish, alter, or repair any building or structure outside the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays or 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; no construction shall take place on Sundays or holidays, except under circumstances of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety. An exception, which must be approved in writing by a building official, shall be granted for a period of no more than 3 days for structures with a gross floor area of less than 40,000 gsf when reasonable to accomplish erection, demolition, alteration, or repair work; the exception shall not exceed 20 days for structures with a gross floor area of 40,000 gsf or greater. The Municipal Code also contains standards that limit noise from mechanical equipment at the property line, such as air -conditioners and generators, to 60 dBA during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Section 25.58.050). 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-82 ICF 00096.20 Community Noise Exposure Ldn/CNEL, dB Land Use Category 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential — Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential — Multi. Family Transient Lodging — Motels, Hotels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Course, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities, Agriculture NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that most buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. - CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Source: City of Burlingame 2019. _\I/ Figure 7 +*ICF City of Burlingame Outdoor Noise Level Planning Criteria 1766 El Camino Real Project City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Discussion a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction Noise. The Project would demolish an on -site structure and associated surface parking and construct a new building with a parking structure and other amenities. Demolition and construction activities would generate noise, resulting in a temporary increase in noise levels at adjacent land uses. All construction activities would comply with the time -of -day restrictions specified in the Municipal Code, as discussed above. The significance of potential noise impacts resulting from demolition and construction would depend on the noise generated by the various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise - generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors. To assess the potential for significant construction noise impacts, the Federal Highway Administration's source noise levels for construction equipment were used to approximate the level of noise that would occur during construction. Table 22 shows average noise levels at 50 feet, based on Federal Highway Administration data for the equipment that is expected to be used for Project construction. Table 22. Construction Equipment Reference Noise Levels for Proposed Project Construction' Lmax at 50 Leq at 50 Percent Usage Construction Equipment Feet (dBA) Feet (dBA) Factor Phase 1- Demolition Excavator Dump Truck Backhoe Phase 2 - Site Preparation Excavator Dump Truck Drill Rigb Tie -Back Rigb Bulldozer Phase 3 - Grading Compactor Dump Truck Bulldozer Phase 4 - Building Construction Tower Crane Manlift 81 77 40% 76 72 40% 78 74 40% 81 77 40% 76 72 40% 84 77 20% 84 77 20% 82 78 40% 83 76 20% 76 72 40% 82 78 40% 81 73 16% 75 68 20% 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3_84 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Lmax at 50 Leg at 50 Percent Usage Construction Equipment Feet (dBA) Feet (dBA) Factor Phase 5 — Paving Dump Truck 76 72 40% Grader 85 81 40% Paving Machines 90 83 20% Source: Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf. Accessed: April 22, 2020. a. The construction equipment list in this table has been provided by the applicant. 6 Represented by "auger drill rig' from the User's Guide. Represented by "pavement scarafier" from the User's Guide. Lmax = maximum sound level To provide a reasonable worst -case analysis of potential noise impacts from concurrent use of construction equipment during Project construction, construction noise modeling was conducted that assumed that the three loudest pieces of equipment proposed for use during each construction phase would operate simultaneously at the same location on the Project site. Table 23 identifies the combined noise level, in terms of Lea, from operation of the three loudest pieces of construction equipment for each phase at increasing distances from the Project site. Table 23. LEQ Construction Noise Levels by Phase (dBA) Distance from Site Building Source (feet) Demolition Preparation Grading Construction Paving 25 86 88 88 80 91 50 80 82 82 74 85 100 74 76 76 68 79 200 68 70 70 62 73 300 64 66 66 59 70 400 62 64 63 56 67 500 60 62 62 54 65 600 58 60 60 53 64 700 57 59 59 51 62 800 56 58 57 50 61 900 55 57 56 49 60 1,000 54 56 56 48 59 Notes: • Geometric attenuation based on 6 dB per doubling of distance. • This calculation does not include the effects, if any, of local shielding. • Leq noise is presented in dBA units, which approximate the frequency response of the human ear. • The three loudest pieces of equipment for each phase are as follows: o Demolition: excavator, two backhoes o Site Preparation: two drill rigs, tie -back rig o Grading: two compactors, bulldozer o Building Construction: tower crane, manlift o Paving: pavement scarafier, grader, dump truck 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-85 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist As shown in Table 23, above, combined construction noise levels would be generally consistent with the noise levels referenced in Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration, of the 2040 General Plan EIR (i.e., 85 to 88 dBA at 50 feet), although slightly below those levels for most of the Project's phases. At 50 feet, the demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction phases would result in noise levels lower than 85 dBA Leg, while the paving phase would result in a noise level of exactly 85 dBA Lea at 50 feet. No construction phase would have noise levels that would exceed 85 dBA Lea at 50 feet. Without the incorporation of noise reduction measures, some construction equipment would have the potential to increase noise above ambient levels, which could be considered a substantial increase. Chapter 15 of the General Plan EIR notes that sustained Lea levels of 85 dBA would result in noise that would be 11 to 28 dBA above ambient conditions in higher -density residential, commercial, and industrial areas of the city, such as along the El Camino Real corridor where the Project site is located. Consequently, the General Plan EIR revised Policy CS.4-10 in the Community Safety Element to require all development projects that are subject to discretionary review and located near noise -sensitive land uses to minimize adverse noise impacts through noise control measures. Noise control measures include construction management techniques, construction equipment controls, sound barriers, and construction noise monitoring. As noted above, there are multiple noise -sensitive land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, the closest of which is approximately 25 feet away. At that distance, Lea construction noise levels would be between 80 dBA (for building construction) and 91 dBA (for paving). At 50 feet, which is the distance between the Project site and nearby townhomes, noise could be up to 85 dBA. Even at 80 feet, the distance to the nearby nursing home, noise could be up to 80 dBA. Noise in the 70 to 90 dBA range would most likely be considered a substantial increase over ambient noise levels for people at the nearby medical buildings, living in the townhomes on California Drive, or living in the nursing home; therefore, construction noise would result in a potentially significant impact. In addition, because noise - sensitive land uses are found near the Project site, noise control measures would be required, per Policy CS.4-10 of the 2040 General Plan. Consistent with the requirements of the 2040 General Plan, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require a noise control plan to be implemented, including noise reduction measures to minimize the Project's construction noise to the extent possible. Because construction noise would be reduced to a level that would not be considered a substantial increase above ambient levels, construction noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Noise Control Plan. The applicant shall develop a set of site -specific noise attenuation measures. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall submit the construction noise control plan to the City for review and approval. Noise attenuation measures shall be identified in the plan and implemented to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. Noise measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Using smaller equipment with lower horsepower or reducing the hourly utilization rate of equipment on the site to reduce noise levels at 50 feet to the allowable level. • Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise -sensitive uses. • Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation. • Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems. • Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 5 minutes). 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-86 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist • Constructing a solid plywood barrier around the construction site and adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise -sensitive land uses. • Using temporary noise control blanket barriers. • Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements. • Using "quiet" gasoline -powered compressors or electrically powered compressors and electric rather than gasoline- or diesel -powered forklifts for small lifting. Operational Noise Traffic Noise Traffic would increase on roadways in the vicinity of the Project site because new vehicle trips would occur as residents, employees, and visitors travel to and from the site. Traffic noise increases with increasing traffic volumes. A 100 percent increase (i.e., a doubling) in average daily traffic (ADT) equates to 3 dB increase in noise. As discussed above, an increase of 3 dB is just noticeable by the human ear; therefore, an increase less than 3 dB is not considered to be a substantial increase. An increase threshold of 3 dB is used for evaluating traffic noise impacts in Chapter 15 of the General Plan EIR and, therefore, is used in this analysis. Based on the relationship between traffic volumes and the corresponding noise levels described here, roadway segments with less than a 100 percent increase in traffic volumes would not experience significant traffic noise impacts as a result of the Project. For roadway segments that would be affected by the Project, two scenarios (with and without the Project) were developed. The scenarios consider two conditions: existing and background. Traffic volumes under all scenarios were evaluated to determine the magnitude of the increase caused by the Project. Table 24 lists the traffic volumes under all scenarios. As shown in the Table 24 under existing conditions, the Project would result in minor increases in traffic volumes, with a maximum increase of 12 percent on Trousdale Drive between El Camino Real and California Avenue. Eight out of 14 affected roadways would experience an increase of 1 percent or less as a result of the Project. With respect to background conditions, which represent traffic growth from projects that are approved but not yet constructed, traffic volumes in the Project area would increase, even in the absence of the Project. For background conditions, the Project would result in changes in volumes similar to changes under existing conditions, including a maximum increase of 11 percent on Trousdale Drive. For the rest of the roadways, eight out of 14 would experience increases of 1 percent or less as a result of the Project. Consequently, all of the Project -induced traffic volume changes under existing and background conditions would constitute small increases in traffic volumes and, therefore, noise levels. Such changes would not be noticeable to the human ear because even the largest increase, 11 percent, occurring on Trousdale Drive, would be substantially less than the increase necessary to cause a noticeable increase in noise (100 percent). Traffic volume data were also provided for a cumulative scenario, corresponding to cumulative growth in the city and based on 2040 General Plan development assumptions (Table 25). This scenario includes more background growth in the Project area than the background conditions described above. The cumulative condition accounts for increased traffic volumes from other planned development in the area (i.e., a cumulative no -project scenario) as well as future development plus growth from the Project (i.e., a cumulative with -Project scenario). 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-87 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 24. Traffic Volume Increases Associated with the Project (Existing and Background Conditions) Existing Conditions Background Conditions No With % No With % Roadway Segment Project Project Increase Project Project Increase Millbrae Ave between Rollins Rd and U.S. 101 SB ramps 36,180 36,610 1% 41,830 41,960 < 1% Millbrae Ave between El Camino Real and Rollins Rd 35,090 35,580 1% 40,180 40,670 1% El Camino Real between Millbrae Rd and Murchison Dr 27,280 27,940 2% 29,790 30,450 2% El Camino Real between Murchison Dr and Trousdale Dr 18,730 19,110 2% 20,160 20,540 2% El Camino Real between Trousdale Dr and Broadway 17,980 18,110 1% 19,300 19,430 1% Murchison Dr between El Camino Real and California Ave 5,250 5,540 6% 6,540 6,820 4% Trousdale Dr between El Camino Real and California Ave 5,710 6,400 12% 6,090 6,790 11% California Ave between Murchison Dr and Trousdale Dr 6,440 6,820 6% 6,980 7,360 5% California Ave between Trousdale Dr and Broadway 11,430 11,910 4% 12,560 13,040 4% Broadway between El Camino Real and California Ave 8,240 8,240 < 1% 9,620 9,620 < 1% Broadway between California Ave and Rollins Rd 22,120 22,420 1% 26,250 26,550 1% Broadway between Rollins Rd and U.S. 101 SB ramps 31,290 31,590 1% 35,690 36,000 1% Broadway between U.S. 101 SB ramps and Bayshore Hwy 23,380 23,530 1% 26,710 26,870 1% Bayshore Hwy between Broadway and U.S. 101 NB ramps 20,760 20,920 1% 24,340 24,500 1% Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2020. NB = northbound; SB = southbound 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.88 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 25. Traffic Volume Increases Associated with Proposed Project (Cumulative Conditions) Roadway Segment Cumulative Conditions With No Project Project % Increase Millbrae Ave between Rollins Rd and U.S. 101 SB ramps 42,360 42,790 1% Millbrae Ave between El Camino Real and Rollins Rd 41,500 41,990 1% El Camino Real between Millbrae Rd and Murchison Dr 32,740 33,400 2% El Camino Real between Murchison Dr and Trousdale Dr 25,530 25,910 1% El Camino Real between Trousdale Dr and Broadway 27,490 27,620 < 1% Murchison Dr between El Camino Real and California Ave 6,230 6,510 4% Trousdale Dr between El Camino Real and California Ave 6,700 7,390 10% California Ave between Murchison Dr and Trousdale Dr 7,410 7,790 5% California Ave between Trousdale Dr and Broadway 13,220 13,700 4% Broadway between El Camino Real and California Ave 10,020 10,020 < 1% Broadway between California Ave and Rollins Rd 27,150 27,450 1% Broadway between Rollins Rd and U.S. 101 SB ramps 37,510 37,810 1% Broadway between U.S. 101 SB ramps and Bayshore Hwy 29,930 30,090 1% Bayshore Hwy between Broadway and U.S. 101 NB ramps 24,120 24,270 1% Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2020. NB = northbound; SB = southbound Based on the data in Table 25, traffic volumes would increase a maximum of 10 percent on Trousdale Drive, which is slightly less than either existing or background conditions (see Table 24). Overall, the volume increases for the cumulative condition would be similar to the increases under existing and background conditions, with nine of 14 segments increasing by 1 percent or less as a result of the Project. Therefore, the increases in volumes would not be noticeable, and the impacts of traffic noise under the cumulative condition would be less than significant. HVAC Equipment The new building at the Project site would require HVAC systems. The HVAC units would be high - efficiency split systems with variable refrigerant flow (VRF) technology. A single condensing unit would be installed on the roof. Although specific noise -level data for this equipment are not available, typical HVAC equipment can produce sound levels in the range of 70 to 75 dBA at 50 feet, depending on the size of the equipment.136 VRF systems, however, are quieter than typical HVAC units.137 The existing building on the Project site is a current source of mechanical equipment noise, which would no longer be present once Project construction begins. As such, the Project would not be adding any new sources of noise with respect to HVAC equipment because noise from HVAC equipment is already part of the existing condition. It is also likely, given the age of the existing building, that the current HVAC equipment does not operate as quietly as a VRF system. 136 Hoover and Keith. 2000. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants. 137 CED Engineering. n.d. HVAC Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems. Available: https://www.cedengineering.com/userfiles/Variable%20Refrigerant%20Flow%2OSystems.pdf. Accessed: June 8, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-89 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Rooftop HVAC units would be both a horizontal and a vertical distance from existing buildings; operational noise would attenuate over this distance. The new building would be seven stories (95 feet) tall; the existing building is two stories tall. Consequently, the Project would result in the same type of noise as under current conditions, but the noise source would be farther from the ground and less likely to disturb people. Given the lower noise characteristics of VRF systems as well as placement of the HVAC unit at a greater vertical distance, the Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in noise from HVAC equipment. This impact would be less than significant. Emergency Generator In addition to HVAC equipment, an emergency generator would be installed at the Project site. The planned location for the generator is near the center of the site, on the roof of the building. In this location, the generator would be approximately 200 feet from the nearest noise -sensitive land use (Burlingame Long -Term Care). The emergency generator would create temporary noise from regular testing, which would occur for up to 3 hours per day during the initial load testing and up to 50 hours per year total. There would most likely be shielding effects from the perimeter of the roof and a mechanical screen that would be installed around the generator. These would serve as obstacles and further attenuate noise. In general, sound levels from emergency generators vary, based on placement, the type of generator, and the noise attenuation incorporated into the design. The generator would be contained within a sound enclosure that would attenuate noise at a distance of 23 feet to 72 dBA, based on anticipated specifications from the generator manufacturer. At 200 feet, under a worst -case scenario, generator noise attenuation would be approximately 18 dB, based only on geometric attenuation; ground shielding or other local shielding is not included. Such a scenario assumes that the generator would have an unobstructed line of sight to the nearest receptor, which, most likely, would not be the case. However, under the worst -case scenario, with noise attenuated by 18 dB, the generator's noise level at the nearest receptor would be approximately 54 dBA.138 This level of noise would be well below existing ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity (63.3 to 64.9 dBA Leg), as noted in the General Plan EIR. In addition, noise from the generator would be infrequent and short term, considering the nature of the generator testing. As such, it is not likely that operation of the generator would cause noticeable noise at the nearest noise -sensitive land use. Regardless of the impact on existing land uses, the generator would need to comply with a 60 dBA noise limit during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Under a worst -case scenario, generator noise could exceed 60 dBA at the property line. Because the property line of the Project site would most likely be 50 to 60 feet from the generator, noise at the property line would attenuate by approximately 6 dB, resulting in a noise level of around 66 dBA. This level of noise would exceed the noise ordinance limit of 60 dBA during daytime hours and, if tested during nighttime hours, exceed the corresponding nighttime limit of 50 dBA. Therefore, impacts from generator testing would be potentially significant Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would require acoustical treatments for the proposed emergency generator to reduce noise to a level below the acceptable noise limit. The impact would be less than significant after mitigation. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Provide Acoustical Treatments for Mechanical Equipment. The applicant shall provide acoustical treatments for the proposed emergency generator to reduce noise levels to below the 60 dBA Leq daytime threshold for mechanical equipment, as 138 54 dBA = 72 dBA - 18 dBA. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3_90 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist determined by a qualified acoustical consultant. In addition, the applicant shall provide acoustical treatments for the proposed HVAC equipment to reduce noise levels to below the nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA Leq at the property line, as also determined by a qualified acoustical consultant. Selected acoustical treatments must ensure that noise levels will be below the 60 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime thresholds, as applicable, in accordance with the noise limitations specified in the Municipal Code. Treatments may include, but are not limited to: • Installing stationary equipment as far as possible from off -site noise -sensitive land uses and the property line to reduce noise levels at adjacent parcels, • Constructing enclosures around noise -generating mechanical equipment, • Placing barriers around the equipment, • Using mufflers or silencers on equipment exhaust fans, • Orienting or shielding equipment to protect sensitive uses to the greatest extent feasible, • Limiting the testing of emergency generators to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) b. Generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels? (Less than Significant) Although pile driving would not be required at the Project site, construction would require the use of other equipment that could generate vibration, damage adjacent structures, and cause human annoyance. The two pieces of equipment proposed for construction that would generate the greatest vibration levels are the drill (to install piers) and bulldozer. As indicated in Table 21, these two pieces of equipment generate approximately the same vibration levels (PPV of 0.089 inch per second at 25 feet). During Project operation, no impact equipment or other equipment associated with substantial ground - borne vibration would be used. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, vibration from on -road vehicles, even a loaded truck, would not exceed any thresholds recommended by the Federal Transit Administration or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). No vibration impacts during Project operations would occur. Vibration Damage. The Project site is in a largely commercial area, with buildings that are generally considered to be modern. For a worst -case scenario, some buildings in the vicinity of the Project site may be considered "historic or old buildings" or 'older residential structures." The thresholds for damage potential associated with these categories are a PPV of 0.25 and 0.30 inch per second, respectively (for continuous/frequent intermittent sources of vibration).139 Table 26 summarizes the guidelines developed by Caltrans for damage potential from transient and continuous vibration associated with construction activity. Activities that can cause continuous vibration include the use of excavation equipment, static compaction equipment, tracked vehicles, vehicles on a highway, vibratory pile drivers, pile extraction equipment, and vibratory compaction equipment. 139 These building characterizations are used by Caltrans for the purposes of identifying potential building damage impacts. As a worst -case scenario, it assumed that some of the surrounding buildings fit best within the "historic" or "older residential structure" categories. However, these classifications are considered conservative and should not be used to infer any details regarding the actual age or condition of the surrounding buildings. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-91 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 26. Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Guidelines Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Continuous/Frequent Sourcesa Intermittent Sourcesb Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient 0.12 0.08 monuments Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 Source: California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr202O-ally.pdf. Accessed: May 4, 2020. Notes: a. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or use of drop balls). b. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo -stick compactors, crack - and -seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. The two types of equipment with the greatest potential to cause ground -borne vibration, a drill and a bulldozer, would generate vibration levels at a reference distance of 25 feet (PPV of 0.089 inch per second, as shown in Table 21) that would be well below the levels for damage potential (PPV of 0.25 inch per second for historic and some old buildings), as shown in Table 26. Because 25 feet is a reasonable worst -case distance between construction equipment and the nearest adjacent building (i.e., the medical building at 1750 El Camino Real), no damage would occur at any buildings in the vicinity of the Project site. This impact would be less than significant. Vibration Annoyance. Table 27 summarizes the guidelines developed by Caltrans for annoyance potential from transient and continuous vibration associated with construction activity. As shown in Table 27, the limit of perceptibility for ground -borne vibration is a PPV of 0.01 inch per second. Note that people are generally more sensitive to vibration during nighttime hours (when sleeping) than during daytime hours. Table 27. Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Guidelines Maximum PPV (in/sec) Continuous/ Frequent Human Response Transient Sourcesa Intermittent Sourcesb Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible US 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Severe 2.0 0.4 Source: California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm- apr2020-ally.pdf. Accessed: May 4, 2020. Notes: a. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or use of drop balls). b. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo -stick compactors, crack -and -seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-92 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist As discussed above, the estimated vibration level generated by the drill and bulldozer would be a PPV of 0.089 inch per second at 25 feet. At the nearest existing land use, the medical building, which is 25 feet away, occasional activity from the drill or bulldozer may cause vibration that would be more than distinctly perceptible but less than strongly perceptible, based on the thresholds for continuous sources in Table 27. This level of vibration, 0.089 inch per second, would be infrequent because most of the construction area at the Project site would be more than 25 feet from the medical building and every other existing land use. For instance, a bulldozer operating on the Project site would be more than 300 feet from the medical building. Even at a distance of 50 feet, the vibration level would attenuate to a PPV of approximately 0.0315 inch per second, which would be below the distinctly perceptible PPV threshold of 0.04 inch per second but above the barely perceptible PPV threshold of 0.01 inch per second. The Project would generate ground -borne vibration from the use of bulldozers and drills. Such vibration may occasionally be more than distinctly perceptible but less than strongly perceptible. However, such vibration would not be considered substantial because it would not meet the threshold for what is considered strongly perceptible; most of the time, vibration would have a PPV of less than 0.089 inch per second. Furthermore, construction would occur during daytime hours when people are less sensitive to vibration. For the reasons discussed above, the impact of construction vibration related to annoyance at adjacent buildings is considered less than significant. c. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? (Less than significant) As noted above, the Project site is 0.7 mile from the nearest runway at SFO and approximately 950 feet from Mills -Peninsula Medical Center, which has a helicopter landing pad. Medical helicopters use the landing pad periodically and generate noise during take off and landing. The Project would not result in any appreciable changes in noise levels at either SFO or the heliport at Mills -Peninsula Medical Center. Therefore, the impact of aircraft noise on new occupants at the Project site would not require evaluation under CEQA;140 however, this type of impact is analyzed in the General Plan EIR. A brief discussion of aircraft noise is included here. The Project site is not inside the 65 dBA CNEL contour for SFO, as shown in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport.141 As stated in the General Plan EIR, impacts related to the exposure of new sensitive land uses to airport noise are considered less than significant because Policies CS-4.7, CS-4.8, and CS-4.9 of the 2040 General Plan ensure that new development within the 60 dBA CNEL contour is adequately protected from aircraft noise at SFO. Because the Project site would not be within either the 60 or 65 dBA CNEL contours, implementation of 2040 General Plan Policy CS-4.8 would not be needed. However, 2040 General Plan Policy CS-4.9 would be applicable because the Project site is within 2 miles of SFO; certain real estate disclosure requirements would also apply. In addition, the Project would be located near Mills -Peninsula Medical Center. Therefore, 2040 General Plan Policy CS-4.7 would be required to monitor noise impacts from the heliport. 140 Pursuant to a recent Supreme Court decision in California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions affect a project's residents or users, unless the project would exacerbate those conditions. 141 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November. Available: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/ 10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: May 6, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-93 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Regardless of the aircraft noise effects that may be experienced by future occupants at the Project site, such effects are not considered to be a CEQA issue because the Project would not worsen aircraft noise that would affect existing land uses. Consequently, the impact pertaining to aircraft noise would be less than significant, 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3_94 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame XIV. Population and Housing Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the Project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace a substantial number of existing people ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Setting The Project site is developed with a two-story, mixed -use building (approximately 23,000 gsf) that houses the Peninsula Museum of Art and a Sutter Health facility. No individuals currently reside at the Project site. However, approximately 92 employees currently work at the Project site, including approximately 50 Peninsula Museum of Art employees and volunteers and approximately 42 Sutter Health employees. Population. According to the California Department of Finance, the city had a population of approximately 30,317 as of January 1, 2019.142 Table 28 shows ABAG population projections for the city, county, and Bay Area as a whole. As shown, the city population will increase by approximately 1,075 (3.6 percent) by 2025. Projections also indicate that population growth in Burlingame will exceed population growth in the county (2.5 percent) between 2020 and 2025 but be less than that of the Bay Area as a whole (4.6 percent).143 Table 28. Population Projections (2020 to 2025) 2020 2025 Growth (2020-2025) City 29,975 31,050 1,075 (3.6%) County 796,925 816,460 19,535 (2.5%) Bay Area 7,920,230 8,284,200 395,970 (4.6%) Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2018. Projections 2040. 142 California Department of Finance. 2019. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2018, and 2019. Sacramento, CA. May. Available: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. Accessed: March 25, 2020. 143 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040: A Comparison to Plan Bay Area 2040. November. Available: https://abag.ca.gov/planning/research/forecasts.html. Accessed: April 30, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-95 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Housing. In 2018, the estimated number of housing units in the city was 12,755,144with an average size of 2.49 persons per household.145 That same year, the city had a housing vacancy rate of approximately 5.7 percent (726 units).146 In addition, the city had approximately 1.42 workers per worker household.147 Table 29 presents ABAG projections for households in the city, county, and Bay Area for 2020 to 2025. The number of households in the city is projected to grow from approximately 12,755 in 2020 to 13,190 units in 2025, an increase of approximately 3.4 percent. According to ABAG, the number of households in the county is projected to grow by approximately 2.1 percent, while the Bay Area is expected to grow by approximately 4.4 percent in 5 years.148 Table 29. Household Projections (2020 to 2025) 2020 2025 Growth (2020-2025) City 12,755 13,190 435 (3.4%) County 284,260 290,330 6,070 (2.1%) Bay Area 2,881,965 3,009,055 127,090 (4.4%) Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2018. Projections 2040. Employment. Table 30 presents ABAG projections for the number of jobs in the city, county, and Bay Area for 2015 and 2020. The number of jobs in the city is projected to increase by approximately 0.4 percent because of employment increases in the retail, government, construction, education, and financial sectors; decreases are projected in the manufacturing, wholesale, and transportation sectors. Overall, job growth in the city (0.4 percent) is expected to be lower than job growth in the county (4.0 percent) or the Bay Area (3.2 percent).149 In Burlingame, the categories with the highest employment levels are transportation, warehousing, and utilities, representing nearly one-third of the jobs in the city. More than 11 percent of the jobs are in the arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services.150 144 U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Selected Housing Characteristics, Burlingame, California. The 2014-2018 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates, Data Profiles. ID DP04. Available: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/. Accessed: April 30, 2020. 145 U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Selected Social Characteristics in the United States, Burlingame, California. The 2014- 2018 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates, Data Profiles. ID DP02. Available: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/. Accessed: April 30, 2020. 146 U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Selected Housing Characteristics, Burlingame, California. The 2014-2018 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates, Data Profiles. ID DP04. Available: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/. Accessed: April 30, 2020. 147 U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Selected Economic Characteristics, Burlingame, California. The 2014-2018 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates, Data Profiles. ID DP03. Available: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/. Accessed: April 30, 2020. 148 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040: A Comparison to Plan Bay Area 2040. November. Available: https://abag.ca.gov/planning/research/forecasts.html. Accessed: April 30, 2020. 149Ibid. 150 City of Burlingame. 2015. City of Burlingame: 2015-2023 Housing Element. Adopted: January 5, 2015. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document-center/Planning/General%20and%2OSpecific%20Plans/Housing%20 Element%20-%20updated%202015.pdf. Accessed: April 30, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-96 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Table 30. Job Projections (2020 to 2025) 2020 2025 Growth (2020-2025) City 32,335 32,465 130 (0.4%) County 399,275 415,305 16,030 (4.0%) Bay Area 4,136,190 4,267,760 131,570 (3.2%) Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2018. Projections 2040. In 2018, approximately 17,190 city residents were employed.151 Furthermore, approximately 12 percent of employees who work in Burlingame also live in the city, while 22 percent work in other cities around San Mateo County, 18 percent work in San Francisco, 10 percent work in Santa Clara County, and 7 percent work in the East Bay. The small percentage of residents who work and live in Burlingame suggests that finding affordable and suitable housing is a challenge for a number of Burlingame's employees.152 Discussion a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less than Significant) Construction. Construction of the Project would increase construction employment directly; however, this would be temporary, occurring only during the 2-year construction period. The size of the construction workforce would vary during the different phases of construction. The average number of construction workers per day would be approximately 34; the maximum number of construction workers on a peak day would be approximately 50. Given the relatively common nature of the anticipated construction, the demand for construction employment would most likely be met with the existing and future labor market in the city as well as San Mateo County. A substantial number of workers from outside the city or county would not be expected to relocate temporarily or commute long distances. Therefore, impacts associated with inducing substantial population growth during construction would be less than significant. Operation. Operation of the Project would result in a direct population increase due to the proposed on - site residential units. This would induce population growth because of the new employment opportunities. The Project would include construction of a new mixed -use building with retail space (7,588 gsf), office space (148,OS7 gsf), and 60 residential units (83,870 gsf), three of which would be affordable units. Of the 60 residential units, 4S would be one -bedroom units, 12 would be two -bedroom units, and three would be three -bedroom units. Given the average household size in the city, 2.49 residents per household, the Project is expected to generate a maximum of 150 permanent residents. The Project would also generate up to 985 office employees and up to 30 retail employees. 151 U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Selected Economic Characteristics, Burlingame, California. The 2014-2018 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates, Data Profiles. ID DP03. Available: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/. Accessed: April 30, 2020. 152 City of Burlingame. 2015. City of Burlingame: 2015-2023 Housing Element. Adopted: January 5, 2015. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document-center/Planning/General%20and%20Specific%20Plans/Housing%20 Element%20-%20updated%202015.pdf. Accessed: April 30, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.97 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist It is anticipated that the units would be used by singles and couples rather than large families because of the size of the units. Therefore, the average household size with the Project would most likely be smaller than the city average of 2.49 persons per household. Regardless, 2.49 persons per household could be used as a conservative estimate of household size with the proposed multi -family housing development. The 150 new residents would represent approximately 0.5 percent of the city's projected total population in 2025 (i.e., the anticipated full buildout date for the Project) and approximately 13.9 percent of the city's population growth from 2020 to 2025. Therefore, the increase in population associated with the Project would be within the city's anticipated growth projections and would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. In addition, the Project would ultimately help to accommodate population growth projections for Burlingame by creating more residential housing and improving mixed -use residential/commercial opportunities within the NBMU zone. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial population growth beyond that expected for the city. In addition to the proposed residential units, the Project would result in 985 office employees and up to 30 retail employees working on the site once the Project is fully operational. Factoring in the existing 92 office employees at the Project site, the net increase in employment during operation of the Project would be 893 office employees and 30 retail employees, for a total of 923 net new employees at the site. This level of job growth represents approximately 2.8 percent of the existing number of jobs in the city. Using the average number of workers per worker household for the city (1.42), the Project would generate approximately 650 new households. As discussed above, approximately 12 percent of all city residents would also work in the city. The existing 12 percent of the city's workforce that also resides in the city is used to estimate the number of new workers who would seek and find housing in the city as a result of the Project. Therefore, approximately 78 of the projected employees at the Project site would be expected to live in the city. 153 Assuming each employee forms a household with the city average of 2.49 persons, the Project would result in approximately 194 additional residents, representing approximately 18 percent of the anticipated population growth in the city by 2025. As shown in Table 29, above, ABAG estimates that the number of households in the city will grow by approximately 435 between 2020 and 2025. The Project would generate demand for 78 housing units in the city. Therefore, the Project -induced housing demand would equate to 17.9 percent of the projected housing demand by 2025. Because the Project would construct 60 units, this demand for 78 units, associated with the new on -site employees, could be partially fulfilled by the Project. In addition, in 2019, the City entitled the construction of 285 net new units, along with "in progress" applications for approximately 412 new units.154 New residents induced by the jobs at the Project site could be accommodated within this new construction. With the housing units proposed under the Project, as well as current housing development projects throughout the city, additional housing would not be needed. As discussed above, the Project would result in 150 new residents within the proposed units plus 194 new residents throughout the city as a result of the jobs created at the Project site. In total, the Project would generate approximately 344 new residents in the city. The anticipated population growth from the proposed housing units and the employment growth would represent 1.1 percent of the city's 153 The 923 net new Project employees/1.42 workers per worker household x 12 percent of Burlingame employees who also live in the city = approximately 78 employees who would live in the city. 154 City of Burlingame. 2020. Staff Report. Housing Element, Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the Housing Element of the General Plan. March 16. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/2019_HE-APR.pdf. Accessed: April 30, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3_98 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist projected 2025 population and be approximately 32 percent of the city's population growth between 2020 and 2025. Therefore, the Project would not directly result in substantial population growth beyond what is expected for the city. The Project is an infill development within an already -developed area of the city. The Project site is well served by urban infrastructure, services, and transit. As described in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, the utilities that currently serve the Project site are adequate under existing conditions and would be able to continue serving the site during Project operations. Few lines would be required to connect the Project to the existing utility infrastructure. Furthermore, no infrastructure is proposed as part of the Project that would serve off -site areas. Therefore, the utility connections that would be required for the Project would not contribute to unplanned indirect population growth in off -site areas. The Project would not induce a substantial level of unplanned population growth in the city, either directly or indirectly. The impact would be less than significant. b. Displace a substantial number of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Less than Significant) The Project would demolish an on -site building that houses the Peninsula Museum of Art and a Sutter Health facility. The building does not include residences; therefore, housing units would not be displaced. However, approximately 92 employees currently work at the Project site, including approximately 50 Peninsula Museum of Art employees and volunteers and approximately 42 Sutter Health employees. Although the Project would not accommodate the current uses and employees, space is available in the city to accommodate the small number of current tenants who would be displaced by the Project. The Project would not displace a substantial number of people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-99 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame XV. Public Services Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Less -than - Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the Project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Setting Fire Protection The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) provides fire protection services within Burlingame, Millbrae, and Hillsborough. In total, the service area covers almost 15 square miles with a residential population of approximately 61,344.155 The CCFD has 89 full-time employees, including 77 uniformed personnel.156 CCFD's equipment includes six fire engines, one fire truck, and one rescue truck.157 There are six fire stations in the CCFD's jurisdiction, two of which are in Burlingame. The closest CCFD station is Fire Station No. 37, at 511 Magnolia Avenue in the city of Millbrae, approximately 1 mile north of the Project site.158 The CCFD's goal is to keep response times under 7 minutes. The current response time for the CCFD is approximately 4 minutes, 30 seconds for 98 percent of emergency calls.159 Police Protection The Burlingame Police Department (BPD) provides emergency police services with a 5-square-mile area with approximately 30,000 residents. The BPD has one police station, at 1111 Trousdale Drive, and employs 60 men and women, including 40 sworn officers. The 2040 General Plan does not designate a standard ratio for police officers to residents or a standard emergency response time. The current emergency response time is 4 minutes, 37 seconds.160 155 Central County Fire Department. 2018. Adopted Budget Fiscal Year2018/2019. Available: http://www.ccfdonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CCFDAdoptedBudgetFY18-19.pdf. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 156 Ambruster, Kristin. Human resources manager, Central County Fire Department. May 21, 2020—phone conversation with Caroline Vurlumis, ICF, San Francisco, CA. 157 Central County Fire Department. 2018. Adopted Budget Fiscal Year2018/2019. Available: http://www.ccfdonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CCFDAdoptedBudgetFY18-19.pdf. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 158 Central County Fire Department. 2020. Our Fire Stations. Available: https://ccfd.org/about-ccfd/fire-stations/. Accessed: May 6, 2020. 159 Ambruster, Kristin. Human resources manager, Central County Fire Department. May 21, 2020—phone conversation with Caroline Vurlumis, ICF, San Francisco, CA. 160 Boll, Robert. Captain, Burlingame Police Department. May 21, 2020—voicemail left for Caroline Vurlumis, ICF, San Francisco, CA. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-100 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Schools The Burlingame School District (BSD) includes six elementary schools and one intermediate school,161 with a total enrollment of 3,510 students in the 2018 to 2019 school year.162 In addition, Burlingame High School, part of the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD), is located in Burlingame.163 In total, the SMUHSD serves approximately 9,000 students, and enrollment grows every year.164 The Project site is within the service area for Lincoln Elementary School. It would also be served by Burlingame Intermediate School and Burlingame High School.165 Table 31 provides enrollment information for these three schools for the 2019-2020 school year, the most recent data available. Table 31. Public Schools Serving the Project Area School 2018-2019 School Year Enrollment Lincoln Elementary School 441166 Burlingame Intermediate School 1,113167 Burlingame High School 1,528168 Source: California Department of Education, 2020. Parks Please see Section XV, Recreation, for a discussion about existing parks and recreational facilities in Burlingame. Other Public Facilities The Burlingame Public Library's Easton Branch, at 1800 Easton Drive, is the closest public library to the Project site. The Burlingame Public Library is part of the Peninsula Library System, which serves the eastern portions of San Mateo County, from South San Francisco to Menlo Park. The Burlingame Public Library serves Burlingame and Hillsborough residents as well as any resident within the library system. 161 Burlingame School District. 2018. Burlingame School District, District Boundaries. Available: https://www.bsd.kl2.ca.us/districtboundariesl6l7. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 162 Education Data Partnership. 2020. Burlingame Elementary. Available: http://www.ed-data.org/district/San- Mateo/Burlingame-Elementary. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 163 Burlingame High School. 2020. Burlingame High School, Maps and Directions. Available: https://www.smuhsd.org/Page/1627. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 164 San Mateo Union High School District. 2020. Welcome to the San Mateo Union High School District! Available: https://www.smuhsd.org/domain/46. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 165 Burlingame School District. 2018. Burlingame School District District Boundaries. Available: https://www.bsd.kl2.ca.us/districtboundariesl6l7. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 166 California Department of Education. 2020. DataQuest. 2019-2020 K-12 Enrollment by Age Range. Available: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrAgeGrd.aspx?cds=41688826043566&agglevel=school&year=20 19-20. Accessed: May 6, 2020. 167Ibid. 168 Ibid. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-101 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Discussion Environmental Checklist a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire Protection? (Less than Significant) The Project would construct a new building with office, residential, and retail uses on the Project site, which is already developed and currently served by the CCFD. The Project would add 344 new residents to the city, with 150 of them on the Project site, and 923 net new employees at the Project site. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable CCFD codes and regulations and meet CCFD standards related to fire hydrants (e.g., fire -flow requirements, hydrant spacing), the design of driveway turnaround areas, and access points, among other standards. In addition, the Project would be approximately 1 mile south of Fire Station No. 37. Because of the distance of the Project from the fire station, it is not expected that the Project would substantially affect response times. Under CEQA, the need for additional equipment and/or personnel to support fire services is not considered a significant impact, unless new facilities would need to be constructed, thereby resulting in physical impacts. The increase in the number of residents and employees at the Project site would be considered minimal compared with the population in the rest of the city. Therefore, the Project would not increase the need for fire services, staffing, and/or equipment to the extent that new fire facilities would need to be constructed, resulting in a less -than - significant impact. Police Protection? (Less than Significant) The Project site is currently served by the BPD. The 2040 General Plan Community Safety Element does not designate a standard ratio for police officers to residents or a standard emergency response time. However, it does require continued maintenance of optimal police staffing levels, which are necessary to meet community safety needs.169 The General Plan EIR referenced the "238 Bypass Fiscal Impact Analysis" metric, which establishes an optimum ratio of 1.5 sworn police officers per 1,000 residents.170 The Project would add approximately 923 employees at the site compared with existing conditions and induce 344 new residents to relocate to the city, with 150 of them on the Project site. The General Plan EIR, adopted in 2018, found that the BPD has not identified the need for any new or expanded facilities to meet service needs.171 In addition, the estimated service ratio 169 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame General Plan. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/General%20and%20Specific%20Plans/Burlingame GP_Adopted_Jan2019_FuIl.pdf. Accessed: March 30, 2020. 170 City of Burlingame. 2018. Burlingame 2014 General Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Report. https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/BurlingameGP_DEIR_FuliDocument_06-28-2018.pdf. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 171Ibid. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-102 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist of sworn officers to residents is currently 1.3 sworn officers to 11000 residents. 172,173 The addition of 344 residents to the population would not substantially decrease this optimum service ratio.174 The Project would be located adjacent to the police station. Because of the height of the proposed building, an antenna would be installed on the roof to ensure uninterrupted police communications. With installation of this antenna, the Project would not interrupt police communications and, therefore, would not affect the ability of the BPD to continue its operations. Under CEQA, the need for additional equipment and/or personnel to support police services is not considered a significant impact, unless new facilities would need to be constructed, thereby resulting in physical impacts. The increase in the number of employees and residents at the Project site would be considered minimal compared with the population in the rest of the city. Therefore, the Project would not increase the need for police services or staffing to the extent that new police facilities would need to be constructed, resulting in a less -than -significant impact. Schools? (Less than Significant) As discussed in more detail in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the Project would induce up to 344 individuals to move to the city of Burlingame. The BSD uses a student generation rate of 0.2067 student per housing unit for elementary schools and a generation rate of 0.0525 for middle schools.175 For high schools, the state high school student generation rate is 0.2 student per housing unit.176 Using these student generation rates, the additional 344 residences in the city could result in up to 71 elementary school students, 18 middle school students, and 69 high school students, which is not anticipated to result in a significant impact on the BSD or the SMUHSD. The Project is subject to Senate Bill 50 school impact fees, as established by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998. These fees support facility maintenance to offset potential impacts from additional use.177 Section 65996 of the State Government Code notes that payment of the school impact fees established by Senate Bill 5O, which may be required by any state or local agency, is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for school impacts from development. Therefore, impacts related to schools would be less than significant. Parks? (Less than Significant) The closest public parks to the Project site are Village Park and Ray Park, which are 0.4 mile south and 0.5 mile west of the Project site, respectively. As explained in more detail in Section XV, Recreation, a significant increase in the use of public parks, recreational facilities, or other public 172 The population of Burlingame in 2019 was estimated to be 30,317 (see Section XIV, Population and Housing). The number of sworn officers is 40. 173 1.3 sworn officers per 1,000 residents = (40 sworn officers/30,317 [population]) x 1,000 residents. 1741.3 sworn officers per 1,000 residents = [40 sworn officers/(30,317 [population] + 344 [Project population]) x 1,000 residents. 175 SchoolWorks, Inc. 2016. Level 1 - Developer Fee Justification Study for Burlingame School District. Available: http://bsd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/1236520987086/1403330967436/5172072493375788958.pdf. Accessed: May 6, 2020. 176 State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Instruction. 2008. Enrollment Certification/Projection. Available: https://www.dgsapps.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/ab1014/sab50-Olinstructions.pdf. Accessed: May 20, 2020. 177 State of California. 1998. School Facilities Bond Act. Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97- 98/bill/sen/sb-0001-0050/sb_50_cfa_19980715_154314_sen_floor.html. Accessed: May 6, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-103 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist facilities is not anticipated after Project buildout. Furthermore, substantial adverse physical impacts that would require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities after Project buildout would not occur. Because the Project would not trigger the need for new park facilities, the impacts would be less than significant. Other Public Facilities? (Less than Significant) The Project would induce 344 individuals to move to the city and add approximately 923 employees at the Project site. The Burlingame Public Library's Easton Branch is closest to the Project site; however, it is expected that Project residents, employees, and Project -induced Burlingame residents would also use the Burlingame Public Library's Main Library. The library system is expected to be able to accommodate the increase in the number of library users. Because the Project would not trigger the need for new library facilities, the impacts would be less than significant. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-104 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist XVI. Recreation Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Setting The City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department manages 18 recreational facilities citywide, including playgrounds, picnic areas, gardens, athletic facilities, walking trails, and more. Two of these parks are near the Project site. Village Park and Ray Park are 0.4 mile south and 0.5 mile west of the Project site, respectively. In addition, the City of Millbrae Recreation Department manages other nearby recreational facilities, including Spur Trail Phase I, which is 0.4 mile north of the Project site. It contains a walking trial and a skate park. The 2040 General Plan identifies the northern portion of the city as an area that needs additional park facilities to support future planned development and associated population growth. In consideration of this need, the City requires new residential development in the northern portion of the city to include green spaces and/or gathering areas that are publicly accessible.178 Per Chapter 25.40.030 of the Municipal Code, NBMU zoning standards require the Project to provide a minimum of 100 sf of private, common, or combined open space for each dwelling unit, with at least 10 percent of the development site consisting of landscaping features. Discussion a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated? (Less than Significant) As described in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the Project is expected to generate approximately 344 new residents in the city. It is expected that some of these residents would use the park and recreational facilities near the Project site. It is also expected that some on -site employees would access nearby park and recreational facilities but on an intermittent basis. However, per NBMU zoning requirements, the Project would include a combination of common and private open space, totaling 36,064 sf. The proposed open space would include a public plaza, a private garden, and private 178 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame General Plan. Chapter 9: Healthy People and Healthy Places. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/General%20and%2OSpecific%20Plans/Burlingame GP_Adopted_Jan2019_Chapter9%20(Health).pdf. Accessed: March 27, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-105 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist balconies. The Project would exceed the open space requirements for the NBMU zone. It is expected that many residents would use the on -site open space areas for recreational purposes, which would minimize potential Project -related effects on park facility service ratios. Through compliance with NBMU zoning requirements pertaining to the development of open space, the potential for park facility deterioration resulting from the increased population at the Project site would be reduced. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Less than Significant) The Project would include on -site open space facilities, including both private balconies and shared, publicly accessible open space areas. Shared open space areas would include the public plaza and landscaped areas. The public and private open space areas would serve as recreational areas for many current and future residents at the Project site. Construction of these new private and public recreational open spaces would not have an adverse physical impact on the environment. Furthermore, although the Project would add residents and employees to the area, the Project would not trigger the need for construction or expansion of parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would have a less -than -significant impact related to an adverse physical effect on the environment due to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-106 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame XVIL Transportation Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the Project: a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy ❑ ® ❑ ❑ addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards because of a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Setting A TIA was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants in May 2020 (see Appendix A). The TIA describes existing and future conditions for transportation with and without the Project. In addition, the TIA includes information on the regional and local roadway networks, pedestrian and transit conditions, and transportation facilities associated with the Project. The Project is expected to generate 1,545 net trips, with 150 net AM peak -hour trips and 169 net PM peak -hour trips. Discussion a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction Heavy equipment would be transported on and off the site throughout demolition and construction of the Project. The transport of heavy equipment to and from the Project site could cause traffic impacts in the vicinity of the site during construction, which would be a potentially significant impact. In accordance with Mitigation Measure TRA-1, prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant would be required to submit a Traffic Control Plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, demolition and construction activities associated with the Project would not lead to noticeable congestion in the vicinity of the site or the perception of decreased traffic safety. The impact regarding conflicts with applicable plans during construction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Traffic Control Plan Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the City. The requirements of the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: Truck drivers shall be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and U.S. 101, as determined by the City Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress shall occur only at the main driveways to the Project site; specifically designated travel 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-107 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist routes for large vehicles shall be monitored and controlled by flaggers; warning signs, indicating frequent truck entry and exit points, shall be posted on adjacent roadways, if requested; and any debris or mud on nearby streets caused by trucks shall be monitored daily, which may require instituting a street cleaning program. Operation The C/CAG of San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) includes requirements for a level -of -service analysis for a freeway segment when the number of trips added by a project is expected to be greater than 1 percent of the segment's capacity. The number of new trips generated by the Project is expected to be considerably less than the 1 percent threshold for all freeway segments in the area. Therefore, a detailed freeway -segment analysis was not performed. In addition, the CMP requires developments that are estimated to generate 100 or more new peak -hour trips to implement TDM measures (e.g., provide trip credits equal to or greater than a project's net peak -hour trip generation). Because the Project would generate more than 100 new peak -hour trips, TDM measures have been identified to reduce the number of peak -hour trips. Chapter 7 of the TIA (Appendix A) identifies the TDM measures that would be implemented and indicates that, with TDM measures, the Project's trip credits would be more than the Project's net peak -hour trip generation. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the CMP, and the impact associated with conflicts with the CMP would be less than significant. The 2040 General Plan has a goal to improve transit access, frequency, connectivity, and amenities to increase transit ridership and convenience.179 The Project would be approximately 0.45 mile from the Millbrae multimodal transit station and off El Camino Real, which provides access to bus routes. The Project would promote continued use of public transit facilities/services and add approximately 26 AM peak -hour transit trips and 35 PM peak -hour transit trips. It is assumed that the bus and transit services at the Millbrae multimodal transit station would have adequate capacity and would be able to accommodate this minor increase in ridership. The Project would not interfere with any existing bus route and would not remove or relocate any existing bus stops. Therefore, the Project's impact on transit services would be less than significant, and the Project would be consistent with goals identified by the City. The 2040 General Plan has a goal to develop a network of high -quality, convenient, safe, and easy -to -use bicycle facilities to increase the number of people who use bicycles for everyday transportation.180 The City Bicycle Transportation Plan has goals to improve existing bicycle routes, promote safe bicycle travel, and establish new connections.181 Currently, there are bicycle facilities in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. There are also some planned bicycle facilities in the study area, including a bicycle route along Millbrae Avenue between Old Bayshore Highway and California Drive. Although the Project could add additional bicycle trips, bicyclists would be able to use existing or planned facilities. Therefore, the Project's impact on bicycle facilities would be less than significant, and the Project would be consistent with goals identified by the City. 179 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame General Plan. Mobility Element. Available: http s: //www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/General%2 0 and%2 0 Specifjc%2 0 Plans/Burlingame GP_Adopted_Jan2019_Chapter6%20(Mobility).pdf. Accessed: June 1, 2020. 180Ibid. 181 City of Burlingame. 2004. Bicycle Transportation Plan. October 18. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/General%20and%2OSpecific%20Plans/Bicycle%20 Transportation%20Plan.pdf. Accessed: June 1, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-108 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist The 2040 General Plan has a goal to ensure that Burlingame's streets are comfortable, safe, and attractive for people of all ages and abilities to walk.182 Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and signals at signalized intersections. The Project would include improvements to the frontages of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real, such as setbacks, landscaping, and a bulb -out. The Project would also include a plaza that could be accessed by pedestrians. Overall, the Project would improve pedestrian facilities at the Project site. Therefore, the Project's impact on pedestrian facilities would be less than significant, and the Project would be consistent with goals identified by the City. b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less than Significant) Senate Bill 743, which was codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, resulted in changes to the CEQA Guidelines. Public Resources Code section 21099 identifies that VMT as the appropriate metric to measure transportation impacts. Public Resources Code section 21099 also identifies that LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment. Thus, this analysis focuses on the potential impacts on VMT. The Project site would be located off El Camino Real, which is considered a high -quality transit corridor. In addition, the Project site would be located 0.45 mile from the Millbrae multimodal transit station, which is considered a major transit stop. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), notes that "generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high -quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less -than -significant transportation impact." Because the Project would be located on a high -quality transit corridor and within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop, the Project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The Project would not result in a substantial effect on VMT and the Project would result in a less -than -significant impact. c. Substantially increase hazards because of a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less than Significant) Chapter 6 of the TIA (Appendix A) requires a review of the Project design, including a review of the driveway design. The TIA states the following: • Vehicle access to the Project site would be provided by driveways on California Drive, El Camino Real's frontage road, and Trousdale Drive. The driveways meet minimum width requirements and would provide adequate space for vehicles when entering the site. • The proposed driveways would provide adequate sight distance and thereby limit the likelihood of collisions at driveways. • Vehicle queuing due to the driveways is not expected to significantly affect traffic operations. • Adequate access to all parking stalls would be provided. • The Project would ensure adequate pedestrian circulation throughout the Project site. • The Project would ensure that vehicles exiting the parking garage to the El Camino Real frontage road would have enough space to see pedestrians using the sidewalk. 182 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame General Plan. Mobility Element. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/General%20and%2OSpecific%2OPlans/Burlingame GP_Adopted_Jan2019_Chapter6%20(Mobility).pdf. Accessed: June 1, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-109 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist The design features of the Project would not include hazardous designs or incompatible uses, and the impact would be less than significant. d. Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less than Significant) The Project would not change the existing roadway system. The Project site would be easily accessible should emergency vehicles be called to the site. Emergency vehicle access would be provided via Trousdale Drive, El Camino Real's frontage road, and the driveway on California Drive. Adequate emergency access would be provided from the proposed driveways. No internal site circulation or access issues have been identified that would result in a traffic safety problem or unusual traffic congestion or delay. Therefore, the Project would have a less -than -significant impact on emergency vehicle access. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-110 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its ❑ ® ❑ ❑ discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Setting To identify tribal cultural resources within the Project area, the NAHC was contacted on February 11, 2020, and asked to provide a list of California Native American tribes that are geographically affiliated with the Project site. A search of the NAHC's SLF was also requested. On February 13, 2020, the NAHC responded with a list of six individuals for consultation. The search of the SLF was positive, meaning that a tribal cultural resource had been recorded in the vicinity of the Project site. The NAHC recommended ICF contact the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista and the Ohlone Indian Tribe for more information regarding the positive Sacred Lands File search. ICF called Chairperson Irenne Zwierlein of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista and Andrew Galvan of the Ohlone Indian Tribe on March 27, 2020. Neither representative had additional information regarding the tribal cultural resource found during the SLF search. Chairperson Zwierlein requested that an archaeologist and tribal monitor be on -site during ground disturbance and that Project personnel involved with excavating receive sensitivity training. Mr. Galvan requested the list of tribal contacts from the NAHC. On April 8, 2020, after ICF called to confirm that email would be an acceptable form of communication, emails with Project details, a location map, and a request for consultation were sent to the following individuals: • Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson - Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista • Tony Cerda, Chairperson - Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe • Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson - Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan • Monica Arellano, Vice Chairperson - Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area • Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson - Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area • Andrew Galvan -Ohlone Indian Tribe 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-111 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Follow-up phone calls were placed on May 11, 2020. To date, the only responses have been from Chairperson Zwierlein and Mr. Galvan. Although no Native American resources have been identified within the Project site, Mr. Galvan requested more information about the positive results of the SLF search that the NAHC conducted. Consultation is ongoing; consultation records will be updated, as necessary. Due to a typographical error in the original letter, a new letter with updated information was sent to the representatives on May 22, 2020. Documentation of tribal consultation is included in Appendix E. Discussion Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) A search of the SLF identified tribal cultural resources in the Project area. However, no tribal cultural resources or burials were identified as a result of consultation with the Native American groups the NAHC listed as geographically affiliated with the region. The potential exists for previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to be encountered during Project demolition or construction work. Buried deposits may be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If such resources were to be destroyed by Project - related activities, the impact would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the excavation crew to receive pre -construction archaeological sensitivity training, which would define what archaeological resources are and lay out the protocol for unanticipated archaeological discoveries outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-2. This protocol requires construction work to stop if an archaeological material or feature is encountered during ground -disturbing activities, thereby preventing further disruption and possible damage. The resource would be properly evaluated, and a treatment plan would be developed with Native American stakeholders. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would require construction work to stop if human remains are encountered during ground -disturbing activities and proper procedures regarding notification to be followed, per Section 50977.98 of the Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would ensure that any previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources would be properly treated if found during construction. Therefore, this impact on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant after mitigation. b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) As stated previously, although the NAHC identified sacred lands in the vicinity of the Project site, no previously recorded archaeological resources from within the Project site were identified during the records search at the NWIC. Six precontact archaeological sites were identified within 0.5-mile of the Project site. In addition, no tribal cultural resources were identified during consultation with California Native American tribes. However, the potential still exists for encountering as -yet undocumented archaeological resources that could be considered significant by California Native American tribes during Project -related construction activities. Therefore, the impact on these resources would be potentially 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-112 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist significant. As described previously, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would mitigate potential impacts on as -yet undocumented resources and human burials. Therefore, the impact on such resources, which could be considered significant by California Native American tribes (per Public Resources Code Section 5024.1), would be less than significant after mitigation. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-113 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist XIX. Utilities and Service Systems Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ provider that 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? d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Setting Water The City purchases all of its potable water from the SFPUC RWS. Approximately 85 percent of the SFPUC RWS water supply originates in the Hetch Hetchy watershed in Yosemite National Park, then flows down the Tuolumne River to Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.183 The remaining 15 percent of the SFPUC RWS water supply originates locally in the Alameda and Peninsula watershed. This water is stored in six different reservoirs in Alameda and San Mateo Counties.184 According to the City 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Burlingame's average water demand between 2011 and 2015 totaled 1,458 million gallons, which is equivalent to 3.99 million gallons per day (mgd),185 or 76 percent of the city's allotted 5.23 mgd. Generally, 41 percent of water consumption is from single-family residential uses, 17 percent from multi- family residential uses, 13 percent from industrial uses, 12 percent from commercial uses, 5 percent from irrigation uses, and 5 percent from institutional uses.186 183 Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. 2016.2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Water/2015%2OUrban%2 OWater%2 OManagement%20PIan. pdf. Accessed: May 4, 2020. 184Ibid. 185 Ibid. (see Table 3-2 of the UWMP). 186 Ibid. (see Table 3-2 of the UWMP). 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-114 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Wastewater The City's Public Works Department services Burlingame's wastewater system. Wastewater flows are carried to a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at 1103 Airport Boulevard, which serves the entire city of Burlingame as well as approximately one-third of Hillsborough. The average dry - weather flow of wastewater to the WWTP has remained fairly constant, at approximately 3.0 to 3.5 mgd, which is approximately 55 to 64 percent of the facility's 5.5 mgd capacity.187 Stormwater Under existing conditions, stormwater from the Project site is conveyed to stormwater drains and inlets on Trousdale Drive and behind the residences off Dufferin Avenue.188 Stormwater from Burlingame's stormwater system drains into San Francisco Bay. Therefore, it is subject to the requirements of the Clean Water Act of 1972, which prohibits the discharge of stormwater into waters of the United States, unless the discharge is in compliance with a NPDES permit, as described in detail in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality. Solid Waste The city is within the service area of RethinkWaste, also known as the South Bayside Waste Management Authority. The City of Burlingame, as well as the Cities of Atherton, Belmont, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, and San Mateo; the County of San Mateo; and the West Bay Sanitary District form the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for Rethink Waste. Recology San Mateo County provides recycling, composting, and garbage collection services for residents and businesses in the RethinkWaste service area. Recyclables and organic solid waste are taken by Recology trucks to the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos for sorting. The Shoreway Environmental Center is owned by RethinkWaste and operated by South Bay Recycling on behalf of RethinkWaste. Solid waste and recyclables received at the Shoreway Environmental Center are processed and sent to the appropriate facility, including the Ox Mountain Landfill (also known as Corinda Los Trancos Landfill), which is in Half Moon Bay. This landfill is expected to remain operational until 2034 and has a permitted throughput capacity of 3,598 tons per day.189 Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Facilities PG&E's natural gas (methane) delivery system includes approximately 42,000 miles of distribution pipelines and 6,700 miles of transmission pipelines. Gas delivered by PG&E originates in gas fields in California, the Southwest, the Rocky Mountains, and Canada. Transportation pipelines send natural gas from fields and storage facilities in large pipes while under high pressure. The smaller distribution pipelines deliver gas to individual businesses or residences. PG&E gas transmission 187 Ibid. (see page 56 of 120). 188 City of Burlingame. 2020. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. Available: http://bgmaps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8f4f7accd3O54baSa4fde9 S lfc45b601. Accessed: May 19, 2020. 189 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2018. Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/ 41-AA-0002/Detail. Accessed: May 4, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-115 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist pipeline systems serve approximately 15 million customers in California. The system is operated under an inspection -and -monitoring program in real time on a 24-hour basis. The program provides leak inspections, surveys, and patrols of the pipelines.190 Numerous telecommunications providers serve Burlingame and provide access to infrastructure for broadband, fiber optic, wireless, and other emerging technologies. AT&T, Xfinity from Comcast, Wave Broadband, Sonic, and others provide telecommunication and cable television services to residents and businesses in the city. The Project site receives services from mainly AT&T and Xfinity from Comcast.191 Discussion a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less than Significant) Water and Wastewater Facilities As described in more detail in XIX(b) and (c), below, the increased water and wastewater treatment demand, which would be minimal, could be served by the existing water supply and remaining capacity of the WWTP. The Project would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities because there is adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity available to serve the Project. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. Stormwater As described in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, Impacts X(c) and X(d), overall, the amount of stormwater that would be discharged with implementation of the Project would be similar to what is currently discharged. The Project would include a cistern to collect stormwater runoff as well as stormwater planters. In addition, the Project would be required to adhere to the MRP. No new stormwater drainage facilities, other than those included in the Project design, would be required. Because new stormwater drainage facilities would be incorporated into the design of the Project, any impacts associated with new stormwater drainage facilities for the Project would be covered in Sections I through XX of this document. Therefore, impacts associated with new stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant. Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Facilities Operation of the Project is not anticipated to result in the construction or expansion of electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Existing electric, gas, and telecommunications lines in the vicinity of the Project site would serve the Project. However, they may be upgraded, if necessary, to meet the needs of the Project. 190 Pacific Gas & Electric. Learn about the PG&E Natural Gas System. Available: https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/natural-gas-system-overview/natural-gas- system-overview.page. Accessed: May 4, 2020. 191 BroadbandNow. n.d. Internet Service Providers in Burlingame, California. Available: https://broadbandnow.com/California/Burlingame#. Accessed: May 6, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-116 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist The installation of new or expanded gas and/or telecommunications lines on the Project site would require excavation, trenching, soil movement, and other activities that are typical during the construction of development projects. These construction impacts are discussed in detail in the appropriate topical sections of this document as part of the assessment of overall Project impacts. However, no off -site natural gas facilities or telecommunication lines would need to be constructed or expanded as a result of the Project, resulting in less -than -significant impacts. The Project would connect to existing electric and natural gas lines located around the perimeter of the Project site. No new electric power or natural gas lines would need to be installed. The Project site is served by both AT&T and Comcast for internet and other telecommunication services.192 No new telecommunication lines would need to be installed. However, the Project would include an antenna on the roof of the proposed building to ensure uninterrupted police communications; the antenna for the police radio system would be a fiberglass pole (approximately 18 inches tall). A microwave dish (approximately 20 inches in diameter), an equipment rack (approximately 60 inches tall by 32 inches wide by 32 inches deep), and a dedicated electrical circuit would also be installed. The BPD would have 24/7 access to these features for maintenance purposes. For the reasons outlined above, no off -site natural gas facilities would need to be constructed or expanded as a result of the Project and telecommunication lines would not need to be installed, resulting in less -than -significant impacts. b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dryyears? (Less than Significant) As explained previously, the city uses an average of 3.99 mgd of its 5.23 mgd water supply. Burlingame's existing use represents 76 percent of its allotted supply; therefore, 24 percent of the city's water supply is unused. Because the Project would add up to 344 new city residents, with 150 of them on the Project site, and up to 923 employees, the estimated water demand from new residents and employees would be 156,093 gallons per day (gpd), or approximately 0.16 mgd.193,194 The additional water demand due to the Project represents an increase in daily water use in the city of approximately 0.03 percent. The city's water supply can accommodate the minimal increase in water demand due to the Project. Therefore, adequate water supplies would be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years; the impact would be less than significant. c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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? (Less than Significant) As described previously, the WWTP treats approximately 3.0 to 3.5 mgd of wastewater, which represents approximately 55 to 64 percent of the facility's 5.5 mgd capacity. Therefore, 36 to 45 percent of the WWTP's capacity remains available to treat wastewater. As discussed in the section above, the 192 AT&T. 2010.2010 Statewide Telephone Boundary Map: Telephone Exchange Areas of California. Available: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/boundarymaps/. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 193 The 156,093 gpd number was calculated using a daily per capita usage rate of 113 gpd for residents and 127 gpd for office employees. The 113 gpd number was provided in the UWMP (344 new residents x 113 gpd per resident = 38,872 gpd). The 127 gpd number was provided in Appendix E of the Pacific Institute's Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California, published in 2003 (923 new employees x 127 gpd per employee = 117,221 gpd). Total water usage by new employees and residents = 38,872 gpd + 117,221 gpd = 156,093 gpd. 194156,093 gpd/1,000,000 gallons = 0.16 mgd. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-117 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist Project's water demand is anticipated to total 156,093 gpd (0.16 mgd); therefore, it is conservatively estimated that the Project would generate 0.15 mgd of wastewater. 195,196 This additional wastewater demand due to the Project represents approximately 7.5 percent of the remaining wastewater treatment capacity (2.0 mgd) at the WWTP.197 Currently, the remaining wastewater treatment capacity can accommodate the minimal increase in wastewater demand due to the Project. Therefore, the Project's impact would be less than significant. d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less than Significant) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill 939) requires municipalities to adopt an integrated waste management plan to establish objectives, policies, and programs related to waste disposal, management, source reduction, and recycling. In addition, Senate Bill 1383, passed in 2016, established a target that calls for a 50 percent reduction in organic waste by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. As discussed above, the City is part of a regional IPA that manages solid waste collection and recycling services for several cities. The IPA is required to divert waste from landfills to achieve state reduction goals. In 2018, San Mateo County as a whole had a total diversion rate of 50.8 percent because of recycling and composting. The city of Burlingame had a slightly lower diversion rate than the county, with 40.3 percent of waste diverted from landfills.198 Construction of the Project would generate waste; however, the Project would be required to adhere to state and local standards. The Project would generate 2,000 cubic yards of building debris, approximately 60 percent of which would need to be recycled. Therefore, construction of the Project would require building materials to be disposal of at a permitted landfill. In addition, operation of the Project would most likely increase overall solid waste generation because of the additional office workers on the site, along with residents and retail workers, compared with the number currently on the site (i.e., the employees in the existing building). However, operation of the proposed facility would be required to meet state and local standards regarding solid waste and recycling. The increase in the amount of solid waste generated would be considered negligible because the landfills that would be used would continue to have ample capacity and would be able to handle the minimal increase. In 2018, residential uses in the city generated approximately 6.9 pounds of solid waste per person per day (ppd) and 6.3 pounds per employee.199 Therefore, using a conservative estimate of the number of new residents in the city (344) and considering the new employees on the Project site (923), the Project could generate approximately 8,189 pounds of solid waste per day (4.1 tons per day) in the form of 195 This metric was calculated using a 90% rate for water returning to the sewer system as wastewater for non- residential users and 95% for multi -family residential users. Residents = (38,872 gpd x 0.95) = 36,928 gpd of wastewater. Employees = (117,221 x 0.90) = 105,499 gpd of wastewater. Total wastewater = 36,928 gpd from residents + 105,499 gpd from employees = 147,427 gpd of wastewater. 196 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2018. Wastewater Service Charge Appeal. Available: https://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=132. Accessed: May 20, 2020. 197 7.5 percent = (0.15 mgd Project wastewater/2.0 mgd remaining capacity) x 100 percent. 198 Recology San Mateo County. 2019. Annual Report to the SBWMA for Year 2018. Available: https: //rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/upl oads/legacy_media/recology-annual-report-2 018. original.pdf. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 199 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Rate Trends (Post-2006). Jurisdiction: Burlingame. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports. Accessed: May 20, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-118 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist garbage as well as recycling and composting material.200 The Shoreway Environmental Center is permitted to receive 3,000 tons of refuse per day.201 Once collected and sorted at Shoreway, solid waste is transported to Corinda Los Trancos Landfill, which is permitted to receive 3,598 tons per day.202 Solid waste generated by operation of the Project would represent approximately 0.1 percent of the daily permitted capacity of the Shoreway and Corinda Los Trancos Landfills. As such, the Shoreway and Corinda Los Trancos Landfills would have adequate capacity and would be able to serve the Project. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, impacts from solid waste disposal would be less than significant. e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less than Significant) The Project would develop office, residential, and retail uses, which would not result in the generation of unique types of solid waste that would conflict with existing regulations regarding waste disposal. The Project would be required to comply with the City's solid waste disposal requirements, including recycling programs established under Assembly Bill 939. As a result, the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and the impact would be less than significant. 200 (344 residents x 6.9 pounds) + (923 employees x 6.3 pounds) = approximately 8,189 pounds per day. 201 RethinkWaste. 2020. AboutShoreway. Available: https://rethinkwaste.org/shoreway-environmental- center/about/. Accessed: May 6, 2020. 202 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41- AA-0002/Detail. Accessed: May 6, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-119 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist XX. Wildfire Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the Project: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. Because of slope, prevailing winds, and other ❑ ❑ ❑ factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of ❑ ❑ associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, ❑ ❑ ❑ including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Setting and Discussion The Project site is not located in a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) within a State Responsibility Area. The closest State Responsibility Area to the Project site is a Moderate FHSZ approximately 1.5 from the site, west of Interstate 280.203 The Project site and all surrounding areas are within a Local Responsibility Area, which is not identified as a Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ. The area is generally developed and lacking the features that normally elevate wildland fire risks (dry vegetation, steeply sloped hillsides, etc.). Because the Project site is not within or near a State Responsibility Area or a Very High FHSZ, there would be no impact, and further analysis is not required. 203 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Fire and Resource Assessment Program Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. San Mateo County. Available: https://osfm.flre.ca.gov/media/6802/fliszs-map4l.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-120 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Does the Project have the potential to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the Project have impacts that are individually ❑ ® ❑ ❑ limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the Project have environmental effects that ❑ ® ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a. Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less than Significant) As described in Section IV, Biological Resources, the Project site is in an urban area and surrounded by development. Other than the trees that occur on the site, there are no natural environment or habitat features on the Project site. The removal of trees would not degrade the quality of the environment because the trees are not naturally occurring; they were planted for landscaping purposes. Although nesting birds could use the trees and the building that would be removed from the Project site, there are trees elsewhere in the city as well as suitable natural habitat outside the city. Therefore, the Project would not 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, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. As described in Section V, Cultural Resources, construction of the Project would not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. The Project's impact would be less than significant 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-121 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist b. Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The cumulative impact analyses determined whether the Project in combination with other approved or foreseeable projects would result in a significant cumulative impact and, if so, whether the Project's contribution to the significant cumulative impact would be cumulatively considerable. This initial study evaluates cumulative impacts using the General Plan EIR because the Project is consistent with applicable land use plans and policies.204 The General Plan EIR is incorporated by reference and available for public review online.205 Because of current COVID-19 social distancing requirements, including the order from San Mateo County to adhere to the social distancing requirements, the General Plan EIR is available for public review at the City of Burlingame Planning Department by appointment only at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010.206 The General Plan EIR evaluated future development, as identified in the 2040 General Plan. Chapter 22 of the General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would result in a less -than -significant impact with respect to cumulative impacts on the following resources: aesthetics; agricultural resources; air quality; biological resources; geology, soils, and minerals; hazards and hazardous materials; historic and cultural resources; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; population and housing; public services; and utilities. Given the conclusions in the General Plan EIR; given that the Project, with mitigation, would have a less -than -significant impact on the aforementioned resources; and given that future projects would be required to adhere to federal and state regulations, as well as local regulations identified in the 2040 General Plan, the Project's contribution to impacts on the aforementioned resources would not be singularly or cumulatively considerable. Chapter 10 of the General Plan EIR includes the cumulative impact analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2040 General Plan could result in a significant cumulative greenhouse gas impact because the City cannot conclusively demonstrate that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed the City's existing and future greenhouse gas reduction goals. The Project's contribution to global climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions is discussed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Development of the Project would incorporate applicable policies of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and comply with the City's Climate Action Plan. As discussed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would be consistent with the state's greenhouse gas emissions reduction trajectory. Therefore, the Project's contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Chapter 18 of the General Plan EIR includes the cumulative transportation impact analysis. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of local regulations and 2040 General Plan policies would ensure that cumulative transportation impacts would be less than significant.207As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, the Project would result in a less -than -significant impact with respect to 204 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 28, 2018. 205 The General Plan EIR is available at https://www.burlingame.org/generalplan. 206 To schedule an appointment, email Catherine Keylon at ckeylon(&burlingame.org. 207 The General Plan EIR included a conclusion for level -of -service (LOS) impacts. The LOS conclusion is not considered here because CEQA does not consider impacts on LOS to be an environmental effect. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-122 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Environmental Checklist VMT, design hazards, and emergency access. In addition, operation of the Project would result in a less - than -significant impact regarding conflicts with applicable plans. Construction of the Project would result in a less -than -significant impact on applicable plans after implementation of mitigation. Given the Project's less -than -significant impacts with mitigation and given that future projects would be required to adhere to local regulations and 2040 General Plan policies, the Project's contribution to cumulative transportation impacts would not be singularly or cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant after mitigation, c. Does the Project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) As described in this document, implementation of the Project could result in temporary air quality, greenhouse gas, hazardous materials, and noise impacts during the construction period. Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this document would ensure that the Project would not result in environmental effects that would have substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. 1766 El Camino Real Project July 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-123 ICF 00096.20 1766 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PREPARED FOR: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact: Catherine Keylon 650.558.7252 PREPARED BY: ICF 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Contact: Leo Mena 415.677.7170 AUGUST 2020 *O'ICF ICF. 2020. 1766 El Camino Real Project Response to Comments. August. (ICF 00096.20) San Francisco, CA. Prepared for City of Burlingame, Burlingame CA. Chapter 1 Introduction Overview The key purpose of circulating an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to collect comments on the accuracy of the information, to detect omissions, and discover public concerns (CEQA Guidelines §15073). The City of Burlingame (City) provided a 20-day public comment period for the IS/MND for the 1766 El Camino Real Project (Project) beginning on July 15, 2020 and ending on August 4, 2020. This document lists the public agency who provided comments on the IS/MND, provides a copy of written comments received, and provides responses to those comments. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), these responses address comments received during the public review period (Pub. Res. Code §21091(d); CEQA Guidelines §15073) and provide responses to the comments prior to consideration of adopting the IS/MND (Pub. Res. Code §21092.5 (b))• No revisions to the IS/MND are required based on the comments received. Comment Letters Received by the City The City received one comment letter during the public comment period. The City acknowledges the receipt of this comment letter and has provided responses below. This comment letter was individually addressed by the City of Burlingame Planning Division. This document includes responses to public comments on the IS/MND as they relate to the potential environmental impacts of the Project under CEQA. The comment letter has been assigned a letter. Individual comments from the letter are identified by a number that corresponds to the comment letter and individual comment within that letter. For example, letter A, comment 1, is addressed in Response A-1. A copy of the comment letter is provided after the responses to individual comments. The comment letter was provided by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County and was dated July 16, 2020. Response to Comments August 2020 1766 El Camino Real Project 1 1 ICF 00096.20 Chapter 2 Response to Comments Comment Letter A. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Response A-1 The commenter requests that that Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) be added to the list of agencies whose approval may be required. In the IS/MND, the ALUC is identified on page 1-2 as a public agency whose approval may be required. The last bullet identifies that a consistency determination may be required from the Airport Land Use Commission. Response A-2 The commenter states that the Project will be subject to formal review by the ALUC, for a determination of consistency with the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) prior to local agency action on the Project. The comment is noted, and the City concurs that a determination of consistency with the SFO ALUCP is required. The City will coordinate with the ALUC to review the Project in order for the ALUC to determine consistency with the SFO ALCUP. Please note that on July 28, 2020, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provided a letter to the applicant that identified that an aeronautical study was prepared. This study found that the Project structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. This letter is included as Appendix A to this Response to Comments document. Response to Comments August 2020 1766 El Camino Real 2 1 ICF 00096.20 City of Burlingame Chapter 2 Response to Comments C/CAG CITYICOUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF S.4N MATEo CouNTY Alherlon-Behnout • Brlsbaue - Burlingame • Colon - Daly City • East Pa16A60 • Forler City •HaljMeon Buy • Hillsborough -Menk Park - M116rae Pwijica • Pormla Valley • Redwood CSty • San Sruno • Sun Curios • Sw+Matso • San Makv Co>,ury •South San Froxwoo • Woodaide July 16, 2020 Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 RE: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee Staff Comments - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-608-P) for the 1766 El Camino Real Project in Burlingame. Dear Ms. Keylon, In response to your notice on the above matter, C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee staff offers the following comment: Page 1-2, No. 11 lists other public agencies whose approval may he required. We request I A-1 that the Airport Land Use Commission he added to the list. As the project site is located within Area B of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for San Francisco International Airport, and as the City of Burlingame has not submitted its Zoning Ordinance to the ALUC for consistency review to ensure compatibility with the 2012 SFO ALUCP, in accordance with SFO ALUCP Policy GP-10-1, the project will be A-2 subject to formal review by the C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) and C/CAG, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission, for a determination of consistency with the SF ALUCP prior to local agency action on the project. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this MND. If you have any questions, please contact me at lckalkin@smcgov.org. Sincerely, 14��- Susy • lkin ALUC Staff 555 County Cenler, 51 Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 PnoxL: 650.599.1406 Www-"ag-ca.gov Response to Comments August 2020 1766 El Camino Real 2-2 ICF 00096.20 APPENDIX A: FAA Letter Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 07/28/2020 MARIO MUZZI Certosa, Inc. 1818 GILBRETH Road SUITE 123 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Aeronautical Study No. 2020-AWP-7466-OE Prior Study No. 2020-AWP-7281-OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building 1766 el Camino Real, Burlingame, CA Location: BURLINGAME, CA Latitude: 37-35-42.15N NAD 83 Longitude: 122-22-56.96W Heights: 23 feet site elevation (SE) 97 feet above ground level (AGL) 120 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) This determination expires on 01/28/2022 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. Page 1 of 2 (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co -Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (424) 405-7641, or tameria.burch@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2020-AWP-7466- OE. Signature Control No: 444607745-446811085 Tameria Burch Technician (DNE) Page 2 of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL VICINITY MAP ]u•�hs �� -Mobrle ��P C d/ Lunardi's Markets 9h a American Bull 'C Bar & Grill Little Lucca eq `P o Mills -Peninsula Center Emergent BUILDING DATti SCOPE OF WORK: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCIES: FIRE PROTECTION: EMERGENCY GENERATOR ELEVATORS: AIR REPLENISHMENT: ALLOWABLE HEIGHT: PROPOSED HEIGHT: ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STORIES PROPOSED NUMBER OF STORIES: ALLOWED AREA PER STORY PROPOSED AREA PER STORY TYPE IA, FULLY SPRINKLERED RESIDENTIAL R-2 PARKING GARAGE S-2 ASSEMBLY A-2 BUSINESS B AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER/STANDPIPE SYSTEM FIRE ALARM SYSTEM YES MACHINE ROOM -LESS, MIN. 3,500 POUNDS 8 NORMAL 100' -01, 96'-0" UNLIMITED 7 UNLIMITED 36,000 (AVERAGE) PLANNING DATA BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER ZONING DISTRICT: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE BLOCK/LOT: DWELLING UNITS: PARKING SPACES: STANDARD STACKER ADA SERVICE CAR SHARE 30241-SMITHGROUP ECN-EL CAMINO NORTH DISTRICT REGULATIONS NORTH BURLINGAME MIXED USE APN 025-1 16-1 10 74,168 SF. TOTAL 385 STALLS PROPOSED DEMOLITION: EXISTING 1766 EL CAMINO BUILDING & PARKING LOT 1766 EL CAMINO BURLIN 1766 EL CAMINO / BURLINGAME, CA 6.4.19 Site Area: 74,168 SF )FFICE DENSITY: FAR=2.0 148:336 �SIF ;OMMERCIAL DENSITY: FAR=1.0 74,168 SF PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL: RESIDENTIAL OVER OFFICE - NON HIGH-RISE LEVELS USE FLOOR HT. USE RESIDENTIAL COMM. /RETAIL OFFICE Feet ZONE # OF UNITS GFA NSA GFA* 7 RESIDENTIAL 9.833 28 32,000 6 RESIDENTIAL 9.833 28 32,000 5 OFFICE 12.5 35,569 4 OFFICE 12.5 35,569 3 OFFICE 12.5 35,569 2 OFFICE 12.5 37,717 Ground COMMERCIAL 15 4 1 19,8701 7,588 3,633 SUBTOTALS: 85 75 60 83,8701 7,588 148,057 *inicudes office core/corridor PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL 69 As per Interim Zoning GROUND 3 OFFICE 296 2.0 / 1000 sf GFA 131 164 RETAIL 19 1.0 / 400 sf GFA B2 218 384 385 IOPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS: I OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 60 Units @ 100 sf = 6,000 OPEN SPACE PROVIDED Residential Amenity Deck 5,044 Residential Balconies 4,925 LANDSCAPED REQUIRED 10% of Site = 7,417 LANDSCAPE PROVIDED 18,703 UNIT MIX 0 0 RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIRED: 0 45 18 6 69 CA DRAWING LIST T.01- TITLE SHEET AO.01 -VIEWS AO.02 - VIEWS AO.03 - VIEWS AO.04 - VIEWS AO.05 - SITE SURVEY AO.1 - SETBACK REQ. AO.2 - SITE PLAN AO.3 - GROUND FLOOR OPEN SPACE AREA A1.0 - GROUND FLOOR A1.1 - GROUND FLOOR PARKING A1.2 - 2ND FLOOR MULTI. TENANT OFFICE PLAN SCHEME A1.3 - TYPICAL OFFICE MULTI. TENANT OFFICE PLAN SCHEME A1.4 - 2ND FLOOR SINGLE TENANT OFFICE PLAN SCHEME A1.5 - TYPICAL OFFICE SINGLE TENANT SCHEME A1.6 - 6TH FLOOR RESI. AREA PLAN A1.7 - 7TH FLOOR RESI. AREA PLAN A1.8 - 6TH FLOOR RESI. UNIT PLANS A1.9 - 7TH FLOOR RESI. UNIT PLANS A1.10 - ROOF PLAN SUM - PARKING SUMMARY A2.1 - B2 Parking Level Plan A2.2 - B1 Parking Level Plan A2.3 - Ground Level Plan A3.1 - Building Section - Parking Ramp DATE: 8.14.20 A3.2 - SECTIONS A4.0 - ELEVATIONS A4.1 - ELEVATIONS FT1.1 - Fire Truck Turn Around FT1.2 - Fire Truck Turn Around FT1.3 - Fire Truck Turn Around FT1.4 - Fire Truck Turn Around L1.0 - OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS L2.0 - CONCEPT PLAN - GROUND LEVEL L2.1 - RENDERING 1 L2.2 - RENDERING 2 L2.3 - SECTIONS - EL CAMINO REAL L2.4 - SECTIONS - TROUSDALE DR L2.5 - PRECEDENT IMAGERY - PLAZA L3.0 - CONCEPT PLAN - DECK L3.1 - PRECEDENT IMAGERY- DECK L4.0 - PLANTING MATERIALS CODE COMPLIANCE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (WHERE APPLICABLE) 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889) CONSTRUCTION HOURS 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 DLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES WEEKDAYS: 8:OOAM - 7:00 PM SATURDAYS: 9:OOAM - 6:OOPM SUNDAYS & HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 18.07.110 FOR DETAILS) �, N CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ARE LIMITED TO TRUE PLAN WEEKDAYS & NON -CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 AM & 5:OOPM ACCESS REGULATIONS THE ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS ACT OF 1969 (ABA) SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (FHA) THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), CHAPTERS 1 1 A& 11 B ADDITIONAL COMMENTS NO PUBLIC MONEY WILL BE USED TO CONSTRUCT THIS PROJECT NO TAX CREDITS HAVE OR WILL BE SUBMITTIED FOR TAX REBATES SHEET TITLE TITLE SHEET PROJECT NUMBER T.01 PERMIT NUMBER SHEET NUMBER 1.011 MUM Lax, m Ar it •�c w,�,�ca ., „ u�T' :10111*11YA0=1lma! i � r � ■� fil� 1fl�' t IN :-r,., v _ 'I _ _dal I 'Xrt•..al �i. ,� r... Y .3_. ��: � -%. �,�,, �� � 1� i III ■���l��l�� ■�� > :.�s I Ir � kris. I►:E1 �/ ,� I ? d I'.i� li � ' pia ■ t � � IC i >� 4 � � �r `` M1.� �� � fb:M ■ • ;� � /G A M I I ► [ON :A ai i 1'• I LAMA N -I I w..rv. ��N '.M- I I I''j s'.' ;iIllIII AMINO REAL VIEW I AO_C EL CAM I N O REAL AERIAL VIEW 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE PROJECT NUMBER N TRUE PLAN VIEWS 0 NORTHEAST AERIAL VIEW a A0.02 PERMIT NUMBER SHEET NUMBER 4„ ■ti 1��iIn1��M�I�I� -- ------ --—ails _- . - .f �l�ll y .s' '► f � . f �, I��� � .i.. • I - ���� --�� �. � it EL CAM I N O REAL VIEW 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE PROJECT NUMBER N TRUE PLAN VIEWS TROUSDALE DRIVE VIEW PERMIT NUMBER A0.03 SHEET NUMBER �I�I' III ` I LL ail =- _wit T n ''ray, r. � a".: � " - 3r. • a � - � a _�. .',� y . �.. •.13'-tPC �r �.;t,w: w.S.:,A.� 7 __�.` ��-'.A s�?". �. .'�.r ��i7 J. _.•1. - — y -a7 i� LIRA"3,.- .`^-� •?y" :r r - _ r's. �.-.� �. ,�'... � �a A :j irCi� ".'_�,� 'T ..-�. �N� �- a. •-» ,,w.. - � i. :;� x: �;:. r� ...0. ��:.., �i-►:, ;�.?. =-.`lam`'!' - '':+. � In' E,. ,L `�► r'k.'" Y w+•�R �c �.-n '-`:==.- �. �- .��;-aN1 w.•+�' .. r!:•r`. '�dl'.ia�.. !y'�1.:, �y ...! }, : �P y3 3q IIk • —------------ EL CAMINO REAL PLAZA VIEW 1 - i it ,„I � ,�• JI' ��o� � 1� IIF,. -- ,.. .> I �'� Ili, I • �"' �'� � �.. I� r j r I ilk 1 i fr 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE N TRUE PLAN VIEWS EL CAMINO REAL AERIAL VIEW PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER A0.04 SHEET NUMBER v NE W � a O Z ao 3 Q C2 o m x Aibnrrmart XPm 17 Qe �1 � (xot mod) �nss 1 I WV SS R=20. -p Q 0=85'14'58" , Q L=29.76' *V i ( ti /nark � z9a. N J N 1 0 WV f►Jd ar�tl J m - O � o, m .0lo 4ft U J A ` �62' D 9 oao �C 16 v - I v Building 1766 EI Camino Real (V* area not dstmw) 1 a 4 � � "y !f ��e Q FGWW LP. * T pwrip, c'°wtw GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 80 SCALE. 1 " - 20' Q A.0 Pwr ,er-DWY- RAMP __ — clgi maw— — — — — —I — T R 0 U S D A L E (84'� w smw CAPON TAR!'� W0°47'067- 407.40' Record per 30 P.M. 17 MbaMw / Lt D R I V E na CA* att:.r $Plmtar o is"01 lr 1*87 N40 °4 '06 E n F Rw�' 0 140. 0 AW 1 � •u a Equ m t YW cbm Out not ) - AiWpLint C IS Q aoaae0000eo — — — — — — — — — Prepared under the supervision of °°ooeRocess,oNge a o '^ goy' C19504 mom: (V N Date: g e,P viwro, ° a ` 0)? r Michael D. Ashley m o °g s°°° N cyi CR.C.E. No. 19504 (Expires 913012007) m �af o®wea lv � uo6° L0 CD TITLE REPORT.- �. LP d• Tag J - Monument The Engineer has been provided a copy of a = 30 P.M. 17 title report prepared by Old Republic ride Q Company # 248869 and dated June 2, 199Z There are no easements indicated on the title report. Q uWk ` `o z W z= LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W W W Ix W o z 0 -g PARCEL A, as delineated upon that certain Map entitled O PARCEL MAP BEING A RESUBDIW90N OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, V N40'47'06'E 154.85' MILLS ESTATE NO. 1' AS RECORDED IN VOL. 38 OF MAPS R=20. 00' AT PADS 48 AND 49, RECORDS SAN MATED COUNTY, D=81 °43'25" BURLINGAME, CAUFORNIA , fAed for record in the Q c=28.53' Office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo, I State of California, on January 91h, 1976 /n Book 30 � z E of Parcel Maps , at Page 17 A.P.N. 025-161-110 Ca O C 0 ti J Q y BENCH MARK: .� O o U m�CQ- Top of pin in monument box at the intersection of the � "'' ca centerlines of Trousdale Drive and California Drive CU r C Q • ELEV. = 13 30' N cu 2 Lands of the City of Burlingame 0 o Q U (Police Department) FIRM MAP a. wca Parcel B E Q v a- z Volume 30 Parcel Maps Page 17 i The subject property lies in Zone B as shown on the M � � O a CDOU FIRM (flood Insurance Rate Map) City of Burlingame,co California, San Mateo County, Panel 1 of 4, Community Q p O LU Panel No. 065019 001 C. ElTective date: 9-16--1981. W > �- (D Q Zone 8 Is descr bed as "Areas between Amlts of the70 (O 100 year Rood and 500-year flood, or certain areas Q 'o subject to 100-year flooding with average depths r < less that one (1) foot or where the contributing drainage area Is less than one square We, or as o protected by levees from the base flood N � o ENCROACHMENT- 1v� 7hem are minor encroachments of the concrete r block wall adjacent to the Police Station of approximately 1 Inch. O UNDERGROUND U TILI TIES, 1 �• The locatkm of the underground utditles are not o QZ complete nor verified. The Engineer has shown CO -c — the locations based upon surface Improvements W and available mapping. Use handtools to locate ' a prior to any construction. 1 v C Found I.P. & Tag �i• Chakn Iata prop. corn . h1k fence on N40 47'06 E 184.16' 1 fiance bole V. JTag o � ` .� ' � e IM�� ant? � o N40 47'06'E 428. 7' Landscape —� 1 r cret re krnq w W7 Found i t y / e) of Prop. A.0 Pw caner Parcel "B" Volume 3 of Parcel Maps Page 7 z" A.0 PVMT..-/ � w � 4— 4 Bd/ards 44 ° 1 o o SC Lt. Landscape Lan e 0 Wood fence at Property Lire WOod hence at ` er# Found I.P. & T r oh y `�e California Pines o prop.caner 33� Parcel 1 2 '1' Vol. fib Parcel Maps Page 31 I.P. & Tag urne"t 30 P.M. 17 LEGEND T.0 Top of curb 50V Back of Hulk FF FbIsh Floor FL. Flow Line T.W. Top of Wall PvmL pavement Cona Concrete Gnd- [found FH. Fire h)i*mt WV Water Valve SS Sanitary Sewer SSMH Sanitary Sewer Manhole SSCO C/eam out Rkrn Rin Inv. invert SD. Storm Draln Co. Catch Ba2b Rkn Rlrrr Inv. Invert R Radkus D Delta Angle L Length I.P. Iron Pipe & Tag W 0 0 JAN. 27, 2006 C = 1 SHEET 1 OF 1 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES N TRUE PLAN SHEET TITLE SITE SURVEY bi CU 0 0 0- PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER A0.05 SHEET NUMBER cu 0 0 a 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES N TRUE PLAN SHEET TITLE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PROJECT NUMBER A0.1 PERMIT NUMBER SHEET NUMBER 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE N TRUE PLAN SITE PLAN PROJECT NUMBER A0.2 PERMIT NUMBER SHEET NUMBER 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES N TRUE PLAN SHEET TITLE GROUND FLOOR OPEN SPACE AREA PROJECT NUMBER A0.3 PERMIT NUMBER SHEET NUMBER 1766 EL CAM I N O REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTA_ 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION Sl,3MIT A_ 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION S1,3MIT A 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION S1.3MIT A 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES N TRUE PLAN SHEET TITLE GROUND FLOOR PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER A1.0 SHEET NUMBER 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES N TRUE PLAN SHEET TITLE GROUND FLOOR PROJECT NUMBER PARKING A1.1 PERMIT NUMBER SHEET NUMBER cu 0 0 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE N J) TRUE PLAN 2ND FLOOR MULTI. TENANT OFFICE PLAN PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER A1.2 SHEET NUMBER cu 0 0 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES N J) TRUE PLAN SHEET TITLE TYPICAL OFFICE MULTI. TENANT PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER PLAN A1.3 SHEET NUMBER cu 0 0 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE N J) TRUE PLAN 2ND FLOOR SINGLE TENANT OFFICE PLAN PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER A1.4 SHEET NUMBER cu 0 0 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES N J) TRUE PLAN SHEET TITLE TYPICAL OFFICE SINGLE TENANT PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER A1.5 SHEET NUMBER cu 0 0 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE N J) TRUE PLAN 6TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA PLAN PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER Al.6 SHEET NUMBER cu 0 0 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE N J) TRUE PLAN 7TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA PLAN PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER All SHEET NUMBER BALCONIES I I I (-D I I N I I I I I I I I I I jl I I I I j I I I II N I II I I I I I I I I I I N I I I I I I I I I I II II I I i I I HS,- - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - -i - - - I - 16' — 0" 16'— 0"--- L — I — —1 88 — 8— 'n Fm L �? I a? 213 ❑ ❑ 2BR El 5 ❑ 16,_0„ -t I 16,-0„ I I 229 .El 29 I I I4 L 1 I 0 o I Qo" co F I 88 SF 88 SF 1 r; - I- - I— — — — _ LOCATION PROVIDED AREA 1 BR 1,481 SQ FT 2 BR 740 SQ FT 3BR 168SQFT TOTAL 2,389 SQ FT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHIGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE u w I I I LJ L11 U .© 6 � � 8SF 1 ' � � I _ _ afo� 898 00 IF=.© ©. � N o ❑ 1 1S I 1S ❑CLO.©1 ❑ I E Iffl7ffl° DECK Li I 5'-6' I PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 -70 - 2 0 ❑ � 5044 SF CD ❑ ®© I PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 1 qA■© I PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 00 I 9 1 I� 1 1' I 3» 1 1' 3» ■ I I PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 i ❑ ©. 8 F® � � ® 9 IFI ❑ I 9 ❑ 15 S I SEALS AND SIGNATURES OiF cp ❑ 0 4 I I j ❑ ❑ o c1 62 SF 6 S o ❑ N 0o ILA 30 [ El El [�] m =) r--= -r- 8" [�] El Li A ❑ I ma w fR o I6� • +C 915 SOR R 1 LOUNGE R 1 4 I N A I 9 ❑ 945 SF 1 68 S� I N � A� I I El°®7 o ❑ o I °� I ILET 0� I C - - - - - o❑ °.0 Up .® 11111�1 SF O I ❑ oR r� r)r1B 1 1 R B o❑ I "' 1477 1 S ❑ 8 I 0 1p ❑ FPn I-1❑ ❑ I TRUE PLAN 0 in I `� —_2129'-7 - I I I I I I I I I 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'6" 1 2 27'-6" i h6 —0 - ------------ --- ------ I - - --- -' I 3) (4 1 (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10 11 12 13 14 A 32'-0" SCALE: 1 /16" — 1'-0" 64'—C bhtti IIILt 6TH FLOOR UNIT PLAN bi cu 0 0 0- PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER A1.8 SHEET NUMBER ii J I 5W F E L n k- O 0 O co N O 0 I I I I I I I I I I II � I I II I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I jl II I I II I j I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I � I � I I I II I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I j l II I I II I i I I I I I 01) 16 Qo - Q 1- - I - - - ' - I - - -I I- 88 SF a 1,88 SE�--�� Ln L I I 2B 2ME El229 0 ❑ 0 El16 -0 1 I 16 -0 I I I ®© ©® 1 1 I I a a I � � 88 SF Wo � 0 1"° "�°lmm�: I' I II—I int..5 - 6 I 5- 6 1 71999iR o 1 1 P71171nFrr-71 In 27'-699 �19 0) 9 279-699 279-699 279-699 1 99-099 279-699 279-699 6,-0„ 9 99 9 99 f 99 27— 6 19 —0 27— 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (13 14 0 BALCONIES LOCATION PROVIDED AREA 1 BR 1,481 SQ FT 2 BR 694 FT 3 BR 361 SQ FT TOTAL 2,536 SQ FT 32'-0" SCALE: 1 /16" = 1'-O" 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHIGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES N j) TRUE PLAN 6 4' — OI SHEET TITLE 7TH FLOOR UNIT PLAN cu 0 0 0- PROJECT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER A1.9 SHEET NUMBER 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE N TRUE PLAN ROOF PLAN PROJECT NUMBER A1.10 PERMIT NUMBER SHEET NUMBER N I 0- wo PARKING SUMMATION CHART LEVEL VAN ACCESSIBLE (9 -0 x 18 -0) ACCESSIBLE (9 -0 x 18 -0) OFFICE (8 -6 x 17 -0) RESIDENTIAL ,_ ,_ (8 6 x 17 0) FUTURE EV VAN ,_ ,_ (9 0 x 18 0) FUTURE EV ACCESSIBLE (9'_0" x 18'-0") ,EV with 8'-0" LOADING (9'-0" x 18'-0") EV RESIDENTIAL (9'-0" x 18'-0") FUTURE EV ,_ ,_ (8 6 x 17 0) CLEAN AIR ,_ ,_ „) (8 6 x 17 0 PUZZLER (TRIPLE) 3 CAR SYSTEM (8'-6" x 18'-019) PUZZLER (TRIPLE) 5 CAR SYSTEM (8'-6" x 18'-019) TOTAL GROUND 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 B1 3 6 119 0 1 1 1 2 19 7 0 0 159 B2 0 0 10 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 UNITS 8x3=24 24 UNITS 24x5=120 223 TOTAL 3 6 129 72 1 1 1 2 19 7 24 120 385 Project Total: 385 LEVEL MOTORCYCLE (8 9-019x 5 -0) TOTAL GROUND 0 0 B1 3 3 B2 3 3 TOTAL 6 6 0 N U Z Z 0 W ry Q co Architects • Engineers • Parking Planners WATRY DESIGN, INC. San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas watrydesign.com REVISIONS CONCEPT DESIGN JOB NO 18143 DATE 08-14-20 DESIGN LoCoco DRAWN ALIOTO CHK. BY: LoCoco FILE 18143SUM SHEET SUM 1 j6 cu Q 0 O O O O O 0 O O '15''-6—" — I 27'-6" 19'-0 " 27-6 27-6 27-6 19'-0 27-6" 27-6 27-6 19'-015'-6" I '01 '01' ' I I I I c0 I N I a a I � � I I I � � I co d I I N I a I BV B� I I � � I I to ~ a N I a I N � I I a a I I d _ co � I N I a a I � � I I a N � I co I N a I I a I I co I (.0 N I I RES. j RES. RES. j RES. � I I I I I o co ; I I I v; I I /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 o IIIII N IIIII L-V -21- 1 1 2 1 I I o I o ELEV. I ji I I j CI-Cll j w I II I I I I I -I O D O EDO � I � I I I Ul I t7 RES. RES. RES. RES. RES. RES. RES. RES. RES. RES. I _ I q I o I . STORAGE I I III I o LO ASSU E 18" THICK 7 SHOR NG WALL TYP. SET E ACK --'---_, -\- 15 -6 27 -6 19-(P"ROP RTY L� 27 -6 27 -6 19 -0 27 -6 27 -6 '' 27 -6 19 -�_151-611 I t 1 ) n2 t :3) (4) (5) (6) 7 8 9 10 611) 12 - 13 --- �' B2 LEVEL PARKING PLAN 1 /16" = 1'-0" 32'-0" •� o Architects • Engineers • Parking Planners N U Z E � WATRY DESIGN, INC. San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas watrydesign.com ui REVISIONS CONCEPT DESIGN JOB NO 18143 DATE 08-14-20 DESIGN LoCoco DRAWN ALIOTO CHK. BY: LoCoco FILE 18143A21 SHEET A201 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" U I� W n N A K J F E C C 1 (0 ti N ti N co r` N 0 0 M N M 0 0 M 0 15'-6" I 27'-6" CCU 19'-0" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" LIFORN� 1 ELEV. 3.1 1 1 11 19'-0" 27'-6" 27'-611 0.27'- " 19'-0" +127'- 10 i a a a a as a LLA FV ftVc r I "GIEW��oV31 310V31 TI� wal A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 a a A3 ta A3 A3o� ����� �o� ���� �i� ����� ASSUME 18" THICK----" SHOR NG WALL TYP.--------___ SET EACK 15'-6" 27'-6" 19'-(PROP RTY LRE" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'-611 \ 27'-6" EL 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 L 9 10 N B1 LEVEL PARKING PLAN 1 /16" = 1'-0" RAMP DN 0 B2 LEV 27'-6" ELEV. +101-0 ELEV. +101-0 15'-6" I II I I I LE I II I I I I I I — � I 19 15 _ - -- ----- 11(13 -M� 16'-0" 0 32'-0" SCALE: 1 /16" = 1'-0" •� 1 Architects • Engineers • Parking Planners WATRY DESIGN, INC. San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas watrydesign.com REVISIONS CONCEPT DESIGN JOB NO 18143 DATE 08-14-20 DESIGN LoCoco DRAWN ALIOTO CHK. BY: LoCoco FILE 18143A22 SHEET A202 N Architects ^ Engineers • Parking Planners z U a� Cu Ibi Cu wo �cbuj Qo M L J C 15'-6" 27'-6" 01 19'-0" 27'-6" 01 27'-6" 27'-6" " 19'-06' 7'-6" " 27'- " W-0 0 ; EE LANDSCAPE co DRAWINGS N N ti N Cfl i ti N 10'-0" co N 24'-0" SEE ARKIf PLAN 1 INN (0 I I I I I �N�. I �t� I � � DOG ARIA 0 0 M N I 0 �. 0 0 co 15'-0$) 0 N170 0 0 M 0 LO �0'-0" 0 I N o� o _rr------�—— +23.0' 1111LI NEI i i1 NMI NMI IF�!■,MImr� C +23.0' mm. COMMERCIAL 4240 SF MAII ROOM 466 SF 0 +23.0' RESIDENTIAL LOBBY 4660 SF 7?CKG ROOM 307 SF OFFICE CORE 667 SF OFFICE LOBBY 2966 SF +23.0' 5 -6 27 -6 19 -0 27 -6 7 -6 7 -6 - n n �� (4) (5) n 168 W( 153 Sr WC 153 SI +23.0' All. IDIME pis BIKE/DOG WASH 917 SF ELEC p 343 SF COMMERCIAL 3348 SF 1BR 1034 S 1BR 815 SF 1BR 853 SF MECF 661 S 24"— 10'-0" 1 1 1 WATRY DESIGN, INC* San Jose, California � Irvine, California z 0- J W W z O CCt V Dallas, Texas watrydesign.com REVISIONS CONCEPT DESIGN JOB NO 18143 DATE 08-14-20 I o N DESIGN LoCoco -IT j N DRAWN ALIOTO I � I i GROUND LEVEL PLAN CHK. BY: LoCoco I 1/16" = 1'-0" FILE 18143A23E 16'-0" 0 32'-0" 64'-0" SHEET I SCALE- 1/16" = 1'-0" A203 Architects • Engineers • Parking Planners Cu )m �Cu w o `W LL V %I vl 11 mV I - 1"] h 11'-0" GRADE (a CALIFORNIA DR.) 10'-0" B1 LEVEL / 0'-0" B2 LEVEL FACE OF BUILDING (BEYOND) 20'-0" �I �omin� Qo�i FLAT DRIVE BUILDING SECTION 1 /16" = V-0" BUILDING SPACE ABOVE (BEYOND) RETAINING WALL (BEYOND) California Drive 16'-0" 0 32'-0" M1 WATRY DESIGN, INC. z O U Lu U) V z_ 0 J m San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas watrydesign.com Lu 0� 0::) Z F-- 0 U� J U) LU (D z ry �Y Q d REVISIONS CONCEPT DESIGN z O LL J Q U CLu G rQ V z_ J m JOB NO : 18143 DATE 08-14-20 DESIGN : LoCoco DRAWN : ALIOTO CHK. BY: LoCoco FILE 18143A31 SHEET SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" A301 TROUSDALE 0 cu 0 PAF R LE` LE` LE` LE` LE` LE` LE` LEV LEV SECTION AA TROUSDALE '- ) r-1 A rl 1 /'1 n n 1 Tr—K 1 A I A !` r-1 A rl 1 /l n n 1 Tr —A I n 1 A 16'-0" 0 MAX �+100'-0" (+22.53' AVG. CURB HEIGHT) I PARAPET +90'-0" --—————— — — — — —— ----- ROOF +85'-8" - — — LEVEL 7 +75-10" UNIT COR. UNIT LEVEL 6 +66'-0" ELEV. ELEV. LOUNGE COR. UNIT -- — — — — OFFICE ELEV. ELEV. OFFICE LEVEL 5 77 +52'-6" -- — OFFICE ELEV. ELEV. OFFICE o0 01 LEVEL 4 +40'-0" 1 0 00 OFFICE ELEV. ELEV. OFFICE LEVEL 3 �z +27-6" OFFICE ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. OFFICE LEVEL 2 '+15'-0" — RESIDENTIAL ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. OFFICE LEVEL 1 _ ±O" 1-1-0011 LOBBY LOBBY LEVEL 1 — ±0" (+23') SECTION 32'-0" SCALE: 1 /16" = l'—O" 0 0 I 0 EL (+22.53' AVG.) — 1 3'-011 -23'-011 CAMINO 16'-0" 0 32'-0" E 1766 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA CERTOSA INC I 0 0 SMITHIGROUP 0 1 I 0 o0 co 0 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR 00 00 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com 23') ISSUED FOR REV DATE (+22.53' AVG.) 11 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE N J) TRUE PLAN SECTIONS PROJECT NUMBER A3.2 SHEET NUMBER SCALE: 1 /16" = l'—O" PERMIT NUMBER MAX + 100'-0" (+22.53 �.O +96'-0" PARAPET +90'-0" — — ROOF +85-8" LEVEL 7 +75-10" LEVEL 6 +66-0" _V LEVEL 5 +52'-6" LEVEL 4 +40'-0" LEVEL 3 +27-6" LEVEL 2 - +15-0" LEVEL 1 7 ±0" (+23') MAX + 100'-0" (+22.5�': T.O.-P +96-0„ PARAPET +90'-0' ROOF +85-8" LEVEL 7 +75'-10" LEVEL 6 +66-0" LEVEL 5 +52'-6" LEVEL 4 +40'-0" LEVEL 3 _V +27-6' LEVEL 2 +15-0" LEVEL 1 ±0" (+23') ---_�z-------- SOUTH WEST ELEVATION- EL CAMINO C��T+�+ _ : _ �IIi • •Zip GROUND FLOOR 75% TARGET CURRENT SURFACE AREA (75.5 /o) 3,466 SQ FT 2,600 SQ FT 2,619 SQ FT 16'-0" 0 0� 0 I a� 0 co a� I 0 I 00 N Ln 00 0 I N 0 I N O LI o +0„ (+23') 32'-0" SCALE: 1 /16" = 1'-0" 29'-6" 29'-6" 'AVG. CURB HEIGHT) UU I� Lei L�] tL EL a T7 I' _L rL M FTH LL -- - t7j I_ CamI LJL_ i nJLI'-- I I 17-11 7__1 tit7li 1-. 1- =1 77 - I U C U UI _ L__j I ILIE�_ 1�T11-L11- IEJ UIL ]Eli 7 - I I I ILI 1:1H 1[ ED I 1=1 LIE ]�F_111E 11 Ji L_ L-A I= i - 3 i 6 , � 5 I 16'-0" N O O I a� 0 rn 0 I 0 N 00 I N O I N 0 L J +0„ (+23') 32'-0" EXTERIOR MATERIALS 1766 EL CAM I N O REAL LOCATION MATERIAL FINISHES VISION BLUE/GRAY TINT GLASS g U RL I N GAME, CA 2 SPANDREL GLASS BLUE/GRAY OPAQUE 3 GLASS CLEAR HANDRAIL C E RTOSA I N C 4 PRECAST VARY PANEL 5 CLADDING STONE TILE 6 STORE CLEAR FRONT 7 SPANDREL GRAY FRIT GLASS #2 SMITHGROUP 0 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR O 0 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com (+22.53' AVG.) I-V - — 0 I O O (+22.53' AVG.) 17 - — • ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE N TRUE PLAN ELEVATIONS cu 0 0 a NORTH EAST ELEVATION- CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1 /16" = 1'-0" PROJECT NUMBER A4.0 PERMIT NUMBER SHEET NUMBER MAX + 100'-0" ( �a.F-v +96'-011- PARAPET +90'-0" ROOF +85'-8" LEVEL 7 +75'-10" LEVEL 6 +66'-0" LEVEL 5 7 +52'-6" LEVEL 4 -V +40'-0" LEVEL 3 +27-6" LEVEL 2 +15'-0" LEVEL 1 ±0" (+23') NORTH WEST ELEVATION- TROUSDALE MAX + 100'-0" ( �O-.F-- +96'-0„ PARAPET +90'-0" ROOF +85'-8" LEVEL 7 +75-10" LEVEL 6 +66'-0" LEVEL 5 �71 +52'-6" LEVEL 4 V/ +40'-0" LEVEL 3 17 +27-6" LEVEL 2 �71 +15'-0" LEVEL 1 v ±0" (+23') SOUTH EAST ELEVATION I 0` •. (+23') 16'-0" 0 32'-0" SCALE: 1 /16" = l'-O" GLASS AREA GROUND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR 75% TARGET CURRENT SURFACE AREA (80 /o) 1,500 SQ FT 1 1,125 SQ FT 1 1,204 SQ FT 16'-0" 0 32'-0" M• SCALE: 1 /16" = l'-O" 0 0 0 (+22.53' AVG.) -7 — 0 0 I 0 +22.53' AVG.) —— EXTERIOR MATERIALS 1766 EL CAM I N O REAL LOCATION MATERIAL FINISHES VISION BLUE/GRAY TINT GLASS g U RL I N GAME, CA 2 SPANDREL GLASS BLUE/GRAY OPAQUE 3 GLASS CLEAR HANDRAIL C E RTOSA I N C 4 PRECAST VARY PANEL 5 CLADDING STONE TILE 6 STORE CLEAR FRONT 7 SPANDREL GRAY FRIT GLASS #2 SMITHGROUP 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415.227.0100 smithgroup.com ISSUED FOR REV DATE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/14/20 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 10/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 8/1/19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 6/4/19 SEALS AND SIGNATURES SHEET TITLE N TRUE PLAN ELEVATIONS PROJECT NUMBER cu 0 0 a PERMIT NUMBER A4.1 SHEET NUMBER U CU ICU wo ■ ■ III■■■_���■�■_ _ �■ ° I ° 1 2 3 4 6 7 3 9 10 11 Y12 13 14 15'-6" 27'-627'-6" 27'-627'-619'-0" 27'-627'-627'-619-027'-6" —6" �01 6 1 0 —�— —I —�—�— — +— EE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS I I I I 13 0o I I I I 6.584 I I I I I I Copy of Copy of Burlingame Fire �Truck Overall Leh i�dfh gth 42.000ft lop-o�� Overall W1 1 � g.470ft � � � � Min Body r� oun Clearance 0.671ft Track Wid h 6.910ft Lock -to -lock time I i i 4.00s Max Steering Anglel (Virtual) 45.000 1 --------------- 1■■ »■■ NONE■1_ imoddlof■ �•��r 111111111111111111111111 1■■■■Nf■■ �. - . 11111111111111111111111111 '��f��� 1 11111i1i1i1i1i1i1i11111i1i1i1i 1■N\�11�■■ `I- � 111;1;1;1�;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1 --- — •�■■ 1i1!11,1�11111111111111111111,1.�1111,I.i ■■INEI ■ ------------ NEI ■■I - Illliii�l + CORRIDOR 3600 SF COMMERCIAL � 4240 SF +23.0' �—�—�J— ° BIKE/DOG WASH � I 917 SF I ■■■RINiGINliil_11■l,•�111111111,111111�Ii • -!:! no 11111111// �1111111111 1111►`III11 1IN 11111 I — I 24'-0" SEE � ARKI � PLAN 1 r � DOG AREA � 1BR � 1034 SF � 1BR 815 SF 1BR 853 SF I 307 SF �I OFFICE I ORE I 667 SF I� 15�L� CH 343 SF � 6E SF MAIL ROOM 466 SF OFFICE LOBBY 12966 SF I +23.0' ° D I I % I 24� � I I r i L _ 0 N SCALE- 1/16" = V-0" Architects ^ Engineers • Parking Planners WATRY DESIGN, INC* San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas watrydesign.com I— U) Z CL I— U LY I- LU LY LL Z Q J Lu > LU J Z O LY C� REVISIONS CONCEPT DESIGN JOB NO 18143 DATE 08-14-20 DESIGN LoCoco DRAWN ALIOTO CHK. BY : LoCoco FILE 18143FT01 SHEET FT1 1 ■ -p- .Icbuj o a� CU 0 ICU wo 1 Y 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15'-27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'- 6" 00, 01 ' s 3.1 ORN �J o -�-�- -I -�-�- - +- EE LANDSCAPE - DR WINGS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1E1 0 110 �mmm 1� El I IF1I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Copy of Ci py of Burlingame Fire Truck Overall Le nth 42.000ft INN - I 24'-0" 17 - Overall vviptn i i ts.4iurt i i i i lop-o° Overall B dy Hei hi 10.241ft - - Pv9irr-�ady- � - Track Wid h 6.910ft Lock-to-lo k time i i i 4.00si i i i � SEE i Max Steer ng Angle (Virtual) 45.000 I DARKIN PLAN I U, DOG AREA - m U) BIKE/DOG � VISITOR � 91 ASF SH I 1 1034 SF � z I , ^0 +19.0, 4L- I CnX. i j; � 1BR 815 SF R in T AlBIKE FCC I I +23.0' � � 40 S I PARKING 4ISF � I 1BR 853SF FIT ESS CEN ER +23.0 LEA ING � 3532 SF I I I RESIDENTIAL � � � OF ICE LOBBY 131 SF up, p-41 4660 SF Y 1 BR � I 853 SF WC I I PCKG 153SF GAS ROOM WC 15-0" � � jv1ETER I + CORRIDOR I 307 SF I OFFICE I 1 3 SF I I ELEC � MECH � � 202 SF TRASH 3600 SF CORE 68 SF O MAIL I 667 SF I I� —1 ff 343 SF 661 SF " I ROOM + _ � _ 466 SF r i 10'-0" rJ OFFICE LOBBY ° I I I COMMERCIAL I I 2966 SF I I I � COMMERCIAL 4240 SF I I I � 3348 SF i +23.0' � — +23.0' +23.0' e i i i e o � I I I I I I I I I P- ° o 0 0 , ° 24 - „ I I I I I I I I I I I I I i L _ SCALE: 1/16" = V-0" Architects • Engineers • Parking Planners iiiiiiiiiiii� ME WATRY DESIGN, INC. San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas watrydesign.com 0 I— U) Z CL U LY I— LU LL I Z Q J 0- J LU w J 0 Z O LL LU 0� Q 0::) Z 0� —U o LL Q � J Q U 0 JU) LU W� (D Z z a m REVISIONS CONCEPT DESIGN JOB NO : 18143 DATE 08-14-20 DESIGN LoCoco DRAWN ALIOTO CHK. BY : LoCoco FILE 18143FT02 SHEET FT1 ■ 2 a� CU 0 ICU wo 1 Y 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15'-27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'- 6" 00, ' s 3.1 0 VD\ �J o -�-�- -I -�-�- - + - -�- - - ---� - ... 7r EE ' LAN SCAPE - DR WINGS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 00 El I I I I I I I Q 2 1. 9_ I I I I I I I I I I Copy of Copy of Burlingame Fire Truck Overall Le nth 42.000ft INN - I 24'-0" 17 - Overall vviptn i i ts.4iurt i i i i lop-o° Overall B dy Hei hi 10.241ft - - Pv9irr-Bady- � - Track Wid h 6.910ft Lock-to-lo k time i i i 4.00si i i i � SEE i Max Steer ng Angle (Virtual) 45.000 I ARK I N 6"' PLAN I DOG AREA I Cn BIKE/DOG z CIOVISITOR � WASH I � 1034 SF I PARKINU X. 16R -Fg2,•Q'Lj �\ 815 SF BIKE FCC t� I I +23.0' � � 40 S f l:jI PARKING � I 1BR 8.53SF FIT ESS CEN ER +23.0 LEA ING � 3532 SF I I I RESIDENTIAL � � � OF ICE LOBBY 131 SF 4660 SF Y 16R � I 853 SF WC � I GAS PCKG 153SF S. CURE ROOM 15-0" � � jv1ETER I + CORRIDOR I 307 SF I OFFICE I WC 1 3 SF I I ELEC 1 MECH I � 202 SF T ASH 3600 SF CORE 683 SF O MAIL I 667 SF I T —1 0 343 SF 661 SF " I ROOM 466 SF IL r i 10'-0" rJ OFFICE COMMERCIALLOBBY I I 166 SF I I I � 4240 SF 2 COMMERCIAL I I I � i +23.0' � — +23.0' +23.03348 SF' e i i i e o � I I I I I I I I I o 0 0 , ° 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I i L _ ire SCALE: 1/16" = V-0" Architects ^ Engineers • Parking Planners iiiiiiiiiiii� ME WATRY DESIGN, INC. San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas watrydesign.com I— U) z CL U LY I— LU LY LL i z Q J 0- J LU LU J z O LY REVISIONS CONCEPT DESIGN JOB NO : 18143 DATE 08-14-20 DESIGN LoCoco DRAWN ALIOTO CHK. BY : LoCoco FILE 18143FT03 SHEET FT1 3 ■ U a� CU ICU wo �CbUj Q 1 Y 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15'-27'-6" 27'-6" 27' 6 -6" 27'-6" 19'-O" 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-6" 19'-0" 27'- 6" ' s 3.1 �J o + — —�— — — -i — Q0 I II I I 19 N I I N I I I I I I I I I cfl O oo 21, K — — — — c9 Copy of Ci py of Burlingame Fire ruck � Overall Leigth � � 42.000ft Overall Wi�dfh i i 8.470ft i i i i lo'-o° Overall B dy Hei h 10.241ft J - �Pv9iarr-�ad ck id h � - - 6.910ft Lock-to-lo k time 4.00s Max Steer ng Angles (Virtual) 45.000 N EE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS I I F. 1�1�1�1�1 � C I ■ii■■■■■•■■■■ii�i■■iii■■■NI■ 1■1■1■1■I.Il�ill�il■1■1■1■�■�■�11■�11■1■1■1■I.�i�i�i�i�l �� I1111111111111111111111111111 ■■f■I■■■■■■■■■■0'�iL11■1■■■■■■■■■NI■■ � �1;1;1;1;�;';';';';';';';1;1;1;!�!�!�!�!�!�!�!�!�!�!�!�!�!�! .�■ 11'II'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1 � �� ■■�_I■_■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■■■■■■�\■Ilf■■■ ® 1'1'1'II'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1;1 :ice i`: MENEM • I■■ ■■I •',■■ �11!111111111111111111111111!illllll!,1. ■■■ ■■I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.� 1 1 +■M ■■■ ■■I■\■■l�■1;7■Ili�i�iil_11■l•�i'i'i'i'i;i!i!�!�!''� • - ii loom■■I • ENE ► E. ■■■NEI If'�'�'�'�'1 �' NEI • ■■I - • ■■I ■••� ■■I • ■■I� � 1111111111�� ' � ,�1111111111 1111111111 Illllllllt ■■I INN — I 24'-0" SEE �PARKIN� PLAN 1 � DOG AREA � 1BR � 1034 SF � 1BR 815 SF 1BR �3SF 1BR 853 SF I I I 153 SF I I ELEC I MECH I 202 SF TRASH 3600 SF CORE N INU 683 SF O I 667 SF I II — O 343 SF 661 SF I ° I I — 10'-0" ri O 1 N I ° I I IC O +23.0' — — I I I -17 ° 1 I o ROOM 466 SF OMMERCIAL 4240 SF OFFICE LOBBY I 12966 SF I +23.0' ' I I I COMMERCIAL 3348 SF +23.0' I' 7 0 0 I 24'- i L _ 1 1� �I iiil • � SCALE- 1/16" = V-0° 0 Architects - Engineers • Parking Planners iiiiiiiiiiii� ME WATRY DESIGN, INC. San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas watrydesign.com I— W Z U I— W LL I Z Q J J W W J Z LU � Q O� —U o Q � J Q U� � J� Lij CD � Z z a m REVISIONS CONCEPT DESIGN JOB NO 18143 DATE 08-14-20 DESIGN LoCoco DRAWN ALIOTO CHK. BY: LoCoco FILE 18143FT04 SHEET FT1 ■ 4 w A 2 wim to • r i ■ c� gOUNpp,R`� PRp�E r°low" LEGEND 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ PROJECT BOUNDARY OPPORTUNITIES VIEWS TO THE BAY R ■ ■ ■ ■ ALIGN SIDEWALK WITH STREET i AND WIDEN WIDTH w SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS SIDEWALKITH STREET ' I NLIGN AWIDEN WIDTH, NEW TREES, ENHANCED PAVING, k NEW BULB -OUT) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS'' • (SHORTEN CROSSINGS AND IMPROVE VISIBILITY WITH BULB -OUTS, ENHANCED PAVING, PEDESTRIAN REFUGE) CONSTRAINTS INSUFFUCIENT SPACE ON EL CAMINO REAL SLIP LANE AND TROUSDALE TO PROVIDE BIKE LAN E EXISTING PRIVATE PROTECTED TREES (48" 0 AT 54" ABOVE GROUND) EXISTING SLOPE IS STEEP p(i T IMPACTING ADA CIRCULATION BEHIND RIGHT-OF-WAY CALTRANS ROW REQUIRES COORDINATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE w MEDIAN AND INTERSECTION EL CgMINO REgL go am _" —1 rliaa LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 323 Geary St., Suite #602, San Francisco, CA 94102 T 415 861 7900 F 415 861 7908 www.rhaa.com PROJECT/CLIENT NAME 1766 EL CAMINO REAL Client Address Client Address PROJECT NUMBER 00000 CONSULTANT SUBMITTAL Conceptual Design DATE August 11, 2020 REVISIONS No. Date Description REGISTRATION AND SIGNATURE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE 0 8 16 32 SHEET TITLE OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS DRAWN BY: JM CHECKED BY: NL Li 00 0 1 :i � 111'- r-1 LOW SHRUBS, PERENNIALS AND GROUNDCOVER TO NOT BLOCK SIGHTLINES OR OBSTRUCT VISIBILITY PAVING TYPE 4 (FURNISHING ZONE) CA�IFORNIA DRIVE mill ■■■ ■■■ �111 I■■■ 11 1 1 1 1 . 1 II■I �;ii=-c�i=i �■I a 111.. GAS METER STREET TREES 202 SF EO CURBSIDE PARKING RAISED PLANTERS EO BULBOUT PLANTER, TYP. CS FRONT AND STREET SIDE SETBACKS 1341 SF = TROUSDALE DR (TREE WELLS, BULB -OUT PLANTER AND RETAINING WALL AND RAISED PLANTERS) 1870 SF = EL CAMINO REAL (TREE WELLS,BULB-OUT PLANTER AND PLAZA PLANTERS) OR 2163 SF (W/ SEATING) NOTES: 1. ALL STREET LIGHTS ARE TO BE ....�, _, _ , ," , ., ,v,�L_ , W.� , .. , , 2. EL CAMINO REAL PROVIDES 345SF OF LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE 0' TO 10' MINIMUM SETBACK. TROUSDALE DRIVE PROVIDES 897 SF OF LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE 0' TO 10' MINIMUM SETBACK. SHADE PLANTING FCC 40 S FITNESS CENTER 3532 SF TRASH 68P SF + CORRIDOR 3600 SF 1 COMMERCIAL loom! 1■■■I 1■■■loom I ■■■■■■■. 1■■■■■■■■� ■�r��■�:�■■���..�■■■■■ 1■■■■■■P■o-�■1i■ 1■■■■■■E■■■■\INE 21M■■ 1111110MMEMOMMEN Emilio 1■■p�MM\IM�QI■■1A■ill o �■ - I!� . _ \1■ r�■I�I��L■■I1i11' I� o ■I■ win 1 , � PAVING TYPE 3 1 FLUSH CURB W/ COBB PAWING RESIDENTIAL LOBBY 4660 SF PCKG ROOM 307 SF MAIL ROOM 466 SF PAVING TYPE 1 (CONNECTIONS) PLAZA LIGHT DOG PLAY / ARTIFICIAL TURF ENTRY PLANTING (1500SF) OFFICE CORE 667 SF OFFICE LOBBY 2966 SF INN ■ ■.,111111�111�111111111111111111111111,� � 0��►1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1� 111111111.1■1111111'1 MINI! MEN ■■1 j� j� j� j� jlv� j� j� j� jl`��I 1,111M j1j M1� �■,�\ j� WC 153 S I` WC 153 SF PAVING TYPE (ENTRY) 7 II LEASING OFFICE 1314 SF SEATWALLS & PLANTERS 0 BIKE/DOG WASH 917 SF JELEC 0-1 343 SF COMMERCIAL 3348 SF PAVING TYPE 2 (SEATING AREAS) r-- 2 BIKE RACKS (2 x RACK) 0 1BR 1034 SF 1BR 815 SF 1BR 853 SF 1BR 853 SF MECH 661 SF rliaa LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 323 Geary St., Suite #602, San Francisco, CA 94102 T 415 861 7900 F 415 861 7908 www.rhaa.com PROJECT/CLIENT NAME 1766 EL CAMINO REAL Client Address Client Address PROJECT NUMBER 00000 CONSULTANT SUBMITTAL Conceptual Design DATE August 11, 2020 REVISIONS No. Date Description REGISTRATION AND SIGNATURE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE 0 8 16 32 SHEET TITLE CONCEPT PLAN - GROUND LEVEL DRAWN BY: JM CHECKED BY: NL L200 -� ..Elk 1. -, m7k •i .r}�4�iji •?n •: liz, _ i _ �• ;'3i:; ' `'='y but •�� • M '�+„�•l,�w .. • �._ ��� - r1 _ _�-_ `i't 1�k,•�`;M1•r:�.�i�,�',s�`�;Y: is iy 1r�jlf•�Cr.r% - - - s"+` „'yam - �i ��, � 1J �� �i ' � �: a• _ ` iI�'jrj'` �, � • - � J � 1 � r 1 _ y,� f r ��a .�y - f� �� y�r' �' fl ��TAy �I .� 4 i LL M �I c4 rf .3�►11' -�J40 dim i 0 ram• ik7,. ��' .�- II`;►+ r wy IL �" ~ ~I rliaa LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 323 Geary St., Suite #602, San Francisco, CA 94102 T 415 861 7900 F 415 861 7908 www.rhaa.com PROJECT/CLIENT NAME 1766 EL CAMINO REAL Client Address Client Address PROJECT NUMBER 00000 CONSULTANT SUBMITTAL Conceptual Design DATE August 11, 2020 REVISIONS No. Date Description REGISTRATION AND SIGNATURE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET TITLE RENDERING 1 DRAWN BY: JM CHECKED BY: NL L2.1 a AU WL -K 'Ivv Yi = 'EiTO Z, dr Nz�-1 4-111� 1;P Jc- r JN l ftt at� � k — -N Nk '44 4W VIK�J - '�j�lj? l, . wo Ilk A 0-� 2A. 4w 0 Ilk Oirk —40 MON jL . of it 416 jr , 7 Uri J 0 a a N Q N 00 N 1 W a m rliaa LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 323 Geary St., Suite #602, San Francisco, CA 94102 T 415 861 7900 F 415 861 7908 www.rhaa.com PROJECT/CLIENT NAME 1766 EL CAMINO REAL Client Address Client Address PROJECT NUMBER 00000 CONSULTANT SUBMITTAL Conceptual Design DATE August 11, 2020 REVISIONS No. Date Description REGISTRATION AND SIGNATURE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE 0 5 10 20 SHEET TITLE SECTIONS - EL CAM I N O REAL DRAWN BY: JM CHECKED BY: NL L203 rliaa LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 323 Geary St., Suite #602, San Francisco, CA 94102 T 415 861 7900 F 415 861 7908 www.rhaa.com PROJECT/CLIENT NAME 1766 EL CAMINO REAL Client Address Client Address PROJECT NUMBER 00000 CONSULTANT SUBMITTAL Conceptual Design DATE August 11, 2020 REVISIONS No. Date Description REGISTRATION AND SIGNATURE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE 0 5 10 20 SHEET TITLE SECTIONS - TROUSDALE DR DRAWN BY: JM CHECKED BY: NL L2.4 4 r • Of // I I I I I ENCLOSED COMMUNITY 0 ROOM WITH KITCHEN w J co O T � ING DOORS � L OPEC TO DECK T M M 0 N O N N ti ii 4.0 a m C V + SEATING AND - COFFEE TABLE POTTEDTABLES� PAVING TILES, PLANTERS \ \ &CHAIRS 1 TYPE 1 F- EkL LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLL LLL LL L LL LLLLLLLL LL L LL L LLLLLLLLL —JJ LLL LLL LL LLL L LLLLLLLLLLLL Li —�—JJ LLLL LLLL LLL LLLL LLLLLLLLLL LLLL —J—_j III LLB —J—_j LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL J—_j J LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL J J LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL —i LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL ��—J LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL J LLLLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLLLLLL JJ'�—�—�JJJ —J LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL '�—�_jJJ —J—j LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL J LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL J LLLLLLLL L LL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL J J LLLLLLLL LLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL LLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLL LLLL L LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLL LL L L LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 7--f LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLL LL LLLL LL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLL L L LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LL LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LL LL LLLLL LLL LLLLLLLLLLL LLL......... LLL LLLLL LLL LLLLLLLLLLL LL LLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLL LLL LLLLLLLLL LLL LL LLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLL L LLLLLLLLL LL LL SEAT BENCH PLANTING, TYP- SPECIMEN TREE HAISE LOUNGE L: L I L I LL LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL FIRE PIT AND SEATING BAR-B-QUE AND COUNTER SPACE I- STOOLS AVING TILES, TYPE 2 TABLE AND CHAIRS ECKING ARBOR STRUCTURE f- + EL CAMINO REAL I + + rliaa LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 323 Geary St., Suite #602, San Francisco, CA 94102 T 415 861 7900 F 415 861 7908 www.rhaa.com PROJECT/CLIENT NAME 1766 EL CAMINO REAL Client Address Client Address PROJECT NUMBER CONSULTANT SUBMITTAL Conceptual Design DATE August 11, 2020 REVISIONS No. Date Description REGISTRATION AND SIGNATURE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE 0 8 16 32 SHEET TITLE CONCEPT PLAN - DECK DRAWN BY: JM CHECKED BY: NL L300 W 4 r Mill 01a:,�IaI 9, D fr f Ull �- J' • # - fLim 1p � - .-Yz- - - � _ i •= I —fir + . # � x ���� ` LL 01owvI►Vil=11►\m0w D �" t � �� '1''1 i �` n"•: n'-' ,.Sk - lam~ �' +.-� _ _ :_ ,l-'32 is �,E. '. 1� � �'• .. — - '1 �: m W I ti f f 1:; I - -- I� OL i•. _ „}r jam' � � Y+ IisrL _:' _�' - - ��c . "�,�, R•i�. fry.• .'t � ;,ra '�5•,• "n: .. •- �. �a r* z-� ' Cam° i`'I�ii �" �+ v, � �X`C�`,�< 'K''. s�• •- - _ :'7" �• j ' ,ram' .. e r • 10:961 i 916161 I.41 0 1� �r ��- _ � i � - L til •� J ti�J l ~ 0 00� s• W f• � rr r r � 3M rJF . •I I ti r -49 7 � Y- 4 F ~ + y PL ' P �r T I _ . w 4 r 1 * N. r r a* r L � � � � a � _ �•�•F� ,III • y � -k� • i • � .� _;.� ,,may" � �^I- _ � : ..f . 1� y �� I �� _ - ,, • r 1 •+ r•4 '.r .+ y r r= n �'Zc.F Y'�y� '� r i {9 + .� ti, r,. xif Sr`''� * }'Yr * y=',pL ,,'yy4���lya 7*� 'r►c 1•r••,.},k'�'yS y -"'k' • .. + Y4j�} x. 6.J• .,"�r yytt.��. _a , 'C . _,r , z' :iS�` r �:�i'#',�•'.- _ 1 _ s kl , r } } • `'',rt ' 4 1 - •�. '• • ` ��� s "ee Y -� �' ,�: Y,y , �,� '}#9 -Y � • } �,� �_ ' � ?a -ti-A _ 5 ' �' I � r 1 7,• k •�• "�i r r1,,j? .ail , ,4"�:.3r 44?`l`.r.:' ' .L< � E h ?� - K '•''f- Y• IN �'* �'! s� i ?�A:'r+k G . ,� f � y,� } V �� - �'�+ :�;r V,+p . ! '.• hr' �' _ ' ' 3' — _ , 3 } '�r �F,`,„[ ..y F •:r' .R' r •;rf'jLii .x. t ,• *. .• +� '' ir. 1 � �, ry• •%�k� i;ci IIrr ' •154 'I' ' .� r' _ log 40 _ '-+�. 'E ;� is � - ., ',,k• .,/: 'r .�- .. n_',1- `il�...� I, I� - ti �, � � .y � �`.I. it _a_'f IN -.:�- � .5.: `'�: .. r.�-'rl!#., .�� "� �� r'r •�'�Li �.. �r� ,�'k :a4• � L-~ '.ti !�4{��k � �' +� 7_. 1 ' 'Y + t ~�.1 � = r �y.�n� " - ti -'-'` r' 'iE. ^ � � � i . w•. �r • ' ; r ..� n.I9 �.'•.,�,.',' _F..'1 rr" Mt' ' � # � ,-y � . •.} -.�'�'''',� �, - '1 •.,�s �, , , .�'i ,Srx y .�•,., ei• Y ;Jr,.�• yr: r �� •, • ��4 j r h •{, :`'t.► (�{r r ,}�- - ir, r {�I ny`r:- `�. 1 - • �. h Y - 1 i 1e:.'' •, a.'•r r'9R•. •� y, ".[� }r i 1, ,r .. ',3 . .A M•'� •r i',�„ AT �" ? a y r ' �+ ��T" -. .. • �-.' �v .' �,, �•irrn •_-yq,. ; °�!' •^ • /• }' .r{4 ~ VI„S,:a _ ' nl .P ': y r, .:7' ' Q¢(�', 'r!° 7� , - ' y, - , r • 1 y �'f• FP .. .S !4,- v_'I .1: "�' ';.•j'�•,�,' d _,�... r.�':w r '_f ' ,: '� ."J 'tr�-?. - •� _ - , I ' �.r' . , .r . - - _ };rriro- •,¢M1.. ,• _!Y •I- � } '- .4YS :. � - i. _ �+�`f � ri'_ �� '.T�",��r.' - a� - - :',F- ,y.. �a:_ ♦ e.ti .1 h � �. , � d. �. [y�} , t s k' , I +.a F 11�.x�=6?� � - - ' 1 - ' - '�" ��,//piFrP x `�'rP.'iC z,A �',� L. '�" x' kr `•,�{f1 • � 7e'.• J .''. ; ys;4. �y�Y�,1� . -�d.c. ;+Fi.. J� - - - � . _ Noma r ' - u zk t. may- �s ��[��- r-I e•a�i•f �I,� ,I1 p�lil �'Gli i7 i *yrip�-. - - - - -"rh ' { -.'`� i- �`il.. �- ,. ._ d - '� � Y^+,i ; . k • 1y , r �. ... •' k. 4 ,{ .Y ;.. .'�1r e.•1� - �� - - _ � � � 5 �. { } - 5 +a _ ��7 'R� r - . .� ; '�' '"�` , ,��,7 ` 1 ti �.NNN - # .�3' _ - ' _ -� t` � f` - t i Yr� r:-•t1 .k ,',:+'t r ,.+'y -: .:. ."L .: -i, •'�x ��.- - 4 v.l NN a r M1�_ I, t e::-=,..,Iti r ,�•.._ tY,+ i.i._ti i--•:��•' i �1: `L �. •-r � I ■ •, � i L' ' ..�"...� is • . • . � :�:�.,,. � �•,r; _+} . Al �' � F i �k* * _ I � r r ', , �, � - tip' �ii +"'•'C+' .'�. �. .._ .. ' r - 'L 'r' _ .� � }, � 4;_.+. L ' iA ` .� . '.i� 1� 5 r.� • ;a J i . �.•�� .y �-� fir; .'i. _ t �•• # I y I. r ray} I j4 [ 4.' . F - - t C►y iS1� 4: iit. s S , *-i •�� �,1+�4 -�ar `� � � 1. � 5 - '� 4 � � r'j 'i �i..,. L 7-.• Ll"i 7 1;�.=�,; r- s a . S i ; R ' I' I' 1 ''i' 3 • ti :,3F, - h, t xT - \ � � r , '�.' �' 'mac Y 1 .,4 1 � '� 'RP-'i:'!`.Y 'f•.: G ,tT iti ';►' _ 4 ��, f ' . � i wr� � � i � .L' i' ry i r 'Y �5 # % � f r +' -'�': -- �.•*� � ..51 �. .\' � C � _,,, -:{ . �y., 'ti 1 ry w` �, - r` 'l 1 ' 1 7 r. i� i. �T��_ti'*1a •'{ _'tiwih ~ :.. -' 4 ,Y - - >. - .ti F _ � a�'• r'� k� � 5 I r h 5 'r Y _ _L' � 's ' ;. �,' � •� .+7y��+ . • r i4 - _ t +' h : = y' 7 'I, 1i + f �•t� ~ 1 ` `L 'ZL~xi ` .�'�ti 4� i` •r ..+ it. 4o I 1 y5 ! .�.'y + 4'�# r f 'ie .s '� •'�-.+`�p:y.i a._ Yi'• y'. ='1, s'' # .'ri ~�` '1 -' sM'M _ _ �`- - c .• ,� iR i [ Ir ,� 5' � r. i. •+: L• i ay' .'� s_, k+•. ', ii . # �, 7 ••! y� , ' r' fff II ••t •a •'' '.•`.,�..1 'r • r�, 1p �} � `, _ _ - ,f i•# _� '• + •'f+f _ +� - �� 4� i j �� ��r I� i r� i='•3 .'�'L..S -1 '��•��'' •-"••+'1' ..f .sr•` 1F '�.,r { r ,� �.* .�*- -� _ '`1' 4 i, � j k� ' � �� y�"t' . "°,� Y� �•` ' „4 - Y� �t 4r . j - •�r �J � � � � x 11 j � �. I n'? x �S 1{ti ' _ •r '� •�17•• _ ,� �� i ti , f .. ,!` I "d.� • AL ir '�, '� � �, ' � �_} ���+ S ��5 I s � � � .,_r _ ..� .., tiS.,-•` :: '1'ti ! - .�' • � +..lei ' '-: a'' � '•� � _yrVS• '•=' �Y'•z I `, r yr .' r.s' "isr'.'f':'s''. ...` • --- x; ON 1 � � ram. r ,1• f f �.*� _ � � ti°: R � y;• r�3 ,•7' = r4_c. i _ { } - R'� •� � - t' - e � • 'i4�+l,r r . i ` ! .c•� �� .Y#-`'- ,ti' •lam � -r�' L - a r :y :: !'+"�, 'ti7,` T.• { �i'' r `_ �' w" r �, 'Sy 3 - � F• . r •OL' �- ,T' rt y1lFr f1 - , •� f'a - . - F' .•� � �. � , � y i '. �.. '�A"R� .. ��_•. 7 iy1. y - � 5 # r � _ max, •� `1 t 1 i � r .lJ Y '�! L���#..�� � '� 'JIR�P `•� `•fit. - - � ,i:'�-h� n' �'ir:T-vw' ±• 41i 47, 77, mi r' d! }�' t �Cfs.;. Hirt y:;2• t = Je i ti J�• J = - f 1� $ -'. ~ . ., + . ' t r ♦ - - PP "I.. LIP :�p 1 - * IIF N dr IIN 1 IN - - * " _ . ! Room NL �• ti 1 I• f ir . f i r! 'S % Im. %aw t NMOT 1414\ V -,RIM AW r, r 'r • n I I �e Avovwi To: Date: From: STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council October 19, 2020 AGENDA NO: 9b MEETING DATE: October 19, 2020 Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253 Scott Spansail, Asst. City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.07.110 to Modify Construction Hours and the Exception Process for Work Conducted Outside of Leaal Hours RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt amendments to Section 18.07.110 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to modify construction hours and exceptions to these hours within the city. In order to do so, the City Council should: A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff. B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance. C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance. D. Conduct a public hearing. E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND At its September 6, 2016 meeting, the City Council introduced an ordinance that proposed restricting construction hours. At the time, the City's construction hours were from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The new ordinance revised the start time to 8 a.m. on weekdays and prohibited construction on Sundays and holidays. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1930 on September 19, 2016, by a unanimous vote. During their June 1, 2020 meeting, the Council discussed the possibility of amending these hours to accommodate some particular needs of construction applicants. As a result of this discussion, staff prepared an ordinance that was introduced during the October 5, 2020 meeting. During discussion of this ordinance, the Council agreed with most changes but provided direction to staff to amend a portion of the ordinance relating to the modified hours of construction in the Bayfront Commercial (BFC), Innovative Industrial (1/1), and Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU) zones. The majority of Councilmembers agreed with allowing construction to begin one hour earlier in these zones but desired more clarity on which specific activities would be prohibited during that time. The attached ordinance is intended to reflect the changes recommended by Council at that time. 1 Construction Hours and Exceptions October 19, 2020 DISCUSSION Since 2016, applications for construction projects have continued to grow within the city. Developers regularly ask for exceptions to construction hours, often for unavoidable reasons that have to do with building and site integrity. Scenarios requiring exceptions that exist in almost every large project include: • extended hours for large concrete pours, where interruptions would lead to issues with site and/or building integrity; • complying with Caltrans timelines; • environmental time lines set by federal, state, and local authorities; and • other environmental matters that cannot be controlled or mitigated by the developer. Currently, Section 18.07.110 of the Burlingame Municipal Code only allows exceptions "in the case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety." While the common exceptions listed above may qualify under this criteria, this qualification is not readily apparent from the Code's language. Staff believes that by amending the Code and specifically recognizing these common exceptions, developers will be able to pursue projects in Burlingame without fear of delays that could conflict with time -sensitive construction operations. Such exceptions would be reviewed by the Chief Building Official or their designee, who could impose project -specific conditions that help mitigate any potential impacts on surrounding properties. Staff also believes that amending the construction hours in certain zones to allow an additional hour during weekday mornings will eliminate the need for exceptions in many instances. The Bayfront Commercial (BFC), Innovative Industrial (1/1), and Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU) are all zones where staff believes hours could be amended with only minor disruption to residents. Developers have informed staff that a majority of their construction crews commute from areas outside the Peninsula, and that the City's current construction hours require them to drive during peak traffic times. Allowing a 7 a.m. weekday start time in the above commercial zones may at least partially alleviate that issue. At the June 1st meeting, Councilmembers Brownrigg and Ortiz noted that they were not in favor of loud construction activity occurring during that first hour but expressed support for using this hour for staging of personnel and equipment. Staff had initially tried to balance this concern for loud construction activity by having the ordinance ban "excessive construction noise," and by requiring all work during this hour to be approved by the Chief Building Official. This approach was included in the ordinance introduced at the October 51" Council meeting. However, during the public hearing for that item, a construction industry representative requested that the Council consider banning specific activities, rather than using the more subjective "excessive construction noise" term. The representative believed this would allow developers and builders to better understand what is and is not allowed, rather than leaving matters to interpretation. Following the public hearing, the Council agreed with this suggestion, and asked that staff revise this section of the Ordinance to ban specific loud activities, as deemed appropriate by the Chief Building Official. After a review of comparatively loud construction equipment, staff has proposed prohibiting the use of chainsaws, jackhammers, pile -drivers, and pneumatic impact wrenches during this initial first hour. 2 Construction Hours and Exceptions October 19, 2020 Finally, staff believes that allowing work to take place outside of construction hours within fully enclosed buildings would have little impact to residents and would allow builders to finish projects in a more expedient manner. As a reference, the City of San Mateo exempts such work in its Municipal Code so long as the work does not exceed the exterior ambient noise level (as measured ten feet from the property line). While this would not eliminate issues arising from construction workers commuting to Burlingame at earlier or later hours, it would allow construction projects to be completed more quickly. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. Exhibits: • Draft Ordinance • Minutes from June 1, 2020 Council meeting • City of San Mateo Municipal Code Section 23.06.060 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDINANCE NO. 2020- AMENDING SECTION 18.07.110 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, on September 19, 2016, City Council adopted by unanimous vote Ordinance No. 1930, which changed the City's construction hours from seven (7) a.m. to (7) seven p.m. on weekdays, nine (9) a.m. to six (6) p.m. on Saturdays, and ten (10) a.m. to six (6) p.m. on Sundays and holidays to an eight (8) a.m. start time on weekdays and no construction allowed on Sundays and holidays; WHEREAS, since this time, applications for construction projects have continued to grow within the City, with developers regularly asking for exceptions to construction hours, often with justifications relating to site integrity which are almost universally granted; WHEREAS, the below amendments will address many of these common exceptions, and will encourage developers to pursue projects in Burlingame without fear of delay that could conflict with time sensitive construction operations; WHEREAS, amending construction hours in certain industrial zones within the City may greatly reduce the need for exceptions, while only adding minor disruption to residents; WHEREAS, the Chief Building Official or his/her designee will have the ability to regulate the work being permitted to occur outside ordinary construction hours, which will ensure that the proposed construction activity will not result in undue disruption; WHEREAS, allowing work to occur outside construction hours within fully enclosed buildings would have little impact to residents but would allow builders to finish projects in a more expedient manner; WHEREAS, the below amendments will cumulatively allow developers to finish projects in a more expedient manner, while providing the City with the power to monitor their activity and require project -specific conditions that would mitigate any potential impacts to the surrounding properties. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 18.07.110 of Chapter 18.07 (Uniform Administrative Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (strikethrough text is deleted, underlined text is added): 4 noel fire SeRteRGe is The following paragraphs are added to Section 305.1 to read as follows: No person shall erect (including excavation and grading), demolish, alter or repair any building or structure other than between the hours of eight a.m. and seven p.m. on weekdays, and nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturdays, eXGeP+ ;R the Gase of , iFgeR+ „eGeGGity ;n the interest of publin health and safet except in circumstances where continuing work beyond legal hours is necessary to building or site integrity, including (but not limited to) large concrete pours, environmental considerations, state or federal requirements, or in cases where it is in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with written approval from the building official, which approval shall be granted for a nose n„+ +„ e)(Geed three (3) days f9F PFGjeGtE; iRGlYdiRg StFUGtUres with a gFess fleeF area of less thaR , no longer than necessarV to com fete the portion of the project for which the exception was granted. No person shall erect (including excavation and grading), demolish, alter or repair any building or structure on Sundays or on holidays, except in the circumstances described earlier in this paragraph, and then only with written approval from the building approval, which shall be granted for no longer than necessary to complete the portion of the project for which the exception was granted. For the purpose of this section, holidays are the days set forth in Section 13.04.100 of this code. The restrictions stated in this section shall not apply to work that does not require a permit under any applicable law or regulation, or to work that takes place inside a completely enclosed building and does not exceed the exterior ambient noise level per the BMC 25.58.050. In the Bayfront Commercial (BFC), Innovative Industrial (1/1) and Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU) zones only, construction work may begin at seven a.m. instead of eight a.m. on weekdays. However, the use of chainsaws, jackhammers, pile -drivers or pneumatic impact wrenches shall be prohibited from seven a.m. to eight a.m., unless written approval is granted by the building official pursuant to an exception listed in the above paragraph. SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 3. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. EMILY BEACH, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 191" day of October, 2020, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk CITY O BURLINGAME $AarEo � xE � BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on June 1, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date online at 7:02 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by DPW Murtuza. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Beach reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JUNE 2020 AS PRIDE MONTH Mayor Beach read the proclamation that recognized June 2020 as Pride Month. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked then -Mayor Ortiz for adopting a proclamation on tolerance in the community. He voiced his support for recognizing June as Pride Month. San Mateo County LGBTQ Commissioner Guiliana Garcia thanked the Council for recognizing Pride Month. She stated that the Commission's purpose is to bring greater recognition and visibility to the LGBTQ community in San Mateo County. She discussed the history of pride celebrations including the Stonewall Riots and the importance of fighting for equality. Burlingame City Council June 1, 2020 Approved Minutes b. CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION HOURS AND EXCEPTIONS CDD Gardiner stated that staff is recommending that Council consider potential amendments to construction hours. He explained that prior to 2016, construction hours were from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In 2016, Council adopted an ordinance that changed weekday construction hours to 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., and prohibited construction on Sundays and holidays. CDD Gardiner stated that staff is now recommending the following additional changes: A. Amend BMC 18.07.010 to change language from "except in the case of urgent necessity on the interest of public health and safety," to "except in circumstances where continuing work beyond legal hours is necessary to building or site integrity, including (but not limited to) large concrete pours, environmental considerations, state or federal requirements, or in cases where it is in the interest of public health and safety." B. Amend BMC 18.07.010 to eliminate exceptions to construction hours based on gross floor area, and replace it with the requirement that all exceptions be approved by the building official through a waiver or other mechanism for no longer than necessary to complete the portion of the project for which the exception was granted. C. Amend BMC 18.07.010 to modify construction hours for the Bayfront Commercial, Innovative Industrial, and Rollins Road Mixed Use zones. These are commercial and mixed -use zones where less restrictive construction hours would benefit construction projects but cause lesser disruption to residents. D. Amend BMC 18.07.010 to exempt all construction work, regardless of hours, that takes place inside a completely enclosed building and does not exceed the exterior ambient noise level per the BMC 25.58.050. CDD Gardiner stated that since 2016, applications for construction projects have continued to grow within the city. He explained that developers regularly ask for exceptions to construction hours, often with justification and reasons that will be granted in most instances. He stated that scenarios requiring exceptions that exist in almost every large project include: • Extended hours for large concrete pours, where interruptions would lead to issues with site and/or building integrity; • Complying with Caltrans timelines; • Environmental timelines set by Federal, State, and local regulations; and • Other environmental matters that cannot be controlled or mitigated by the developer. CDD Gardiner explained that staff is proposing that the exception language of the code be modified to include the above recognized common exceptions so that developers can pursue projects in the city without fear of delay. CDD Gardiner stated that staff is also proposing amending construction hours in certain zones. He noted that the Bayfront Commercial, Innovative Industrial, and Rollins Road Mixed Use are all zones where staff believes hours could be amended with only minor disruptions to residents. He explained that developers 7 Burlingame City Council June 1, 2020 Approved Minutes shared concerns with staff about how the construction hours impact their construction crews. He stated that most of the construction crews commute from areas outside the Peninsula, and the City's current construction hours require them to drive during peak traffic times. Therefore, allowing an earlier start time in the above commercial zones may at least ease this issue. CDD Gardiner stated that staff is also proposing allowing work to take place outside of construction hours within fully enclosed buildings. He explained that staff believes that this work will have little impact on residents and would allow builders to finish projects in a more expedient manner. He noted that this exception is already in place in the City of San Mateo. Councilmember Colson asked if the housing project on Bayswater would be allowed to start at 7 a.m. or because it is in a residential neighborhood, would it start at 8 a.m. CDD Gardiner stated that because there are surrounding residential uses, staff would evaluate the need to start early. He added that the Chief Building Official could also enact conditions for the early start. Councilmember Colson asked if the Lot F and N project would be an 8 a.m. start. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked about the project at 1095 Rollins Road. CDD Gardiner stated that Hanover has expressed interest in starting at 7 a.m. He noted that North Park Apartments is right next door; therefore this is an instance where an exception could be requested for specific circumstances, however the more blanket 7 a.m. start is not being proposed. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what the exception for complying with Caltrans timelines meant. CDD Gardiner explained that this refers to Caltrans jurisdiction over El Camino Real and Highway 101. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. SummerHill Senior Vice President Elaine Breeze stated that SummerHill was in support of staff s suggested amendments. Mayor Beach closed public comment. Mayor Beach stated that staffs suggestions struck her as reasonable. She noted that she appreciated the questions that Councilmember Colson asked as they outlined that residential neighborhoods would not be affected by staffs proposals. Councilmember Ortiz discussed the complaints that the City received when the pile driving was being done at Burlingame Point. He noted that even though it is on the other side of the freeway, there are still residential neighborhoods close by that were impacted. Accordingly, he stated that he wasn't in favor of modifying construction hours for the Bayfront Commercial, Innovative Industrial, and Rollins Road Mixed Use zones. 8 Burlingame City Council June 1, 2020 Approved Minutes Councilmember Brownrigg asked if he was correct that Ms. Breeze's top priority out of staff s suggestions would be the 7 a.m. start time. Ms. Breeze replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that there is a big difference between some construction activities and others. He suggested stating that during the 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. hour, heavy machinery can't be used. CDD Gardiner stated that the 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. hour could be used as a staging time. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he liked CDD Gardiner's suggestion that the first hour be a staging hour as it would prevent the noisier activities from starting until 8 a.m. CDD Gardiner stated that he would consult with the Chief Building Official and the developers to see what is most practical and how to define staging. Councilmember Colson stated that she was contacted about the project at 1095 Rollins Road. She explained that it sounded like they would still have to start at 8 a.m. because of the North Park Apartments. She stated that the developers noted that they got North Park Apartments to sign off on a 7 a.m. start because of a partnership that has been arranged. Mayor Beach thanked staff for their suggestions and asked if they had received direction. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. c. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING PURCHASING RULE 20A WORK CREDITS AT A DISCOUNTED RATE FOR THE UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD POWER LINES ON EL CAMINO REAL DPW Murtuza stated that staff is requesting Council's direction regarding purchasing Rule 20A work credits at a discounted rate for the undergrounding of overhead power lines on El Camino Real. DPW Murtuza explained that Caltrans is beginning the environmental phase of the El Camino Real Renewal Project to address safety and infrastructure rehabilitation needs and the historic Eucalyptus Grove preservation. He stated that undergrounding overhead utilities in conjunction with the Caltrans work will be a critical component of the overall project. He explained that the City Council identified the undergrounding of overhead power lines along El Camino Real as a high -priority project. As a result, in 2019 the Council established the El Camino Real Underground Utility District 2019-1 to initiate proceedings to implement the project. DPW Murtuza stated that staff has estimated the preliminary cost to underground overhead utilities on El Camino Real to be between $25 million and $30 million. He noted that the City currently has approximately $6.5 million in Rule 20A credits. DPW Murtuza stated that there are a variety of funding mechanisms available to implement the undergrounding including: • Formation of an assessment district 9 Burlingame City Council June 1, 2020 Approved Minutes LAW" San Mateo Law Library IIII LIBRARY W City of San Mateo Municipal Code. 23-06.060 Hours of Work No work regulated by this code shall be permitted between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, nor prior to 9:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, nor prior to 12:00 noon or after 4:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. These hours do not apply to construction work that takes place inside a completely enclosed building and does not exceed the exterior ambient noise level as measured ten feet from the exterior property lines. (Ord. No. 2019-13 § 1(g),; Ord. No. 2016-10 1; Ord. No. 2013-13 § 1; Ord. No. 2007-11 § 1; Ord. No. 2001-4 § 1; Ord. No. 1999-8 § 2; Ord. No. 1992-12 § 1; Ord. No. 1990-4 § 1.) Cross References Section 23.06.061(a), HISTORY Version Current Compare to November 18, 2019 Publication Current The codes and laws on this website are in the public domain. Please do not scrape. Instead, bulk download the HTML [httpgithub.com/cityofsanmateo/law-html] or XML [httpsiggithub.com/cityofsanmateo/law-xml]. Powered by the non-profit Open Law Library. [http: www.openlawlib.org[]. TBID Modification Ordinance October 19, 2020 STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council October 19, 2020 AGENDA NO: 9c MEETING DATE: October 19. 2020 Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District to Remove the City Of Palo Alto from the District, and Remove the Palo Alto Representative Seat to the District Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council introduce an ordinance to remove the City of Palo Alto from the boundaries of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District, and remove the Palo Alto representative seat to the District Advisory Board. In order to do so, the City Council should: A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff. B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance. C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance. D. Conduct a public hearing. E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND In 2001, in order to secure a reliable and stable revenue source, the San Mateo Convention and Visitors Bureau recommended that a tourism business improvement district be formed under Streets & Highways Code §§ 36500. Shortly thereafter, the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) was formed. The District encompassed much of San Mateo County, including the unincorporated areas and the areas within most of the cities in the county. With annual consent from the affected agencies, the City of Burlingame acts as lead agency for the District, setting the annual assessment and processing the collected assessments. On March 8, 2010, the Palo Alto City Council voted 9-0 in favor of a consent calendar including the adoption of a resolution to allow the City of Palo Alto to be included within the boundaries of the San Mateo County TBID. This action followed a two-year contract with the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) for "visitorship" services in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, in support of a "Destination Palo Alto" two-year pilot program. 1 TBID Modification Ordinance October 19, 2020 Late in 2019, representatives from some of the hotels in Palo Alto approached the City of Palo Alto with a request to withdraw from the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) effective January 2020. According to the request for withdrawal, 19 of the 27 properties then operating in Palo Alto — or 70% — concurred with the proposal to withdraw. At that time, the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley CVB expressed its desire to continue serving the City of Palo Alto, reporting that they sought to be responsive to the concerns of the Palo Alto hotels and to demonstrate their value to the City of Palo Alto. The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, which has received a portion of the TBID funding for performing visitor services since 2011, also communicated a need to maintain this funding in order to continue their information and referral function. At its December 2, 2019 meeting, the Palo Alto City Council postponed a final decision on the question of withdrawal from the TBID, pending further research and/or community engagement. DISCUSSION The TBID assessment generates approximately $309,040 annually from Palo Alto hotels; this amount is paid to the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley CVB for visitor services and marketing for the community of Palo Alto as a member of the broader region served by the TBID. Approximately $31,890 of this funding is transferred from the CVB to the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce to support its function as a local visitor's bureau specific to Palo Alto. As there are no City of Palo Alto funds budgeted to support visitor services or marketing functions such as those provided by the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley CVB and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce in its capacity as a visitor's bureau, this was a primary consideration for the Palo Alto City Council in discussing the request for withdrawal from the TBID. Upon conclusion of its research and community/stakeholder engagement process, the City of Palo Alto staff presented their findings to the Palo Alto City Council at the September 28, 2020 Council meeting. Based on a poll of Palo Alto hotels in August, the Palo Alto City Council adopted a resolution to initiate a request for withdrawal from the TBID effective January 2021. The resolution has been transmitted to the City of Burlingame and is attached to this report. Because the request necessitates an ordinance change by the City of Burlingame, the City of Palo Alto has agreed to pay reasonable administrative fees associated with the change in ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT Withdrawal of Palo Alto hotels from the TBID would reduce revenues to the TBID by approximately 12.7 percent. However, because the CVB Board adjusted assessment fees for 2020 to take into account the unprecedented drop in occupancy due to COVID-19, income to the Bureau was already decreased by 50 percent. Since "base" income has been cut by such a significant amount, the CVB is better prepared to absorb this additional loss. As the market rebounds, the Board is confident that the revenue stream can be rebuilt on a solid footing, providing the opportunity to re- hire positions that have been eliminated during the pandemic -induced recession as budget permits, and introduce other program expenses as is warranted. Palo Alto's withdrawal will not result in a change in the assessment basis for any hotels in the District that are not in Palo Alto. 2 TBID Modification Ordinance October 19, 2020 Exhibits: • Proposed Ordinance • Ordinance 1648 • Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDINANCE NO. AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO REMOVE THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FROM THE DISTRICT The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby ordains as follows: Section 1 — Findings. (a) Ordinance No. 1648 was adopted in February 2001 to form the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District ("District") pursuant to the provisions of the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, as codified in California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 and following. (b) In 2010, the City of Palo Alto consented to the inclusion of its territory within the District. However, the City of Palo Alto has now expressed a desire to have its jurisdiction removed. (c) The City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Burlingame, regarding removal of the area within the City of Palo Alto on October 19, 2020. Following the hearing, all protests, both written and oral, were considered and were duly overruled and denied, and the City Council determined that there was no majority protest within the meaning of Streets & Highways Code sections 36523, 36524, 36525, and 36542. Section 2 — Amendments to Ordinance No. 1648. A. Section 1(d) of Ordinance No. 1648 is amended to delete subsection (xi), which reads "The City of Palo Alto pursuant to Palo Alto City Council Resolution 9043". B. Section 3(b) of Ordinance No. 1648 is amended to delete the following sentence: "And further, the Ordinance has been amended to add a third Benefit Zone to the District, Benefit Zone C, which encompasses the entire City of Palo Alto in northern Santa Clara County, immediately adjacent to southern San Mateo County." C. Section 4(I) of Ordinance No. 1648 is amended by deleting "the City of Palo Alto". D. Section 6(a)(1) of Ordinance No. 1648 is hereby amended to delete reference to Benefit Zone C, to read as follows: "In Benefit Zone A:" E. Section 14(a)(6) of Ordinance No. 1648 is amended to delete subsection (10), which reads "One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the City of Palo Alto." F. Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1648 is amended by removing the City of Palo Alto from the boundaries to read as contained in Exhibit A to this Ordinance. Section 3. Except as expressly provided in this Ordinance and as amended by Ordinance Nos. 1678, 1725, 1774, and 1851, all other provisions of Ordinance No. 1648 and implementing resolutions shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of October, 2020, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE No. 164 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, THE BASIS FOR AND PROCESS OF LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT, AND THE DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF 13URLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. (a) This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Parking and Business 36500 and following. On December 18, 2000, the City Council of the City of Burlingame adopted its Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 121-00) declaring its intention to form a parking and business improvement area to beknown as the "San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District," outlining a proposed area for the District, providing a basis for levy of an annual assessment, and requesting the consideration and consent of the County of San Mateo and various cities in the County to the formation of the District and the levy of assessments within their jurisdiction pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 36521.5. (b) Pursuant to Streets & highways Code sections 36523 and 36523.5, copies of the Resolution of Intention and notice pursuant to Government Code section 54954.6(c) .were duly mailed to all hotels that might be assessed pursuant to the proposed ordinance, and the Resolution of Intention was duly published in newspapers of general circulation within the County of San Mateo and each of the interested cities. (c) The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo consented to the formation of the District within the unincorporated portion of San Mateo County pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 64168. (d) The following cities consented to the formation of the District within their respective city limits as follows: (i) The City of Belmont pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8916, (ii) The City of Daly City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 01-34; (iii) The City of Foster City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2001-6; 2/14/2001 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (iv) The City of Half Moon Bay pursuant to City Council Resolution No. C-03-01; (v) The City of Millbrae pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 00-163; (vi) The City of Redwood City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 14106; (vii) The City of San Bruno pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2001-4; (viii) The City of San Carlos pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2000-167; (ix) The City of San Mateo pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 5 (2001); and (x) The City of South San Francisco pursuant to City Council Resolution No.156- January 24, 2001. (e) Pursuant to the Resolution of Intention adopted by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, the City Council held a public meeting in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Burlingame, regarding formation ofthe proposed District and assessments pursuant to Government Code section 54954.6(c) on January 2, 2001. Pursuant to the Resolution of Intention adopted by the City ofBurlingame, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Burlingame, regarding formation ofthe proposed District and assessments on January 17, 2001, and continued it to February 5, 2001. Following the hearings, all protests, both written and oral, were considered and were duly overruled and denied, and the City Council determined that there was no majority protest within the meaning of Streets & Highways Code section 36523. Section 2. Purpose. This District is formed as a parking and business improvement area under the Business and Improvement Area Law of 1989 to provide revenue to defray the costs of services, activities, and programs promoting tourism in the District, which will benefit hotels in the District through the promotion of scenic, recreational, cultural, hospitality, and other attractions in the San Mateo County region, and it is not intended to supplant any other existing source of revenues that may be directly applied by the individual cities or the County of San Mateo to promote tourism. The specific services, activities, and programs to be provided are listed in Exhibit B attached to this ordinance, and the services, activities, and those specific services, activities, and programs are the only uses to which the funds generated by the assessments to be levied pursuant to this ordinance shall be put. 2/14/2001 PA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 3. Benefits. (a) The public convenience and necessity mandate the District established by this ordinance. Tourism is vital to the economy of all of San Mateo County. According to recent studies, the travel and hospitalityindustry in the County generates over $3 billion in visitor spending. Spending on accommodations alone in the County is over $500 million. This does not include spending in hotel restaurants, stores, and associated services. The hotels in the District as defined below will benefit from the services, activities, and programs described in Exhibit B to this ordinance to sustain and occupancyrates for hotels in the County and increase the revenue per room, even as new hotels and hotel rooms open for occupancy or the economy slows. Studies show that the hotel industry can continue to utilize the County's unique location and attractions to build occupancy that is not dependent on nearby San Francisco or the Silicon Valley. (b) In recognition of the fact that hotels of different sizes, or hotels offering different levels of service, or hotels providing different sizes of meeting space, or different combinations of these factors, receive different degrees of benefit from the services, activities, and programs to be provided to promote tourism by the District, this ordinance creates different levels of assessments among hotels, based upon the total number of sleeping rooms, the levels of service, and the amount of meeting space. Further, the ordinance creates two benefit zones: one along San Francisco Bay for hotels relatively near San Francisco International Airport and other meeting facilities; and another along the Pacific Coast and the northernmost part of the County, which is more oriented toward leisure and recreational tourists. In addition, efforts should be made in the levying of annual assessments to factor in the prior year's County -wide occupancy rates while balancing the overall budget needs of the District to accomplish its purposes. Section4. Definitions. The following definitions govern the construction ofthis ordinance and resolutions adopted pursuant to this ordinance: (a) Advisory board. "Advisory board' means the advisory board appointed by the City Council of the City of Burlingame pursuant to this ordinance. (b) Assessment, "Assessment" means the levy imposed by this ordinance for the purpose 2/14i2001 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 of providing services, activities, and programs promoting tourism in the San Mateo County region. (c) Board of Supervisors. "Board of supervisors" means the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo. (d) District. "District" means the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District formed bythis ordinance in the geographical area designated in Exhibit A to this ordinance. (e) Fiscal year. "Fiscal year" means January 1 to December 31. (f) Full service. "Full service" means a hotel that offers all of the following: an on -site (g) Hotel. "Hotel" means any structure, or any portion of any structure, that is rented for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes on a transient basis, and includes any hotel, motel, inn, tourist home or house, studio, bed and breakfast, lodging house, rooming house, or other similar structure or portion thereof. (h) Limited service. "Limited service" means a hotel that offers meeting space but does not necessarily have an on -site restaurant, room service, or catering- (i) Meeting space. "Meeting space" means a room or space dedicated for group and social meetings, meals, and/or functions. 0) Operator. "Operator" means the person who is the proprietor of the hotel, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity. Where the operator performs the operator's functions through a managing agent of any type or character other than an employee, the managing agent shall also be deemed an operator for purposes of this ordinance, and shall have the same duties and liabilities as the agent's principal. Compliance with the provisions of this ordinance by either the principal or the managing agent shall, however, be.considered to be compliance by both. (k) Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989. "Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989" means the provisions of California Streets & Highways Code sections 36500 to 3 655 1, as amended. (I) Participating agency. "Participating agency" means a city government or a county 2811 government that has consented to the formation of the District as provided in this resolution within 2/14/2001 rd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26'. 27 the jurisdiction of the city or the county pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 36521.5. The participating agencies are the City of Belmont, City of Daly City, City of Foster City, City of Half Moon Bay, City of Millbrae, City of Redwood City, City of San Bruno, City of San Carlos, City of San Mateo, the City of South San Francisco, and the County of San Mateo. However, the City of South San Francisco shall not be a participating agency until January 1, 2002. (m) San Mateo County Hotel Council. "San Mateo County Hotel Council" means the California non-profit mutual benefit corporation called San Mateo County Hotel Council, Inc. Tourism Business Improvement District' means the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District formed by this ordinance in the geographical area designated in Exhibit A to this ordinance. (o) Sleeping room. "Sleeping room" means a room or suite of rooms that is rented on a transient basis as a unit f6r occupancy. (p) Standard service. "Standard service" means a hotel without any meeting space, and generally does not have bell service, room service, on -site restaurant, or catering. (q) Transient basis. "Transient basis" means the rental of a room or rooms for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days or less, counting portions of calendar days as whole days. Section5. Establishment of District. Aparking and business improvement district known as the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District is hereby established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989. The boundaries of the District and its benefit zones shall be as set forth in Exhibit A attached to this ordinance. Section 6. Establishment and Basis of Assessments. (a) All hotels in the District shall pay an annual benefit assessment to the District for each fiscal year as follows: (1) In Benefit Zone A: (A) Hotels with full service and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $360 per sleeping room 28 11 per year. 2/14/2001 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (B) Hotels with limited service and one thousand (1,000) square feet or more of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping'rooms: Up to $180 per sleeping room per year. (C) Hotels with limited service and meeting space of less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $90 per sleeping room per year. (D) Hotels with standard service and hotels with 20 sleeping rooms or less: Up to $54 per sleeping room per year. (2) In Benefit Zone B: per year. (B) Hotels with lhnited service and one thousand (1,000) square feet or more of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $180 per sleeping room per year. (C) Hotels with limited service and meeting space of less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $90 per sleeping room per year. (D) Hotels with standard service and hotels with 20 sleeping rooms or less: Up to $54 per sleeping room per year. (b) The initial assessment shall be determined from the number of rooms, the level of service, and the amount of meeting space as of the close of the public hearing on the formation of the District, as well as the benefit zone in which the hotel is located. For subsequent years, the . number of rooms, the level of service, and the amount of meeting space of existing hotels shall be determined as of September 1 of the year preceding the year for which the assessment is imposed. For hotels that open for business after the determination date, the number of rooms, the level of service, and the amount of meeting space shallbe determined for their initial assessment at the time that they open for business. (c) The number of rooms, level of service, and amount of meeting space determined in the City Council's annual levy of assessment shall be final and conclusive, and binding on the hotels to be assessed. Section 7. Use of Assessments. All funds derived from the assessments shall be used only 2811 for the services, activities, and programs described in Exhibit B to this ordinance. 2/14/2001 E. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 8. Levy of Assessments. Except as to the initial assessment under this ordinance, the advisory board shall submit its annual report to the City of Burlingame no later than October 15 of each year pursuant to Streets & Highway Code sections 36530 and 36533. The annual report shall include a listing of hotels subject to the assessment and the number of rooms, level of service, and meeting space in each hotel for review of the recommended assessments for the coming year. The report shall also contain a recommendation on the assessment levels of the coming year. The City of Burlingame will forward copies of the annual report together with a copy of that year's annual report and proposed assessments, services, activities, and programs as each agency deems appropriate. Section 9. Imposition of Assessments. The assessments imposed pursuant to this ordinance are levied solely upon the operators of the hotels within the District, and the operator of each hotel is solely responsible for payment of the assessments when due. The assessments levied pursuant to this ordinance are not part of the gross receipts or gross revenues of a hotel located in the City of.Burlingame for purposes of calculating sales or use taxes or transient occupancy taxes. Section 10. Payment and Collection of Assessments. (a) Each participating agency shall collect the assessments due under this ordinance from hotels within their jurisdictions on the basis that is most convenient to that agency's fiscal system, but no less often than semiannually. (b) Each hotel shall pay the assessment as required by the participating agency in which the hotel is located. Section 11. Deficiencies. (a) When the City of Burlingame determines that an assessment is deficient as to the payment due, the City of Burlingame may determine the amount of the delinquency as calculated pursuant to this ordinance. After giving notice that a deficiency determination is proposed and an opportunity to file a response or provide supplemental information is provided, the City may make one or more deficiency determinations of the amount due for any reporting period based on information in the possession of the City or any participating agency. When the operation of a hotel 2/14/2001 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 is discontinued, a deficiency determination may be made at any time thereafter as to the liability arising out the operation of the hotel. (b) The City of Burlingame shall give notice of a proposed deficiency determination or the notice of deficiency determination by mailing a copy of the document to the operator of the hotel at the address of the hotel on file with the participating agency in which the hotel is located. The giving of notice is complete at the time of deposit in the United States mail with first-class postage fully prepaid. In lieu of mailing, a notice may be served personally by delivering it to the person (c) The operator of a hotel against which a deficiency determination is made may petition the City for redetermination within thirty (30) days after the service of the notice of deficiency determination. If such a petition is not filed with the City Manager within this thirty -day period, the deficiency determination shall become final. (d) A petition for redetermination shall be in writing, state the specific grounds on which it is based, and be supported by applicable records and declarations under penalty of perjury that the information is true and complete. If a petition for redetermination is filed, the City shall reconsider the deficiency determination and may meet with the petitioner or hold a hearing on the petition. The City shall issue a written decision on the petition and serve the decision on the petitioner in the same way that a notice of deficiency determination is served. (e) If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision on the petition for redetermination, the petitioner may file an appeal to the City Council within thirty (30) days of the service of the decision. The appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk, be in writing describing what portion of the decision the petitioner is appealing, and accompanied by an appeal fee of $250. The City Council will set the matter for public hearing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal. The decision of the City Council on the appeal shall be final. Section 12. Delinquencies. If an assessment is not paid at the time set for payment pursuant to this ordinance, the operator shall pay a penalty of five percent (5%) in addition to the payment due for each thirty (30) day period in which the payment is not made. If payment is not made within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date that payment was initially due pursuant 2/14/2001 L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to this ordinance, the operator shall pay interest of one percent per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the payment due, exclusive of penalties, but in addition to any penalties that may be due. Every penalty imposed and interest as it accrues under the provisions of this section shall become part of the assessment required to be paid under this ordinance. Section 13, Remedies. In addition to any other remedies that may be available to the City ofBurlingame or the participating agencies, if any amount due to be paid under this ordinance is not paid, the City of Burlingame may bring an action in the Superior Court of San Mateo County to Section 14. Advisory Board. (a) An advisory board of seventeen (17) members is established to advise the City of Burlingame on the conduct of the District, including the level of assessments to be levied each year, the services, activities, and programs to be conducted by the District, and the progress of the District in meeting its purpose and goals. The City Council shall appoint the advisory board from a list of nominees submitted by the San Mateo Hotel Council. To be eligible to serve on the advisory board, a person shall be an owner or manager of a hotel or a property occupied by a hotel or an owner or manager of a company or business located in San Mateo County that is directly related to tourism in San Mateo County. The board shall consist of persons from the following geographical areas: (1) Four (4) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the City of Burlingame; and (2) Two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the City of San Mateo; and (3) Two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the City of Millbrae; and (4) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the City of Foster City; and (5) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the City of Half Moon Bay; and 2/14/2001 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (5) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the City of Half Moon Bay; and (6) In total, three (3) owners or managers of hotels or owners of -property occupied by hotels in the Cities of Belmont, Daly City, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County; and (7) Four (4) owners or managers of companies or businesses located in San Mateo County and directly related to tourism in San Mateo County. 8 (b) On January 1, 2002, the membership on the advisory board shall be increased to 9 nineteen (19) by the addition of two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property 10 occupied by a hotel in the City of South San Francisco; and I 1 (c) Terms of membership on the advisory board shall be three (3) years and until their 12 successors are appointed and qualified. However, the initial members of the advisory board shall . 13 be staggered terms, with five (5) members serving a one-year term, six (6) members serving a two- 14 year term, and six (6) members serving a three-year term. Initial terms under this section shall be 15 run from May 1, 2001. The initial length of term for each member shall be chosen by lot at the 16 first advisory board meeting. As to the two (2) members representing the City of South San 17 Francisco, one shall serve an initial length of term to May 1, 2003, and the other an initial length 18 of term to May 1, 2004; the initial length of term for each such South San Francisco member shall 19 be chosen by lot at the first advisory board meeting in the year 2002. 20 (d) Vacancies on the advisory board shall be filled by appointment by the City Council of 21 the City of Burlingame upon nomination by the San Mateo County Hotel Council. Vacancies 22 occur upon resignation of the member or when the member is no longer an owner or manager of 23 a hotel or property occupied by a hotel or of a tourist -related company or business, whichever is 24 applicable, in the geographical area from which the member was appointed. 25 Section 15. Advisory board under the Political Reform Act (California Code of 26 Regulations, title 2, section 18707.4). The members of the advisory board are appointed to 27 represent and further the interests of the hotel and tourism industry in San Mateo County pursuant 28 to this ordinance. 2/ 14/2001 10 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 .01 10 of South San Francisco shall have until September 30, 2001, to determine whether it wishes to withdraw its consent to be a participating agency under this ordinance. If the City of South San Francisco does not withdraw its consent by that time, then it shall become a participating agency and its hotels shall be assessed pursuant to this ordinance, and it shall have representative membership on the advisory board. Section 17. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. , , 'fir MkLOr� L 11 I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 12 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day 13 ofFebruarv, 2001, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20s' 14 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: 15 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, 7ANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPEMLLI 16 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 17 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 18 City Clerk 19 20 D:\wp5l\Filr \HotelBid\udinancetinal.ordwpd 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AW 2/14/2001 11 DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARIES OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT IN GENERAL The San Mateo County. Tourism Business Improvement District shall encompass all of the incorporated and unincorporated areas in the County of San Mateo, but shall specifically exclude all incorporated areas -and -any hotels-located=withinthe-incorporated-areas_of-the-city_or_to-wn limits of the following cities and towns: Town of Atherton City of Brisbane Town of Coima City of East Palo Alto Town of Hillsborough City of Menlo Park City of Pacifica Town of Portola Valley Town of Woodside Zone A . Zone A shall encompass all of the area of the District except that area located within Zone B as described below. Zone 13 Zone B shall encompass: 1) All of the area of the District that is located south of the City of Pacifica city limits and west of State Highway 35; and 2) All of the area within the City of Daly City and within all unincorporated areas immediately adjacent to, or surrounded by, the city limits of the City of Daly City. 1�� ACTIVITIES, PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO BE FUNDED BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Increased Generation of Group Leads a. Additional Sales Staff. Increase the Bureau's sales staff from two full -times sales representatives to six (6) or more. i. One sales representative to be located on the East Coast to represent the Bureau in the Washington, D.C. area; ii. One sales representative to be located in Sacramento; iii. One sales representative to be located in Southern California to represent the Bureau in the Los Angeles Area, iv. Three sales representatives in-house. 2. Marketing Program for Meetings and Tourism a. Invest in extensive Web advertising, creating links from key travel sites; b. Host annual receptions in Sacramento; C. Add a cooperative advertising manager and create additional cooperative advertising pieces; d, Participate in additional trade shows of interest to member hotel properties; e. Enhance/update trade show booth decor and marketing materials; f. Increase memberships in organizations/attendance at meetings with key, potential target visitors; g. Enhance advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners; h. Create specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market segments (e.g. golf); i. Conduct familiarization trips for meeting planners, film/ad/catalogue producers and travel writers; j. Use a part-time film commissioner to proactively recruit production crews to the area; k. Create additional collateral and marketing materials; 1. Add a part-time publications manager to write specialty pieces and articles for distribution; To. Add state -of the art software designed for convention and visitor bureaus; n. Enhance web site; Program to Extend Stays a. Create collateral/promotional materials to encourage extended stays; b. Add a part-time manager of meeting services to create special packages/offers, marketing plans to encourage extended stays. 4. Consumer Reservations Program/Market to Travel Industry a. Create an on-line reservations system for travelers; b. Dedicate one new sales representative's time to the transient market; C. Develop an alliance with tour operators; d. Create an awareness of the Bureau on the part of international travelers; C. Have key brochures translated into German and Korean. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F33F395-746C-465D-8883-80F4E902623A Resolution No. 9917 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Withdraw the City of Palo Alto from the Boundaries of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District RECITALS A. The San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (SMCTBID) is a district organized under the California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500 et seq. for the purpose of collecting assessments from commercial lodging facilities such as hotels and motels and providing tourism and visitor support services. B. In March 2010, the Council of the City of Palo Alto adopted Resolution No. 9043 consenting to Palo Alto being included in the boundaries of the SMCTBID and authorizing the City of Burlingame, which administers the SMCTBID, to take all necessary steps and actions to formalize the inclusion of Palo Alto in the boundaries of the SMCTBID. C. The City of Burlingame effectuated the City of Palo Alto Council's request to be included in the boundaries of the SMCTBID. D. Since 2010, commercial lodging facilities in Palo Alto have been assessed fees according to the procedures of the SMCTBID, and an owner or manager of a hotel has served on the SMCTBID advisory board. E. At the request of certain hotel and motel owners and operators in Palo Alto who have articulated a desire to no longer participate in the SMCTBID, the City of Palo Alto now wishes to withdraw from the boundaries of the SMCTBID. F. Accordingly, the Palo Alto Council now requests the City of Burlingame to take all necessary steps to effectuate the withdrawal of the City of Palo Alto from the boundaries of the SMCTBID, according to procedure and law, and as soon as it is feasible to do so. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City of Palo Alto hereby requests to withdraw from the boundaries of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District for hotels effective January 1, 2021, or as soon as feasible thereafter, and authorizes and requests the City of Burlingame to take all necessary steps and actions to implement its withdrawal from the boundaries of the SMCTBID. 1 2020091601 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F33F395-746C-465D-8883-80F4E902623A SECTION 2. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: September 28, 2020 AYES: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: DocuSigned by: $W W ,04 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: DocuSigned by: [ S —h- (" Assistant City Attorney LDocuSigned by: Q� vtaan,� Mayor APPROVED: DocuSigned by: City Manager DocuSigned Aby: ' Director of Administrative Services 2020091601 2 BUR— IN�AAGENDA NO: 10a STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: October 19, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 19, 2020 From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Consideration of Two Appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council make appointments to fill two impending vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission or take other action. BACKGROUND The vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Shari Lewis and Emily Matthews. The vacancies were publicized, and staff sent notification letters to past Commission applicants. The City received 13 applications as of the deadline of September 21, 2020. The Council interviewed the following 13 applicants via Zoom on October 13, 2020: Robert Cannone, Emily Matthews, Karen Andreacchi, John Brunello, Shari Lewis, Dale Chang, Dan DeWitt, Ray Larios, Patricia Stark, Perry Mizota, Dilyana Dimova, Jacqueline Haggarty, and Sophia Chen. The appointee terms will be for three years, ending October 7, 2023. 1 Avovw To: Date: From: STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council October 19, 2020 AGENDA NO: 10b MEETING DATE: October 19, 2020 Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Bob Disco, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist — (650) 558-7333 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Additional Funding in the Amount of $59,000 to Commission an Independent Arborist to Inspect City Park Trees and Larae Stature Eucalvatus Trees RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving $59,000 in additional funds for the Parks Division budget to commission an independent arborist to inspect City park trees. BACKGROUND Because residents of Burlingame value the City's urban canopy so highly, the City has for many years dedicated significant resources to building a robust tree inspection and maintenance program. However, these efforts cannot guarantee that accidents will not occur. Recently, there was a tragic accident in Washington Park when a limb from an Atlas cedar failed. With that recent incident, staff recommends the City allocate additional funds to contract with an independent arborist to complete a systematic inspection of City park trees over 48" in circumference and the City's large stature eucalyptus trees. The International Society of Arboriculture has a three -level tree risk assessment system. A Level 1 Limited Visual assessment is where arborists evaluate designated areas either from vehicles or from walking down paths, streets, or sidewalks to identify high and extreme risk trees. These assessments are intended to cover large areas very quickly with small amounts of details being recorded for each tree. During a Level 2 Basic assessment, arborists walk completely around a tree and look for defects in all visible areas of a tree, including the surrounding area. Through this assessment, the arborist can determine whether some aspect of tree structure or health indicates that a more comprehensive tree structure evaluation is needed to more thoroughly evaluate tree condition and risk of failure. Level 3 Advanced assessments provide detailed information about specific tree parts, defects, targets, and site conditions; this information is used to recommend tree retention or removal. Staff proposes commissioning an independent arborist to conduct a Level 2 assessment of the identified trees, followed by a Level 3 assessment as needed. The Level 2 assessment includes: 1 Independent Arborist Inspection of City Trees October 19, 2020 • An overall condition rating from 1-100 for vitality and form • The 12 Point Matheny and Clark hazard assessment • Maintenance recommendations • Comments for each tree • Whether a Level 3 assessment is warranted If a tree does not require a Level 3 assessment but does need trimming, staff will perform the work in-house or include it as part of the FY 2021-22 tree contract. The Level 2 assessment will start with Washington Park. Based on park usage and the type, age, location, and stature of the tree, the remaining park trees across the city over 48" in circumference will be systematically inspected by the independent arborist. After the Level 2 assessment, those trees warranting further inspection will be re -inspected in the second phase. This more in-depth Level 3 assessment will include: • Drill test • Mallet test • In -tree inspections (not including eucalyptus) • Root crown exposure and inspections. If any of the trees indicate imminent danger, the tree and surrounding area will be caution -taped off until it can be removed. Depending on the number of trees that warrant a more in-depth inspection, a new priority list will be developed with the independent arborist's aid, and the process will proceed systematically. FISCAL IMPACT The cost for a Level 2 visual assessment is $15 per tree. Staff anticipates 1,926 trees will measure over 48" in circumference and need the Level 2 assessment. This includes both City park trees and the large stature eucalyptus trees. The cost for the Level 3 assessment is approximately $300 per tree. It is unknown at this time how many trees will warrant a Level 3 assessment; however, staff estimates 5% of the trees in the Level 2 assessment will require a Level 3 assessment. Staff requests an additional appropriation in the Parks General Fund operating budget totaling $59,000: $29,000 for the Level 2 inspections and $30,000 for the Level 3 assessment. If the approved funds are exhausted due to the number of trees requiring a Level 3 assessment, or the additional removals cannot be accommodated by the existing Park Division operating budget, staff will return to Council to request additional funds during the Mid -year Budget process. Exhibit: • Resolution 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DESIGNATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT $59,000 TO BE TRANSFERRED INTO THE PARKS DIVISION OPERATING BUDGET TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT ARBORIST INSPECT CITY PARK TREES AND LARGE STATURE EUCALYPTUS TREES WHEREAS, the City Council approves of having an independent arborist inspect City park trees over 48" in circumference and large stature eucalyptus trees; and WHEREAS, the Parks Division operating budget requires additional funds in the amount of $59,000 to do so. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Additional funds in the amount of $59,000 are hereby appropriated to the Parks Division operating budget for FY 20-21. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of October 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk To: Date: From: AGENDA NO: 10c STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: October 19, 2020 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 19, 2020 Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Saratoga to Purchase Rule 20A Credits for Utility Undergrounding Work on El Camino Real RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Saratoga for the purchase of Rule 20A work credits at a discounted rate for the undergrounding of overhead power lines on El Camino Real. BACKGROUND For several years, the City and Caltrans have been working collaboratively on a project to renew and rehabilitate El Camino Real. Caltrans is now in the process of conducting studies for the environmental phase of the El Camino Real Renewal Project in Burlingame to address safety and infrastructure rehabilitation needs, while considering traffic, pedestrian, utilities, drainage, and historic Eucalyptus Grove preservation concerns. Undergrounding overhead utilities in conjunction with the Caltrans work will be a critical component of the overall project. DISCUSSION The City Council has identified undergrounding of overhead power lines along El Camino Real as a high -priority project, and on June 17, 2019, the Council established the El Camino Real Underground Utility District 2019-1 to initiate proceedings to implement the project. The establishment of an underground district qualifies the City to utilize available Rule 20A credits to fund a portion of the undergrounding project. As the Rule 20A program currently stands, PG&E provides these credits to cities and counties on an annual basis to use for undergrounding utilities. If a jurisdiction does not use them in a given year, they are banked for future use. The credits can only be used to underground PG&E overhead utilities. The preliminary cost to underground overhead utilities on El Camino Real is estimated to be in the range of $25M-$30M. The City currently has approximately $6.5M in work credits through the PG&E Rule 20A program. The remaining $18.5M-$23.5M is unfunded at this time, and the City 1 MOU with Saratoga for Rule 20A Credits October 19, 2020 will need to pay for at least a portion of these costs to address the funding gap to complete the project. As discussed with the City Council at the June 1, 2020 Council meeting, there are a variety of funding mechanisms available to implement the undergrounding of overhead utilities, including but not limited to the formation of an assessment district; General Fund appropriation; and the purchase of Rule 20A credits from another community. Purchasing Rule 20A work credits from another community is a common current practice. This practice benefits both communities as credits are often purchased at a discounted rate, while the selling community receives compensation for credits that may not be used because there is no appropriate project to fund. At the June 1 meeting, staff asked the City Council about its willingness to purchase Rule 20A credits at a discounted price of $.50/credit, or half the cost of the credits, which are valued at $1 per credit. At the time, the Council was concerned about paying that price for these credits, particularly since there is a risk that the El Camino Real Renewal Project won't move forward or will be changed in a way that makes undergrounding infeasible. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is currently reviewing recommendations to reform the Rule 20 undergrounding program statewide. The final ruling, which is expected in early 2021, is likely to include the elimination of the practice of trading (purchasing and selling) Rule 20A credits. The proposed ruling also includes language such that the accumulated and/or acquired credits as of that time will expire in ten years unless used for qualified projects. After the June 1 Council meeting, staff obtained a list of all agencies with Rule 20A credits and sent letters to all agencies with credits valued at $2M and above asking if those agencies were willing to sell their credits at a cost of $.25/credit. Although no agencies have been amenable to that price so far, the City of Saratoga's City Manager and Finance Committee (which is composed of two members of the City Council) are amenable to selling Saratoga's $4,027,766 in credits at a price of $1,208,330, or $.30/credit. This is a savings of just over $800,000 from the $.50/credit price the City was contemplating offering other jurisdictions in June. In order to initiate this transfer, the Burlingame and Saratoga City Councils must adopt the attached MOU. The Saratoga City Council will consider the MOU at its meeting on October 21. City staff is continuing to engage with other jurisdictions on this issue and hopes to bring other MOUs to the City Council for approval at a later date. Should the El Camino Real Renewal Project not come to fruition, staff believes that there are other streets in the city that could qualify for the use of Rule 20A funds, which cannot be used on local residential streets. The following streets would likely qualify, though this would be subject to verification: the streets in the City Hall Area, Rollins Road, California Drive north of Broadway, Oak Grove Avenue, Howard Avenue, Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame Avenue east of the railroad tracks, Hillside Drive from Alvarado to El Camino Real, Sanchez Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive, Carmelita Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive, Skyline Boulevard from Trousdale to Hillside Drive, Carolan Avenue from Broadway to Burlingame Avenue, and Airport Boulevard. In addition, the City could choose to underground the utility lines on El Camino Real even in the absence of the Caltrans project. Prior to selecting one or more of these streets 2 MOU with Saratoga for Rule 20A Credits October 19, 2020 for undergrounding, the City would have to coordinate with PG&E, go through a CPUC qualification process, and approve a certifying resolution confirming the same through a formal City Council action. Follow -Up to Questions from June Meeting At the June meeting, Councilmembers asked a number of questions that required further research. Since that time, the Public Works Director has held a number of meetings with the CPUC, PG&E, and Caltrans regarding the questions raised by the Council at that meeting • Does the PG&E bankruptcy filing pose any risks to the Rule 20A credits? PG&E has assured staff that Rule 20A credits are unaffected by their bankruptcy filing. This has been independently confirmed by CPUC staff. Rule 20A credits are not actual dollars. Rather, they are allocations in the form of dollar credits, and the funding to pay for these credits comes from PG&E system wide utility rate increases. PG&E has a variety of funding sources to undertake the Rule 20A work, primarily involving investor financing methods through the issuance of bonds. • Can Caltrans financially contribute towards the undergrounding work? Caltrans has no legal obligation to contribute funds towards the undergrounding work, and at this time the agency has no funding source in their system wide transportation programs to pay for this work. However, Caltrans has not officially said "no" to contributing funds, and their staff is willing to work with the City to jointly identify funding sources. • How will the City make up the funding gap? As described above, there are a number of ways to close the funding gap, including using City General Fund dollars and creating an assessment district. There is also a small possibility that Caltrans will find funding to contribute. In addition, the City may be able to receive an additional large allocation of Rule 20A credits from the unused credit bank as a result of the CPUC's impending new Rule. One of the recommendations that CPUC staff has made is to allow certain large projects to receive an allocation of unused Rule 20A credits after the new rule goes into effect. The protocols for qualifying for unused system wide credits will be established upon the CPUC's approval of the new rules in early 2021. Finally, the City may be able to borrow ten years of credits from the calculated future PG&E allocation in order to implement the project. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of purchasing these credits is $1,208,330. Staff recommends utilizing the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund for this purpose. The balance in this reserve will be $24.6M once the Community Center is funded. The City also needs approximately $15M for the Broadway Grade Separation Project, leaving approximately $9.7M remaining in the reserve prior to the purchase of the credits. Exhibits: • Resolution • Draft Memorandum of Understanding 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTNADING WITH THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO PURCHASE RULE 20A CREDITS FOR UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING WORK ON EL CAMINO REAL WHEREAS, for several years, the City and Caltrans have been working collaboratively on a project to renew and rehabilitate El Camino Real in order to address safety and infrastructure rehabilitation needs, while considering traffic, pedestrian, utilities, drainage, and historic Eucalyptus Grove preservation concerns; and WHEREAS, undergrounding overhead utilities in conjunction with the Caltrans work will be a critical component of the overall project; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2019, the City Council established the El Camino Real Underground Utility District 2019-1 to initiate proceedings for implementing an undergrounding project on El Camino Real; and WHEREAS, the establishment of an underground district qualifies the City to utilize PG&E Rule 20A credits to fund a portion of the undergrounding project, which is estimated to cost $25 million to $30 million; and WHEREAS, the City currently has approximately $6.5M in work credits through the PG&E Rule 20A program; and WHEREAS, one way to secure the remaining funds for the project is through the purchase of Rule 20A credits from another community; and WHEREAS, City staff has reached agreement with City of Saratoga staff to purchase Saratoga's $4,027,766 in credits at a discounted price of $1,208,330, or $.30/credit, which is a savings of over $800,000 from the price the City was contemplating offering other jurisdictions earlier this year; and WHEREAS, in order to initiate this transfer, the Burlingame and Saratoga City Councils must adopt a Memorandum of Understanding, which the Saratoga City Council will consider at its meeting on October 21; and WHEREAS, should the El Camino Real Renewal Project not come to fruition, staff believes that there are other streets in the city that could qualify for the use of Rule 20A funds. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame Resolves As Follows: 1. The City will purchase the City of Saratoga's Rule 20A credits at a discounted price of $1,208,330, or $.30/credit. 2. The City Manager is authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Saratoga. 3. The City Council authorizes the use of the City's Capital Investment Reserve funds for this purpose. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 19th day of October, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into the _ day of _, 2020 (Effective Date), by and between the City of Burlingame (BURLINGAME) and the City of Saratoga (SARATOGA). BURLINGAME and SARATOGA are sometimes individually referred to herein as "Party," and collectively as "Parties." RECITALS A. Electric Utilities collect and allocate credits to communities to convert overhead electric facilities to underground electric facilities. These credits are commonly referred to as Rule 20A Credits. The amount of said funds allocated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to SARATOGA is hereafter referred to as the "CITY Allocation." B. BURLINGAME has identified a need for additional RULE 20A Credits for the El Camino Real Underground Utility District (2019-1) and potential future Rule 20A projects. C. SARATOGA currently has no active undergrounding projects that could make use of the CITY Allocation. D. On 2020, the BURLINGAME City Council authorized the BURLINGAME City Manager to enter into this MOU with SARATOGA to receive the transfer of Rule 20A Credits. E. On , 2020, the SARATOGA City Council authorized the SARATOGA City Manager to enter into this agreement with BURLINGAME for the transfer of accrued CITY Allocation to BURLINGAME. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Assignment of Rights. SARATOGA agrees to assign, for use by BURLINGAME, its rights and interests in the CITY Allocation to BURLINGAME, and BURLINGAME agrees to acquire, for consideration, the CITY Allocation in accordance with the terms of this MOU. This MOU shall be subject to the approval of the Parties, and shall become effective on the date when both such approvals have been obtained (Effective Date). Notwithstanding the foregoing, if this MOU has not become effective as of December 31, 2020, then either Party may terminate this MOU with five (5) business days' written notice to the other Party without incurring any liability, costs, or further obligations to the other party or any third party. 2. Term. BURLINGAME shall purchase the CITY Allocation once on the Effective Date of the agreement, at a purchase price of $0.30 per $1.00 of CITY Allocation Credits. Page 1 3. Payment of Acquisition Price. Within thirty (30) business days of the Effective Date, BURLINGAME shall make the payment to SARATOGA in the amount of One Million Two Hundred Eight Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-nine Dollars and Eighty Cents ($1,208,329.80) for the purchase of Four Million Twenty-seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-six Dollars ($4,027,766.00) in currently available CITY Allocation credits. The calculated payment amount of One Million Two Hundred Eight Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-nine Dollars and Eighty Cents ($1,208,329.80) shall be known as the "Acquisition Price." Payment shall be made in immediately available funds via check or wire transfer to an account designated by SARATOGA. The Acquisition Price shall constitute full consideration for the transfer and assignment of the CITY Allocation. 4. Transfer and Assignment of City Allocation. Within five (5) business days of SARATOGA's receipt of the Acquisition Price from BURLINGAME, SARATOGA shall deliver a written request to PG&E, with a copy to BURLINGAME, making a formal request to transfer and assign the CITY Allocation, for which payment was made at a rate of $0.30 for each $1.00 credit, to and for the benefit of BURLINGAME. SARATOGA shall cooperate in good faith with BURLINGAME to provide any additional documentation or information that is reasonably requested by PG&E to complete the transfer. In the event that PG&E is unable to complete the transfer, SARATOGA shall return Acquisition Price to BURLINGAME within ten (10) business days of PG&E's notification to SARATOGA that it is unable to complete the transfer. 5. Representations. BURLINGAME acknowledges and agrees that it has conducted its own investigation as to the applicability and transferability of CITY Allocation for use in BURLINGAME projects. SARATOGA has not made any representation or warranty to BURLINGAME with respect to same. The actual use of CITY Allocation by BURLINGAME shall be subject to the rules and procedures adopted by PG&E, the California Public Utilities Commission, and such other conditions or requirements as are set forth in the Public Utilities Code. 6. Indemnification. BURLINGAME shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to SARATOGA), and hold harmless SARATOGA, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors, and attorneys, from and against any and all demands, claims, actions, causes of action, damages, losses, liabilities, or expenses of any nature whatsoever, including those for reasonable attorney's fees, arising from the use of CITY Allocation in connection with the construction of any BURLINGAME project. BURLINGAME'S indemnification of SARATOGA from such claims and demands arising from the use of CITY Allocation shall apply regardless of the merit or outcome of any such claim or suit, and regardless of whether the nature of such claim or suit is administrative, judicial, or legislative. 7. Acknowledgement. BURLINGAME acknowledges that it has read Section 6, pertaining to BURLINGAME'S indemnification of SARATOGA, and fully understands its terms. BURLINGAME acknowledges, knows, and understands that it is signing the MOU freely and voluntarily. Page 2 8. Termination for Breach. In the event that either Party is in breach of its obligations as set forth in this MOU, then the non -defaulting Party shall have the right to terminate this MOU on ten (10) business days' written notice to the defaulting Party unless the default is cured within the notice period. Upon termination for breach, the non -defaulting Party may exercise any right or remedy which it may have under applicable law. If BURLINGAME has paid the Acquisition Price to SARATOGA and the CITY's Allocation has not been transferred to BURLINGAME at the time that this MOU is terminated pursuant to this Section 8, SARATOGA will, within ten (10) business days of the termination, return that Acquisition Price to BURLINGAME . 9. Notices. All notices to be given pursuant to this MOU shall be delivered in person, by registered or certified U.S. mail (return receipt requested), or by commercial overnight delivery and shall be effective upon receipt. Notice may further be given by electronic means, provided, however, that such notice shall not be deemed effective unless it is acknowledged in writing by the recipient of such notice. All notices shall be sent and addressed to the representative of the Party that signs this MOU on behalf of the Party. 10. Headings. Headings used in this MOU are for reference purposes only and shall not be considered in construing this MOU. 11. Authority to Enter MOU. Each person executing this MOU on behalf of the Parties represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this MOU on behalf of SARATOGA or BURLINGAME, and that this MOU is binding on SARATOGA and BURLINGAME in accordance with its terms and conditions. 12. Binding Effect. This MOU shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties hereto and their representative heirs, successors, and assigns. 13. No Assignment. No Party shall assign or transfer, by operation of law or otherwise, any or all of its rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the other Party and formal written modification. 14. No Third -Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed to create any rights in third parties, and the Parties do not intend to create any such rights. 15. Modification. This MOU may be modified or amended only by a writing duly authorized and executed by SARATOGA and BURLINGAME. 16. Governing Law and Venue. This MOU shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and any action brought relating to this MOU shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of San Mateo or Santa Clara unless transferred by court order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 394. Page 3 17. Compliance with Applicable Law. Each Party shall, at its own cost and expense, comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations, and requirements of all governmental entities, including federal, state, county, or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted. 18. Waiver. A waiver by either Party of any breach of any term, covenant, or conditions contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character, unless specifically stated in writing. 19. No Party Deemed to be Draftsperson. The terms of this MOU shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used, and shall not be construed for or against either Party by reason of the authorship of the MOU or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 20. Severability. If any term or portion of this MOU is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this MOU shall continue in full force and effect. 21. Attorney's Fees. In the event of any dispute or legal action arising under this MOU, the prevailing Party shall not be entitled to attorney's fees. 22. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 23. Entire MOU. This MOU contains the entire agreement between BURLINGAME and SARATOGA relating to the services, rights, obligations, and covenants contained herein and assumed by the Parties respectively. Any prior or other agreements or representations between BURLINGAME and SARATOGA regarding those matters are null and void unless expressly set forth in this MOU. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated in the MOU is binding on any of the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BURLINGAME and SARATOGA have executed this Memorandum of Understanding effective on the date and year first herein above set forth. CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 By: Lisa K. Goldman City Manager Date: Page 4 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 By: James Lindsay City Manager Date: Attest: By: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer Debbie Bretschneider City Clerk City Clerk Approved as to form: By: Kathleen Kane City Attorney 1297777.2 By: Richard Taylor City Attorney Page 5 fida HOME Home for All Steering Council Meeting Thursday, September 24, 2020 8 — 9:30 a.m. FOR ALL Zoom SAN MATEO COUNTY Steering Council Members: Supervisor Carole Groom, Supervisor Don Horsley, Donna Colson, Jack Matthews, Laura Parmer-Lohan, Nancy Magee, Rhovy Lyn Antonio, Rosanne Foust, Nevada Merriman, Nancy Magee, Seamus Murphy, Ron Collins, Rich Garbarino Staff: Armando Sanchez, Caleb Smith, Danielle Lee, Effie Verducci, Ellie Dallman, Jackie Nunez, Pat Brown, Peggy Jensen, Ray Hodges, Shireen Malekafzali, Christina Falla, Janneth Lujan, Ray Hodges, Carrie Dallman, Judah Tolmasoff Jessica Stanfill Mullin Home for All Update Staff shared that Home for All has published a Technology Tools for Virtual Engagement resource document that is available for cities and other organizations on the H4A website. This document was a collaborative effort between Home for All and SMC Health Policy and Planning. Staff also shared the Home for All's proposed Fall 2020 Priorities: • Communication support for cities to prepare for messaging about RHNA • Continued support to cities and community partners around virtual community engagement • Innovative policies modeled after failed state bills • Virtual event to share County's short- and long-term housing resources • Nexus between housing and homelessness — H4A will coordinate with County recovery initiative and vulnerable population task force Staff provided updates on the work of active Home for All Task Forces: • Second Unit Task Force: 392 permits have been issued for second units in 2019, an increase of 50% over 2018. Despite shelter in place, early application numbers suggest that we will see even more second unit permit applications this year than in 2019. Loan program in EPA to launch January 2021. Second Unit website and calculator being updated. San Mateo Credit Union Second Unit Loan Program is live. Some participants of the Home for All/Hello Housin One Stop Shop Pilot are already in the construction stage. • Educator and Workforce Housing Task Force: exploring a survey for housing needs for municipal employees • Housing Funding Task Force: met four times to strategize around pressing housing funding opportunities that have come up; two applications have been submitted seeking funding The Department of Housing shared the following updates: • Midway Village Affordable Housing Project: 150 units of existing affordable housing at Midway Village in Daly City owned by the Housing Authority on 12 acres of land will be redeveloped to increase density 150-550 (add 400 new units to the site) — project has been entitled and last steps of financing are underway, construction to begin next spring • Project Homekey is a follow up to Project Roomkey which leased hotel rooms for folks at highest need to developing COVID-19. The State is working on a program that would facilitate uisition of hotels for housi • Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) 8.0: The County awarded $33.7 million for affordable housing through the fund this year. Steering Committee Members provided the following feedback: • Suggestion to look at using hotels as an opportunity to increase housing stock when assessing innovating housing policies; question about need to rezone hotels to residential; • Concern regarding lack of infrastructure such as schools near hotels, and converting hotels means loss in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue • Suggestion to consider how the existing taxation structure precludes providing housing • There are many structural reasons why housing is not currently an attractive option from a land use option; Prop 15 could help change that to allow local governments to receive types of funds they need to do infrastructure in a more straight forward way, so that cities could rely less on Transient Occupancy Tax revenue; gain on property tax side, and potentially loose on commercial tax side; there continue to be ways that taxation structure preclude us to provide housing even though something might be a suitable home Proposed Home for All Messaging Refresh Staff reviewed current outreach information which has become stale in some ways due to COVID-19, and proposed a new framing for consideration by the group: • To date, messaging has focused on closing the jobs -housing gap; RHNA numbers for very low, low moderate and above moderate; highlighting the face that 60% of the workforce commutes into SMC; the message was that new housing requires thinking creatively about funding, innovative housing policies, land, and community support • The proposed messaging refresh would focus on the community and its interconnectedness, that housing is a value to the community (what impacts one of us impacts all of us. There would be five key points to lift the need for housing: o Jobs -housing ratio; o Housing at all income levels; o Safe and healthy housing; o Housing for homeless; and o RHNA goals. Steering Council members generally agreed there is a need to refresh Home for All messaging, and shared the following comments: • Need for new and updated data to shape Home for All message (website shows 2014) • Desire for data driven analytics — builders can't pencil out since rents are decreasing, and costs are increasing; market shock has not impacted construction costs (Area median income, average rents, etc.) • Need to address emerging narrative related to housing that COVID-19 has decreased desire to live in multifamily housing for health concerns • Need to recognize what is happening in the real estate market — seeing rents come down and vacancies going up • Increasing interest in ownership opportunities • Suggestion to address climate change in messaging, with proximity of jobs to housing • Suggestion that it is important to pay attention to how Home For All talks about the jobs - housing imbalance (i.e. if we are tracking present number of jobs, we should compare it to the current number of housing units vs including units that are in the pipeline); either both should be current or both should be oroiections — should both be aresent OR aroiected SMC Recovery Initiative Presentation Staff presented the San Mateo County COVID-19 Recovery Initiative Report which outlines recommendations to recover from COVID-19 and build a better future, advancing equity and inclusion. The Recovery Initiative has used a structure similar to Home for All's approach - a coordination council, two advisory groups (focused on communication and equity), and five recovery initiative committees (public health, economic recovery, education and childcare, vulnerable population support, community infrastructure), and includes representatives from 18 different cities and 40+ community -based organizations. Effects of COVID-19 are widespread and have increased social, economic and health disparities. Children and families are challenged, there is increased unemployment, and businesses are struggling. The Equity Advisory Group created an equity guiding statement and questions that will help operationalize equity, as it is paramount to a healthy recovery and healthy reopening. The Committee identified 125 recommendations in nine focus areas: • Reduce the spread of COVID-19 • Bridge the digital divide • Support distance learning and out -of -school care • Provide quality, safe and affordable child care • Meet the essential needs of the County's most vulnerable populations • Prepare the workforce for new and future jobs • Support local businesses, community -based organizations and nonprofits • Promote mental health and wellness • Provide safe public and active transportation Next steps for implementation include sharing and affirming recovery initiative recommendations and the implementation plan with lead organizations. Progress in the 9 focus areas will be tracked through a public facing website. Home for All Steering Council members expressed appreciation for the update and support for the recovery initiative. Next Steering Council meeting: Thursday, November 19, 2020 on Zoom.