HomeMy WebLinkAbout1611 Adrian Road - CEQA DocumentCITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
� ;, �.
: , �
'r m
� ,
4�wa�wt�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
PH:(650)558-7250
FAX:(650)696-3790
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: Interested Individuals From: Citv of Burlinqame
Countv Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Department
Planninq Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-545P)
Project Title: Indoor Badminton Facility
Project Location: 1611 Adrian Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to operate an indoor badminton facility (commercial
recreation use) at 1611 Adrian Road, zoned RR. The existing 64,094 SF office/warehouse building would
be divided into two tenant spaces, one to be occupied by QFCO, Inc. (office/warehouse use) and the
other space to be occupied by the proposed indoor badminton facility. The proposed indoor badminton
facility would be 40,419 SF in area and would contain 2,085 SF of office, 493 SF of retail, 1,765 of
storage and 36,076 SF for the indoor badminton courts and associated activities including a lounge,
children's play zone, stretching zone and restrooms. Sixteen (16) courts are proposed for the badminton
facility.
In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
notice is hereby given of the City's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed
above. A mitigated negative declaration is a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial
study has identified potentially significant effect on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans
or proposais made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial
study are released for public review would avoid effect or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in the light of
the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on
the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the
basis of an Initial Study and mitigations, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon the
environment. The City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available
for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010.
As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and
begins on Mav 23, 2007. Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the tentatively
scheduled public hearing on June 11, 2007. Persons having comments concerning this project, including
objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, are
invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing
to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division. Pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public
comment period described above.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Conditional Use Permit
and Parking Variance for a commercial recreation use (indoor badminton facility) and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project has been tentatively scheduled for June 11, 2007 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Posted: Mav 23, 2007
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
APN:
Indoar Badminton Facility
City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Bill Meeker, Community Development Director
(650) 558-7250
Parcel with an address of 1611 Adrian Road, Burlingame,
California
Harry Tan
1153 Rickover Lane
Foster City, CA 94404
Industrial & Office Use
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan: Industrial &
Associated Office Use — Auto Row Overlay District
RR
026-141-020
8. Description of the Project: The applicant is proposing to operate an indoor badminton facility
(commercial recreation use), Bay Badminton Center, Inc., at 1611 Adrian Road, zoned RR. The existing
64,094 SF office/warehouse building would be divided into two tenant spaces, one to be occupied by QFCO,
Inc. and the other space to be occupied by the proposed indoor badminton facility. QFCO would reduce
their space to 23,675 SF (19,435 SF of warehouse and 4,240 SF of office). The proposed indoor badminton
facility would be 40,419 SF in area and would contain 2,085 SF of office, 493 SF of retail, 1,765 of storage
and 36,076 SF for the indoor badminton courts and associated activities including a lounge, children's play
zone, stretching zone and restrooms. Sixteen (16) courts are proposed for the badminton facility. The office
space for the badminton facility would be on the ground floor. The badminton facility would also use
several rooms on the second floor (1,232 SF) for storage.
There are no changes proposed to the exterior of the building with the exception of adding new disabled-
accessible ramps at the front and rear of the building. Interiar remodeling includes demolishing existing
walls on the ground floor which are not needed for the proposed badminton facility. A new full height, one-
hour fire rated wall is proposed in the existing warehouse to separate the proposed badminton facility and the
QFCO, Inc. warehouse use.
With this application, the on-site parking supply will be increased from 63 to 107 parking spaces (100
unistall spaces (8'-6" x 18') + 7 disabled-accessible spaces). Based on parking ratios established in the
zoning code for commercial recreation, office, warehouse, and storage uses as proposed, a total of 225
parking spaces are required for the proposed badminton facility and office/warehouse tenant (34 parking
spaces for the office/warehouse tenant + 191 parking spaces far the badminton facility). A parking variance
is required for 118 spaces (107 on-site parking spaces provided where 225 parking spaces are required based
on commercial recreation and office/warehouse/storage parking ratios) and for parking space dimension (8'-
6" x 18' uninstall parking space dimension proposed where 9' x 20' standard parking space dimensions are
required).
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is relatively level and measures 2.65 acres (115,850 SF) in
area. It is located in a developed industrial area and is surrounded by light industrial, manufacturing and
office/warehouse uses. The site is bordered by U.S. Highway 101 to the north and a drainage right-of-way to
the south. Adjacent uses to this site include an office/warehouse building and recreational
vehicle/motorcycle sales/repair. The surrounding area is zoned RR and is planned for warehouse,
distribution, and manufacturing uses. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan identifies this as an
area to provide opportunity for a centralized area for automobile sales and service with reasonable access and
optimum visibility from US 101 and to provide areas for commercial and service uses.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: A building permit will be required from the City of
Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division, for interior demolition and
remodeling and to construct new disabled-accessible ramps at the front and rear of the building. National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) guidelines and San Mateo County Pollution Program Best
Management Practices shall be required to be followed for any construction activities and for future
management of the site.
�
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the followin ages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Hydrology & Water Noise Agricultural Resources
Quality
Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of
Significance
X Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impacP' or "potenrially significant unless
miti�ated" a impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mirigarion measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because al]
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
- 5 23
ill Meeker, Community Development Director Date
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than �o
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues l;nless Impact
Mitigation
Incurporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regularion
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program 1,2 X
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the puipose of avoiding or
nutigativg an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,13 X
community conservation plan?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? 1,3 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating 3 X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substanrial adverse �,6,7 X
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 5,7 X
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a lrnown fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,7 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5,6,7 X
iv) Landslides? 5,6 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,5,8 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 1,5,6 X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 5,6,7 X
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substanrial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 1,5 X
tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1 X
�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
blitigation
lncorporated
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that thece would 1,8,15 X
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in substantia] erosion or
siltarion on- or off-site? 1,8 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or 1,8 X
river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which �vould result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or 1,8 X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
� Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,8 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 1,8,9 X
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would 1,8,9 X
impede or reduect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the 1,8,9 X
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundarion by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,8 X
5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,10 X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1,10 X
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,10 X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,10 X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,10 X
people?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than `�
SigniGcant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
[ncorporated
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. W"ould the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substanrial in relation to the 1,2,8, X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e, result 19
in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? 12,19 X
c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 8,11 X
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp 2,8 X
curves or dangerous intersecrions) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 8,17 X
� Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,8,19 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,8 X
altemative transportation (e.g., bus hunouts, bicycle racks)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish 1,8,13,
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 20 X
b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,13 X
other sensitive natural communiry identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but 1,13 X
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
� removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 1,13 X
resident or mib atory fish or wildlife species or with established
narive resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,2,8 X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
� Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1,8 X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
[ssues Unless [mpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
8. MINERAI, RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 1,5 X
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important minera]
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific 1,� X
plan or other land use plan?
9. HAZA.RDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? 1,8 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the envuonment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 1,8 X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 1,8 X
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 14 X
65962 S and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public 1,11 X
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
� For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 X
the project area?
g) Irnpair irz�plementation of or physically interfere �vith an adopted 1,8,17 X
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 1,8,17 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 1 X
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 1,8 X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 1 X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than �o
Significant Signiflcant Significant Impact
Issucs Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,8 X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 11 X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
� For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 1 X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substanrial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governrnental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of whicb could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,17 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools'? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater trearinent requirements of the applicable 1,15,16 X
Regional Water Qualiry Control Board?
b) Require or result in tbe construction of new water or wastewater 1,15,16 X
treatment facilities or expansion of existing faciliti�s, tbe
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of etcisring facilities, the construction of 1,15 X
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 1,1� X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a deternunation by the wastewater trearinent provider ],15 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing committnents?
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient pernutted capacity to 1 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1 X
related to solid waste?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than vo
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues [;nless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpora[ed
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,8 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 1,8 X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,8 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,8 X
adversely affect day or nighttime views 'vi the area'?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,8 X
historical resource as defined in'15064.5?
b) Cause a substanrial adverse change in the significance of an 1,8 X
archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5'?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,8 X
or site or unique geological feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,8 X
formal cemeteries?
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,8 X
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recrearional facilities or require the 1,8 X
construcrion or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In deternuning whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode] (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prune Familand, Unique Farmland or Farmland of 1 X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other chan�es in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X
to non-agricultural use?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources so�r�e5 Potentially roce�c;auy- �ess Tna� no
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
vlitigation
Incorporated
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualiry of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or anirnal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 1 X
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 which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
ind'uectly? 1 X
10
Initial Stucly Summa�y 1611 Adrian Road
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 The Cih� of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 — Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2006 edition.
3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2002.
4 2002 Census
5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San F��ancisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, Revised 1981.
6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibiliry in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, Califomia,
1972.
7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Curnulative Damage Pote�ttial fi�om Em•thc/uake Ground Sl�nking, U.S.G.S. Map MF,
San Mateo County: Califomia, 1987.
8 Plans date stamped March 22, 2007.
9 Map ofApproximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance
Maps, September 16, 1981
10 BAAQMD CEQA CUlD�'GINES, Assessing tlze Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995
ll San Mateo Counry Coniprehensive Ai�port Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994
12 San Mateo Cotmty Congestion Mnnagenzent Pi-ogram, 1997
13 Map ofAreas of Special Biological Importance, San� F��ancisco and San Mateo Coi�nties, California, State Department
of Fish and Game
14 State of California Haza�•rtous Waste and Substcznces Sites List, April 1998
15 City of Burlingame, Engineering Memo dated December 15, 2006.
16 City of Burlingame, NPDES Memo dated December 18, 2006.
17 City of Burlingame, Fire Depamnent Memo dated December 18, 2006.
18 City of Burlingame, Traffic Engineer Memo dated January 25, 2007
19 Traffic and Parking Study, prepared by CHS Consulting Group, dated April 18, 2007
20 North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, 2004
11
Initial Study Surnmmy 1611 Adrian Roa�l
Land use and Planning Summary: Less than significant impact. The applicant is proposing to operate an
indoor badminton facility (commercial recreation use), Bay Badminton Center, Inc., at 1611 Adrian Road,
zoned RR. The existing 64,094 SF office/warehouse building would be divided into two tenant spaces, one to
be occupied by QFCO, I�ic. and the other space to be occupied by the proposed indoor badminton facility.
QFCO would reduce their space within the building to 23,675 SF (19,435 SF ofwarehouse and 4,240 SF of
office). The proposed indoor badminton facility would occupy 40,419 SF and would contain 2,085 SF of
office, 493 SF of retail, 1,765 of storage and 36,076 SF for the indoar badminton courts and associated
activities including a lounge, children's play zone, stretching zone and restrooms. Sixteen (16) courts are
proposed for the badminton facility. The office space for the badminton facility would be on the ground floor.
The badminton facility would also use several rooms on the second floor (1,232 SF) for storage.
The project site is in an urban area, surrounded by light industrial facilities and office/warehouse buildings.
The General Plan designates this site as Industrial — Office Space. The site is located within Subarea A4,
Adrian Road Auto District, of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Area Plan. The site is designated
Industrial — Industrial and Office Space by the Specific Plan and zoned RR (Rollins Road). This subarea is
targeted to establish a new center for automobile sales and service, although it may continue to be used for
typical industrial uses including airport-related industries, food preparation, fabrication, commercial
recreation, commercial food preparation/processing and similar light industry. The project would require a
Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use in the RR zoning distnct.
Population and Housing Summary: No impact. This site and the surrounding area are planned for light
industrial uses. Commercial recreation uses are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. There is no
residential development in the area. Because the site is presently occupied by an office/warehouse use and the
proposed commercial recreation use will replace an existing office/warehouse use within an existing building,
the project would not generate sufficient new employment that it would have a direct impact on housing
demand in the immediate area.
Geologic Summary: No impact. The site is flat and located in an urban setting which has been developed
with industrial and office uses for about fifty years. There is no new construction proposed with this project.
There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at present, since the interior remodeling for
the badminton facility use will comply with current California Building Code seismic standards. The site is
approximately two miles from the San Andreas Fault.
Water Summary: No i»ipact. This proposal does not increase the envelope or size of the existing building.
The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate
capacity to serve the existing building. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street.
Approximately 200 SF of impervious surface paving will be added at the rear of the site for addition on-site
parking. This added impervious surface will cause a slight increase in storm water runoff, but is considered
insignificant given the size of the lot. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the state-
mandated water conservation program, although water conservation measures as required by the City will be
met.
Air Quality Summary: No impact. No objectionable odors or alteration in air movement, moisture,
temperature or change in local or regional climate is anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed indoor
badminton facility. There will be increase in vehicle trips to and from the site as compared to existing
conditions. However, any change in emissions generated as compared to emissions generated by all
12
Initial Study Summar}� I6/ 1 Adrian Roact
development in Burlingame is insignificant. The site is within walking distance of the Bay Area Rapid Transit
system (BART). This parcel is zoned for light industrial and commercial recreation uses and the proposed use
will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. No objectionable odors or
alteration in air movement, moisture, temperature or change in local or regional climate is anticipated to occur
as a result of this proposal.
Transportation/Circulation Summary: Potentially Significant Impact. Adrian Road parallels U.S.
Highway 101 and is located on the west of U.S. 101. The proj ect site can be accessed from Millbrae Avenue
and Broadway using Rollins Road. Adrian Road is a two-lane street with primarily industrial uses. It begins
at Rollins Road in Millbrae in the north, and dead-ends south of David Road in Burlingame in the south.
Rollins Road connects to Millbrae Avenue at the north end and to Broadway at the south end. Both Millbrae
Avenue and Broadway provide access to U.S. 101. The average daily traffic volume along Rollins Road is
approximately 14,000 to 15,000 vehicles.
Because the proposed badminton facility creates an intensification of use on this site, there is an increase in
the number of parking spaces required. The existing 64,094 SF office/warehouse building is served by 63 on-
site parking spaces. The site with the existing office/warehouse use is non-conforming in parking (63 parking
spaces provided where 85 are required).
With this application, the on-site parking supply will be increased from 63 to 107 parking spaces (100 unistall
spaces (8'-6" x 18') + 7 disabled-accessible spaces). However, based on parking ratios established in the
zoning code for commercial recreation, office, warehouse, and storage uses as proposed, a total of 225 parking
spaces are required for the proposed badminton facility and office/warehouse tenant (34 parking spaces for the
office/warehouse tenant + 191 parking spaces for the badminton facility). Therefore, a parking variance is
required for 118 spaces (107 on-site parking spaces provided where 225 parking spaces are required based on
commercial recreation and office/warehouse/storage parking ratios) and for parking space dimension (8'-6" x
18' uninstall parking space dimension proposed where 9' x 20' standard parking space dimensions are
required).
CHS Consulting Group prepared a traffic and parking study for the proposed indoor badminton facility, dated
April 18, 2007. The purpose of the study was to examine the potential traffic and parking impacts from the
proposed badminton facility at this site. Because the badminton courts occupy a large area for a limited
number of players, the parking requirement of one space for each 200 SF of floor area established for
commercial recreation uses may not be appropriate. The parking study is provided to examine the actual
parking demand for similar facilities in the area.
Trip Ge�:eration — Existii:g Use: The study notes that the existing office/warehouse business is a
wholesale operation and has seven employees. It is not open to the public. On a typical weekday, there is
a demand for nine parking spaces (seven spaces for employees and two spaces for delivery trucks).
Planning staff would note that the existing office/warehouse business may eventually be replaced with a
use which requires the 34 parking spaces required by the zoning code. The parking analysis assumes the
warehouse space will use the required 34 spaces.
Trip Ge�:eration — Proposed Uses: The study provides estimated number of employees and players by
time of day for weekdays and weekends, including both the existing office/warehouse use and the
proposed badminton facility. The study notes that the average stay for a badminton player is one hour or
13
Initial Study Surnrnary
161I Adr•ian Road
less, but that the study is based on one and a half hours to accommodate parking turnover time for players.
In addition to the typical weekday/weekend activities, two tournaments are expected to occur each year,
generally on weekends. Spectators are expected to attend the tournaments, but not during typical
activities. Since the badminton facility would not open until 9:30 a.m., the proposed project would not
cause any increase in the AM peak hour traffic volumes (typically 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.). The Traffic
Analyzer, prepared for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, identifies the AM peak period as
7:00 a.m. to 9 a.m. and the PM peak period as 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The traffic study indicates that the
AM peak hour within that period is 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and the PM peak hour is 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
All trips during the AM peak hour would be generated by seven office/warehouse employees (existing)
and two badminton employees.
During the weekday morning period from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., the badminton facility would generate a
maximum of 40 vehicle trips, 20 inbound and 20 outbound, assuming the worst-case condition (all
badminton players drive alone, none take public transit or carpool and all players stay for one hour only).
An additional three trips would occur just before 9 a.m., when two badminton employees and one coach
would arrive.
During the weekday afternoon period from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m., there would be a maximum of 60 vehicle
trips, 30 inbound and 30 outbound, assuming the worst-case condition. During the PM peak hour there
would be 34 vehicle trips, 16 inbound and 18 outbound (10 adult players, one coach and seven
office/warehouse employees).
The highest number of vehicle trips during the weekday would occur during the evening period from 6
p.m. to 11 p.m. It should be noted that the current office/warehouse business would not be open after 6
p.m. During the 6 p.m. to ll p.m. period there would be a maximum of 96 vehicle trips, 48 inbound and
48 outbound, assuming the worst-case condition. The heaviest period would be from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.
when 22 players would be present.
The study notes that weekend activity would be higher than that of a typical weekday. On Saturdays and
Sundays, there will be a total of 144 players using the facility each day compared to 98 players on a typical
weekday. During the 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. periods, there would be
59, 74 and 57 players using the facility, respectively. It should be noted that the current office/warehouse
business is not open on weekends.
In addition to the typical weekday/weekend activities, there would be two tournaments each year, one in
the spring and another in the fall, both of which would occur on a weekend (Saturday and Sunday). On
these two weekends, the facility would be closed for other users. Tournaments would include no more
than 60 individuals per tournament, of which 40 players would play singles on the first day and 60 players
would play doubles on the second day. Some of the players would participate in both singles and doubles
matches. Spectators are anticipated at the tournaments, but they would mostly be friends and family
members arriving with the tournament players in the same vehicle. The demand during a tournament
weekend would not be higher than a typical weekend demand. Therefore, there would be no significant
impact during the tournament weekends.
Traffic Impact Analysis: The study notes that because the facility opens at 9:30 a.m., the proposed project
would not generate any traffic impacts during the AM peak hour because there would be few additional
14
b2itial Study Summa�y
1611 A�Irian Road
trips generated during the AM peak hour (7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.). Therefore, the study focused on
potential impacts during the PM peak hour.
The study found that traffic generally flows well along Adrian Road and Rollins Road. The badminton
facility would add approximately 34 vehicle trips to Rollins Road during the PM peak hour (16 inbound
and 18 outbound). This would represent a L 1 to 1.5 percent increase over the current volume along
Rollins Road. Therefore, the study concludes that no significant traffic impacts are anticipated.
The study also analyzed intersection level of service (LOS) at the intersections of Rollins Road/Millbrae
Avenue and Rollins RoadBroadway for both Existing and Existing plus Project conditions during the PM
peak hour. Existing PM peak hour turning movement counts were taken on March 1, 2007 at these two
intersections. The Millbrae/Rollins intersection currently operates at LOS C and the Broadway/Rollins
intersection currently operates at LOS D during the peak hour. The study also points out that two
approaches currently operate at LOS E: the northbound left turn from Rollins Road to Millbrae Avenue at
the Millbrae/Rollins intersection; and the eastbound left turn from Broadway eastbound to Rollins Road
and southbound through at the Broadway/Rollins intersection. The study found that the proposed project
trips would not change the current LOS and would have minimum change to delays at these two
intersection and the existing LOS E approaches. Therefore, the study concludes that the proposed project
would not have significant traffic impacts at these two intersections.
Parking IrnpactAnalysis: Because the Institute ofTransportation Engineer's Parking Gener�ation Manual
contains no land use category of "Badminton Club", "Commercial Recreation", nor "Gym", the parking
demand analysis was estimated based on comparable uses in the Bay Area. A parking survey was
conducted at four known active badminton clubs in the Bay Area, including clubs in Sunnyvale, Fremont,
Milpitas and Menlo Park. Based on these facilities, the average midday parking demand during a typical
weekday is approximately 1.4 spaces per badminton court. During a typical weekday evening the average
parking demand is 4.3 spaces per court. Based on these ratios, the estimated demand for this site is 59
spaces during weekday midday and 107 spaces during weekday evening and weekend. This includes the
parking ratios established in the zoning code for the existing office/warehouse business to remain on the
site and for the office, warehouse, and storage uses for the badminton facility; the demand for 22 spaces
for the badminton courts (1.4 spaces per court x 16 courts) during weekday midday and 69 spaces (4.3
spaces per court x 16 courts) dunng weekday evening and weekends; and the demand for 3 to 4 spaces for
the badminton facility offices. Please see Table 1 below for a breakdown of parking demand.
Office/Warehouse Badminton Badminton Office Total
Weekda �nidday: 34 22 ' 3 59
Weekday eve�:i�:g 34 69 2 4 107
and weekend:
' 16 courts x 1.4 spaces per court dunng weekday midday = 22 spaces
2 16 courts x 43 spaces per court during weekday evening and weekends = 69 spaces
The study concludes that the proposed 107 parking spaces provided on-site should be sufficient to meet
the project parking demand.
Planning staff would note that based on the traffic and parking study, the 107 parking spaces provided on-
site will be sufficient for the proposed badminton facility. However, the office/warehouse business is only
15
Initial Stu�ly Surnmmy
l611 A�frian Roarl
open froin 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and closed on weekends, which adequately offsets the peak
operating days and hours of the badminton facility. The property owners have agreed to limit the days and
hours of operation of the current and future office/warehouse business to morning until 6 p.m. on
weekdays and no operation on weekends. Therefore, with mitigations the impacts on
transportation/circulation are considered less than significant.
Mitigations Measures:
• that while the badminton facility operates in this building, the current and future office/warehouse
businesses in this building shall only be open for business from morning until 6 p.m. on weekdays and
shall not be open on weekends; any changes to hours for the office/warehouse use shall require an
amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
• that there shall be a maximum of two tournaments per year at this facility; the tournaments shall only
be held on weekends (Saturday and Sunday) and shall be limited to a maximum of 60 players.
• that spectators who wish to attend the tournaments shall be encouraged to amve in the same vehicle as
the tournament player, shall amve by carpooling or taking public transportation and walking to the
facility.
Biological Resources Summary: No impact. The proposed indoor badminton facility will be located within
an existing building on a site that has been fully developed and already contains structures and paving.
California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), a federally listed Threatened species, is know to occur in
the project area within a freshwater drainage (North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan 2004). The
project site is located approximately 145 feet north of the Mills Creek tidal drainage channe] and
approximately 235 feet north of the Easton Creek tidal drainage channel. Although these off-site channels are
tidally influenced and do not provide optimal habitat, they could support red-legged frogs. There are no
existing animal habitats in the area that will be altered because there are no new structures proposed. No
native or non-native plant life exists on site.
When the use in a building is intensified, in this case from office/warehouse to commercial recreation, on-site
landscaping must be provided to current code standards. The RR zoning district regulations require that a
minimum of 10% of the total area of the property be landscaped and that a minimum of 60% of the front
setback be landscaped. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan encourages landscaping in the front
setback and 10% total site landscaping. A majority of the existing buildings in this area were built before the
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan was approved and this landscaping was required by code.
However, this site will comply with the minimum required on-site landscaping: 10.7% (12,452 SF) total on-
site landscaping proposed where 10% (11,585 SF) is the minimum required; 80.8% front setback landscaping
proposed where 60% (5,045 SF) is the minimum required. Eight existing Chinese Elm trees, located at the
front of the lot, will remain. Proposed landscaping enhancements include sun tolerant ornamental shrubs and
flowering perennials. There is no farmland in Burlingame.
16
Initi.al Sturly Sannrna�y 1611 Adrian Road
Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: No impact. The site will receive gas and electricity service from
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All gas and electric services are in place with adequate capacity to handle
the existing and proposed uses within the existing building on this site. The incrementa] use of energy to
serve the indoor badminton facility is insignificant. Substantial amounts of fuel will not be needed to serve
the uses within the building.
Hazards Summary: No Impact. The proposed badminton facility (commercial recreation use), which will be
located with an enclosed building, will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will
not interfere with any emergency response ar evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement.
The California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the
existing building are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. The site is not listed on the
State's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, nor is it listed on San Mateo County's Inventory of Fuel
Leak Sites.
Noise Summary: No impact. The ambient noise levels in this part of city are among the highest in the city
(over 65 decibels). The proposed project would be located in an existing building on a site which is adj acent
to U.S. Highway 101. In addition, the area is also within the foul weather take-off and landing patterns for
airplanes from San Francisco International Airport about 1/2 mile to the northeast (within the 65 dB CNEL
noise contour for airport runways 1 L and 1 R). The proposed use will not expose people to high noise levels
because it will operate within an existing enclosed building. The commercial recreation use is not considered
to be a sensitive use for noise impacts.
Public Services Summary: No Impact. The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the
provisions of other public services, since this is an urbanized area with adequately sized existing public
facilities in place. All existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can
accommodate the proposed use.
Utilities and Service Systems Summary: No impact. There are no changes proposed to the size of the
existing sewer line since there is minor increase in flow proposed with the addition of new restrooms and
showers. The sanitary sewer lateral will be required to be tested in accordance with City of Burlingame
standards. In addition, a sewer backwater protection certification will be required prior to issuance of a
building permit for the interior remodel. The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in
the area. The proposed project would not require water supplies in excess of existing distribution capacity,
would not require new or altered wastewater treatment or collection facilities, would not require new or
altered storm water drainage systems, and would not require new or altered solid waste disposal systems. The
wastewater treatment plant and existing water distribution and wastewater collection facilities have adequate
capacity to serve the project.
Aesthetics Summary: No impact. The project site is situated on the west side of the Highway 101 comdor
and north of the Easton Creek ChanneL It is bordered on the north side by Adrian Road and U.S. Highway
101 and on the south side by a paved drainage nght-of-way. The project site is located in a fully developed
industrial area. The existing buildings in the general area are industrial and office buildings, one and two
stories tall. There are no distant views from this site. The badminton facility is proposed to operate within an
existing enclosed building and there are no changes to the exterior of the building, with the exception of
adding code compliant disabled-accessible ramps at the front and rear of the building.
17
Initial Study Sun¢ma�y
16/ I Adria�z Road
Cultural Resources Summary: No impact. The site was land filled in the 1950's. There are no known
prehistoric or historic archeological sites at the location of the proposed indoor badminton facility, which
is proposed within an existing building.
Recreation Summary: No impact. Since the indoor badminton facility is proposed within an existing
building, the proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it
displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The site involved in
this project is not used for public recreational uses. The facility will provide private recreation opportunities
for area residents.
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. that while the badminton facility operates in this building, the current and future office/warehouse
businesses in this building shall only be open for business from morning until6 p.m. on weekdays and
shall not be open on weekends; any changes to hours for the office/warehouse use shall require an
amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
2. that there shall be a maximum of two tournaments per year at this facility; the tournaments shall only
be held on weekends (Saturday and Sunday) and shall be limited to a maximum of 60 players.
3. that spectators who wish to attend the tournaments shall be encouraged to arrive in the same vehicle as
the tournament player, shall arrive by carpooling or taking public transportation and walking to the
facility.
�:3