The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1811 Adrian Road - Environmental Document1811 A�RiaN Roa� INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT �CEQA� 1. Project Title: 1811 Adrian Road — Publ�c Storage Facility 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number 4. 5. Report Preparers: Project Location: 6. Assessor's Parcel Number: 7. Project Sponsor's Name and Address 8. General Plan Designation: 9. Zoning: 10. Description of Project: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner City of Burlingame 650.558.7256 Dudek Heather Martinelli, AICP Alejandro Goena 1811 Adrian Road Burlingame, California 025-169-050 Jim Fitzpatrick, Senior Vice President, Entitlements Real Estate Group, Public Storage 701 Western Avenue Glendale, California 91201 Industrial and Office Use North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan: Industrial — Industrial and Office Space (Auto Row Overlay District) RR (Rollins Road) —Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area The proposed 1811 Adrian Road project (proposed project) involves the conversion of an existing, vacant 80,377-square-foot office/warehouse building for use as a personal storage facility. The proposed project is located in the City of Burlingame (City), southwest of Highway 101, and south of Millbrae Avenue (Figure 1, Regional Map, and Figure 2, Aerial Map). The proposed conversion involves construction of a new 61,495- square-foot second floor within the existing building and modifications to the exterior of the building, as well as new paved walkways, additional paved parking spaces, and updates to landscaping. Initial5tudy 1811 Adrian Road 11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by a variety of commercial uses, including an existing Public Storage Inc. personal storage facility to the southeast, Highway 101 to the northeast, office buildings to the north, and a large paved parking lot for storage of vehicles associated with a rental car company and an automobile service center in the area (Figure 2, Aerial Map). 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The proposed project would require Planning Commission approval for conditional use permits and a parking variance. A building permit will be required from the City of Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Division. There is no building demolition involved with this project, so there is no permit required from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the conversion of an existing, vacant 80,377-square-foot office/warehouse building for use as a personal storage facility. As shown in Figure 1, Regional Map, the proposed project is located in the City of Burlingame; the project site is southwest of Highway 101, and south of Millbrae Avenue (Figure 2, Aerial Map). The proposed conversion involves construction of a new 61,495-square-foot second floor within the existing building and modifications to the exterior of the building. As shown in Figure 2, the project site currently contains two buildings, the 80,377-square-foot warehouse building at 1811 Adrian Road, and a 74,675-square-foot warehouse building at the rear of the site (1801 Adrian Road). The existing building at 1811 Adrian Road was most recently used as a warehouse (wholesale of import goods). The warehouse at 1801 Adrian Road is currently occupied by a Goodwill Industries International, Inc. facility. No changes are proposed to the building at 1801 Adrian Road. As shown on Figure 3, Site Plan, the proposed renovations would accommodate 436 storage units on the first floor and 692 storage units on the new second floor, for a total of 1,128 storage units in the self-storage facility. The proposed floor area on the site (including both buildings at 1801 and 1811 Adrian Road) would increase from 0.61 floor area ratio (FAR; 155,052 square feet) to 0.85 FAR (216,157 square feet) where 1.0 FAR (253,519 square feet) is the maximum allowed (a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for any industrial use that exceeds 0.50 FAR). Building Design: As shown on the proposed building elevations (Figure 4), fa�ade changes are proposed primarily along the front and left sides of the building. A new front office and merchandise area for the self-storage facility would be located at the front, left corner of the building. This new entry would be identified by a tower element with an aluminum storefront system, clear glazing, and a metal canopy. The overall height to the top of the proposed tower element is 35 feet above average top of curb. The project also includes adding a new loading area near the front, right corner of the building and would contain four loading spaces and five parking stalls. Access to this loading area would be through new vehicular entry off Adrian Road. The existing loading dock at the rear of the building would be eliminated and replaced with additional parking stalls. The existing loading dock along the left side of the building would be upgraded to include a covered loading area leading to a secured lobby with an elevator. E INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK � � �� t , Y L_` - �� , \ , f' � -�'" .�`� �� S� y' `'. ��J� ' �� , �;� ��, �, L ` 1 . -1 a�r• - � � � �i� �� :; �j •'r :. � 'r ,.��> .d��+ _ +d . �' �"Q'� �^ � _ _= , r�x� _ �m � �� ! � `�l� M� ' �} I . /":..�1Y'r�� ^� t }•' �^.'� `� I ,yp' vf .i '. "� . . " � f . ! I ` f ' `S ` . .... . f � �� .y � . • I F• � . f '?: �,g, • , li� _ :'*. � �. " . �.1 . . . A . ' ` '�i.- 76 �' � a . �:�i �t I��.�-s� .. ,� w. ��.a ��`� g 4��''�'�/ <�� a�,� �� .i�� -�� . +'� E �i a f.-� - .� •: c�. y i I Y�n �� 3 ^-� � . �� `. � _ � r,r � . . � � ..� .� �., � , � - � f �' � ' �' . �.r� '�1��-' ♦ `'a'_y F 'fi=+r �-�l / ". J_ .. ` jI�++�.l.4r_;Sw� . �l' `�y � .--� :. j •'` J �.yl ` I I �� ,1^ �'� / �� i •� �.j�(`� /��,\ �� ` I 1 t ' • ,t �\ . � ` � t� - - ��` L�fryY� � �� - !`� �.. � ♦ .��.�F' ��- . �l .� ,�\ � �C � `.� �` _ . . ' ..' % � � ,! _,. .r ,� � � i 'a .'� � _ . •.� '.<' s .. �'. ` r �� / , � c. i � / �� t �7 � /ro. �� , / ;�� ;�� a' '' t 'f ' � �� ` 4� �� , �• �� # � � � `•� •�'` `• f� ''O' w e .'p -�.. ��e'� �F ! - �� ` �' \ .�� .. � r��\'!�', \\ >�� v '��. � ✓/ i'• , , �/�i ; . �` t i.. \ � 1 � 'n �_ ' • / / > �' - � i � - ` � + .� ,_ ' �; ; , �' s ,�/`,.�. _� , ft�'��< ,'.� � . �i � ��i :�. . � l: � � ,�:� �''' -i�> -` .� i . /;j�_`;� ' , :� " '-�../`�; �'r,,,// � '^, ,�. ,'�..`�-r�'� ��. _,�, „ ' • �"� ,�F' `f - \ �, - . f� " '- , I`� C �i�::., ..�.- , ��`!�� .,\ ;�� R- j� � � . � . - . t%� �a �:. �• � � !' , ,.�� /y/� � d',�'� � � � � -� ,�� = �''�i `��, ..� �" �� . . . � - ' �� ;�:��` �,R` f `�,\, � \ °` � • � i,�, � �� h '. �� * r� , �� '- `-� ,� '�; ;: f � �'": , �''.�� '� ��:� , t � .. "_ � �'.� .� "d � � `,� - `ti.. _,��`_' I � � -� � � , %`� . � ` " �, fr �� . `� ; �"� � � xq /� �� ' ��'.. �� ; ` _✓� .` � , ;� �N ,. ,� !� .,� ✓, \� �.i., `, '�� ,^.�. � � �V�.y;,rl �\.b;�'�?£A�-. �' ��,` �J1 �`,�"�,\ �,v'�i � � � ` ' � `:.� . ��;' � � � �� .��. . � '� s :� \ ' ` � � �� 2. . T� `*�, �i �' � � � ' � ' � F r . ° _ ��y �i.^*� �` � � , _ • � ` /� `,��y v / �`'r�,�' ��> �'� `- '�I �� ,�` ', �'�.�. �� 21' y . '/�\ `.� i� ', ^ V t, � � �`f � � '�� `�� \ , ' • : r . � k ��(�}�� ,' � �ys'', . .` : '� �• •'�,� _•`�� r •. . •�;� - f�,. . -L� �'r�.' I+__ -. / i��-` �� ./ Y i � ?. ♦ ` . '�f,C_,� - �� y ��S" �' �' j � . �. � � .i%'.f ��.. ir �,_ � t� �'%'?. ��x'li �� 1�r j,'.r�9 > . � _ t .,-� • ( � `4 ..� . . //. ` . y~y� �� N: / r-- .. , � /'. '+y. ; � � ��.. "�'� . ;� • � �%� '� `� ` : � ,� ��^ � " I, z A�, �'c `' ��. e . ,�..�� .;,','�,�;� �,• . ;��'�,�1 ` � : ,... � .,. jt �v � ,,, ••,�!` lr.�- w�,'j<-�°,�'�;��; � � � f =i�;,, �r�- , /?,�•; .�ti �; `{�'� 44� ax``:%- '>`�'�` I� r ' Feel ��. _ . �� 1�1 �7 �:1 8908 SOURCE: Bing Map 2015 1811 Adrian Road � �� ;; `. • :,� ::q � Project Boundary FIGURE 2 Aerial Map INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . i :T _ _ _; _ ___ ___ ___ �oP�,�.�� .��.w.s � ,- . . � �rac�»rt - ui�'o.¢n•veo iurtaca.aln +ar� c.x .� ra�wen�o nrc mm�a�un ;. . � � � + . . ° l� . � � — _ � � � � ( � ]b�M 6Y uo- �!�, . M9t hnMp�,lq ' � " R`.� �{: t � l I _ � � � - I 1 . � �r I� "v�..�i' �1.`�'�.�•\��".�\.�.,�,,�k..�. ��\��.�' { T��;Rl:�R�� Y`�,��,,f�� t,. ! \ � � I � . . . .'�'�.\�.\.�i'�U��ilv.�i�:il7 � �� , . nuwem�.wvm�c � � � � r+o^aeeoaaire�wnn-� � �.I � � q I' , . , . izYne ioneie,uuv�n (v.� oa�x '� �� 1' .' y vw��«�.�. � ��.b�U��s�,.� �� i�.. 1-� �;` �:3'9'� � , , �ow.wH mar�u� Mww..rn... �`�i „ I e' , t= � I-1 . _'� p . . , y � e . . . . . aw , , , . , .�. i raz � � p �.a � V � �. � �-- a�fi , r' ;! _ ' I ;I Y..:w.�'�«"o.. . _ N;:... � _ I rworecrmrvn�ee I j "�� C71 \}(iaeeiq I �:� I. � , � . " , __._...__..__,.._, iBHAORIANROAD � � � � , �.enoivo eocns (BUiLDiNG TO BE REMODELED) � � � � }`��-- " ;n.» 'rr, PROPOSED OROSS �REA: � . � 'PiQ' g''�%�� y.�� FIRSTFLOOR.TA,�S.F. � I% A /✓ ,.� SECANO FLOOR = 66,90 $-F. �� .�.,..,.. -- � _ � �;��"�' �. -` `� �l e _�_ P ° ��'..:°.,,.r�,o �_ �� -� � , �q e 'i I' ..-_ a' ',��I A .� I - � � „m . . � maroaeoccuns , � � � Y� z� ' ,�� eE� / � �.m.wa�o,�.Fm,y � a , * �� 11 p ••^ . - ' �3> . .. . . . . _ .. I [nswax�rxn¢cA�na.�s�nowru .. f011NDWw :l' . ro�.��«�,�, �� 1 f �O.,r. � . 00[�fa.uovm !le. � `- 7 %/, . , � oMca a � � i--- .Ll-,� .�. i �vn � ra wimwv. :000a) � v" ' � 0 PEIUM � (tl.b )1 I I IXETw p Y 1 -'r ��.��m CorCt¢le : . I -. .._ ' _ _ .� � y 1 � 4: � 't __. . I �soEW�IrV; ��'� '+ �.'I'?,�� .�..`. rccrstl�aus •� � � ( 1 i� o e ¢Nm:� v °,� 1+, � �. . � ' j � ' IBO _I� n�0 � -,1i�! � -�i. S: ' E69'RGlMO6CWiNL11'tal � I � - ]�b � y.��_ I � �e - I - _ . . . .. . � ,.� _ �-''- � . . . . __ — , • : — — . aam+owucencw.ia � ' - v niaaMcnnnvco� aa •�......... :� � � � 6FNVC6T0lf(NOIQf.fFO�\ m�•.a••�•••••• ' A' vMIt.W/.PG � '': . e y �� , wwc � ��z..00nsPn�.-r � 1 p — _. .'-' - --�- '- -- -- - — � � � -- - . . e . . w. �_� .. . ,l� , ..° :. .. � ._ .�_ �� rmre�crv.artns-wr�..00swaa�e..�uK �0° 'i ''�``� ADRIAN ROAD .N,�»,��Q� «M..��.w - •_ —_ L'�ry vnNw�r rnortc.co �u�ce�� _ ' _ _ �� _— � �0�5 M�� - EN.51'MG�FACE ..q,w�„s�,�A,N� ,� ^ .. �' TO RILLNfW�WAMM1 q �R � 1 � � � � e�mo e..�^rn�rutr p �cCEB9MlROUT ' n !t 1Ma � Ai � ie. 6 INO _ ��.... �� `��• .. ��' awcucrwo `4�0 `S' ' _ D U D E K SOURCE LARSANDERSEN&ASSOCIATES ING FIGURE 3 8908 Site Plan 1811 Adrian Road INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK : [4'J7 ELEVATION - =XIS7IMG e,�.�n!�e , � :., ;�. -,... � D U D E K �a�,��E �,,RS �N��FaSEN � �ss��,�-s ��: ssos x:� -� ,-s.Wr;,: �..... , �, .. ^� . � Y�Ifll ��ICflll/�III��i'll� �= � f � _ � �,��,�� ,.:.� . . „ .�,.. � . , a_ -�.,.. 1 `:��. .._ ; •.... , � ;� .� �.� 1,�1L � _l��r , ., I ie :u t Rs � � i�, � � ;-' J� �'��,� � � '. ��. �� - ._..,._. _�._�_ ..�..�n.._. .,. �- rnsr n rvnriora =ROFo.�rr, =^4"" 30U1 y tLtVA� OI� � tKI511fJG � � i nr� inni i i ll I -1;�--!� I_1-� �,... � / _._ ..., ::*..a�Y. .t�'F,:� .... —_ 1 ...M..�., . �,u i i� , i ,u � � i �_� J � ° � ��r�� _ , SJUTHEIEV�'O��PRG�OS'_D FIGURE 4 Site Elevations 1811 Adrian Road Initial Study 1811 Adrian Road Landscaping: The current site includes landscaping equivalent to 11.8% of the total site area consisting of trees, shrubs, and grass turf (Figure 5, Landscaping Plan). The minimum required landscape area for the RR (Rollins Road) zoning district is 10% of the total site area. The proposed project would include landscaping equivalent to 10.7% of the total site area or 27,191 square feet. Proposed site landscaping would include five new trees planted along the front property line (east side of the site). The new trees would be red maple (Acer rubrum) in conformance with the recommendations of the City of Burlingame Parks Supervisor/City Arborist. Off-Street Parking/Circulation: The City's Zoning Code requires one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for warehouse and storage uses and one parking space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area for retail uses. With the proposed project, the parking demand (including both buildings at 1801 and 1811 Adrian Road) is 218 parking spaces, which includes 139,329 SF of self-storage on the first and second floors (1:1000 SF parking ratio) and 1,655 SF of lobby/retail space (1:400SF parking ratio) at 1811 Adrian Road and 74,656 SF of existing storage space at 1801 Adrian Road. The project includes site improvements which will increase the total number of parking spaces on-site from 135 to 167 spaces where 218 spaces are required. Therefore, a parking variance is being requested for the difference of 51 parking spaces. Project Approvals: • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Personal Storage Service use in the Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area; • CUP to exceed 0.50 FAR for an Industrial Use (0.85 FAR proposed where 1.0 FAR is the maximum); • Parking Variance for number of parking spaces (167 total parking spaces provided where a total of 218 parking spaces are required for all uses on-site); and • Building Permit for construction of a new second floor within the existing warehouse building. 11 Initial Study 1811 Adrian Road Er�vironmental Impacts Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, invoiving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. � Aesthetics � Agriculture and Forestry � Air Quality Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions � Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation / Traffic � � �' Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Materials Mineral Resources � Public Services � Utilities/Service ❑ Systems Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 1. AESTHETICS Would the projed: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Significant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Significont Mitigotion Impact Incorporotion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less-Than- Significant Impoct No Impact ❑ � ❑ � � ❑ � ❑ Discussion a) No Impact. The proposed project is located along Adrian Road, which serves as a frontage road on the � west side of Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway). Adrian Road is not identified as a scenic route in the Scenic Roads and Highways Element of the City of Burlingame General Plan. Scenic vistas in the City are associated with San Francisco Bay and the Western Hills (City of Burlingame 1975). The project site is a flat, developed site surrounded by existing commercial and industrial buildings, and Highway 101. The proposed project would be constructed within an existing building and would not involve construction of any new structures that could impact scenic vistas; therefore, no impact would occur. No Impact. The portion of Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway) east of the project site is not designated as a State Scenic Highway; therefore, there would be no impact to scenic resources within a scenic highway (Caltrans 2015). 12 \ 1tlU1 AUNIAN KUAU ' LANDSCAPE LEGEND EXISTING PUBLIC STORAGE 1781 ADRIAN ROAD � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � NEW DROUGHT . � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � i TOLERANCEAREA r ;c��,�i� ;� CV� ___.: .� � _. f��'%�� - - - - - - - i . / � � 8 4 ' , �� r> � G�� „_ C) _ I J. �I'.�' ,� 4 �; �� ,^, � �� NEW DROUGHT �J TOLERANCEAREA � � , � �,� 0 � � � T �.: a kp� `� _ . ' _ _ _ ' _ _ . . — ii { 1 x_�o _ „ _ _ — _ f� — L � I w� � �f o q mI m m m m m ��7 f �� 1 - - �- -- j 4'-� � / I i• .. . `,P � i `� � _ li .1� .;� i �� m m i �� IC _�� ' �, � � � I� m o I m � � � { �; �k: �c - ;h. `� (E�RUB�EA �� TO REMAIN � . . m m m m m m Im r� �� - _ — � � ��' � �� A� , .� I i ) � �` ) � � EXISTING SHRUBS �- TO REMAIN EXISTING SHRUBS TO REMAIN � �r�', ^ � � �-�-�� J 0 . .; 4 � i L .. � ' � _ _._. __.. _ _ . .... . ..... _'___' ' ____"'_ '_'_'___ "_ __ ___ � ----_ . .------ �-----�----� - -- � ------ �, .. , , �v . �� . _ � � ✓l �� _ � ri� �4� � _. . _ . . � O � v Ci � � i �� NEW DROUGHT L - '��J ' �� O U� n � �� I, � TOLERANCE ARE I -gpg� � � O.�C� ��J� . — -- '� �J � � �_� � �� °n��o 0 0��' � �� -,, _�� ,��• �>�.��o • �� r�� ' � � � �j �'- -- � � � o� � �`� i �� ,�L \ Cc _ C .t� � �� . i _� _ � lc� � SY � ' ``' °� t's � t$ �' � C) _ ��,eY � �� zi� =% -.-.._ �C8 �Fk �� gy�ti NEWDROUGHT \ NEWDROUGHT I � - � n � �=' �5: �i� q�; =" �. � �� TOLERANCEAREA TOLERANCEAREA .. � . •: OO � �j . % % � : � b OO : : -- —�---. _ _.. __. .--_ ._ — _.. —_ . � �s _ �_ - _— " � � NEWACER RUBRUM (RED MAPLE) � � � NEW DROUGH\- - TREES - 24" BOX, TYP OF 5 TOLERANCEAREA ADRIAN ROAD SITE TO BE MULCHED WITH 3/8" - 1/2" GRAVEL (BRUBAKER-MANN "GOLD" OR AS APPROVED BY OWNER), MIN 1" THICK OR TO COMPLETELY COVER. �� HATCH AREA TO BE ENHANCED GRAVEL BLEND - GRAVEL ABOVE —� PLUS +/- 3" COBBLE - C08BLE TO ' EQUAL APPROXIMATELY 25% OF STONE MIX BY VOLUME. EDGE AROUND ENHANCED GRAVEL BLEND (HATCH AREA) TO BE PERMASTRIP ALUMINUM EDGING, 3/8" X 35" V-CUT, MILL FINISH, WITH MATCHING STAKES, BY PERMALOC. PLANT LEGEND SVM BOTANICAI COMMON SIZE �HT. BY WT.) QUAN' NAME NAME ��;� ._, DIANELLA �� ql TASMANICA FLA%LILLV 3-4FTTALL 54 � � VARIEGATA -��'� NANDINA 'NANA' AND �� ``^"S DOMESTICA 'NANA DWARF' Z3 FT X 23 FT 43 �i F� � � �{• �`�� ^ SALVIA COAST 3-5 FT X 3-5 FT 40 P � y�` � �� LEUCOPHYLLA PURPLE SAGE � �_� �^ � TEUCRIUM gUSH fRUTICANS 3FT J( 3 FT 53 � � � � 'COMPACTUM' GERMANDER � �6,. �r` ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE 20FT X 2 FT 5 SOURCE�. LARSANDERSEN &ASSOCIATES, MC. 4-15-15 FIGURE 5 D U D E K Proposed Landscape Plan 1811 Adrian Road INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 14 Initial Study 1811 Adrian Road c) Less Than Significant. The proposed project would alter the existing building located at 1811 Adrian Road to accommodate a second story within the existing building. The existing facade would be upgraded similar to the Public Storage facility located to the east of the site. As shown on the proposed building elevations (Figure 4), fa4ade changes are proposed primarily along the front and left sides of the building. A new front office and merchandise area for the self-storage facility would be located at the front, left corner of the building. This new entry would be identified by a tower element with an aluminum storefront system, clear glazing, and a metal canopy. The tower element would not exceed the maximum height limit of 35 feet. Some existing landscaping would be removed to accommodate walkways at the front left corner of the building as well as the new loading area at the front of the building. However, new landscaping is proposed along the left property line and at the rear of the building. Although the proposed project would alter the existing fa�ade of the building, it would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings because it is designed to be compatible in character, mass, orientation, and architectural style with structures in the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant. The project site is currently developed with warehouse uses that include existing sources of light and glare, and the site is located in an urban environment that includes existing sources of light and glare associated with nearby land uses. The proposed project would include exterior lighting along portions of the building and within the parking and loading areas. The project would be required to comply with exterior lighting regulations of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 18.16.030, which requires that the cone of light be kept entirely on the property and use of shielded light fixtures (City of Burlingame 2013). Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to light or glare. Sources Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2015. "California Scenic Highway Mapping System: San Mateo County." Accessed April 7, 2015. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/. City of Burlingame.1975. City of Burlingame General Plan, Scenic Roads and Highways Element. September 15, 1975. City of Burlingame. 2013. City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Title 25 — Zoning. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 15 Initial 1811 Adrian Road Significant or Less Than Potentially Signifitant with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Informotion Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) » Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ � a) No Impact. The proposed project site is located within a fully developed and urban area. As shown in the San Mateo County Important Farmland Map (DOC 2012), the site does not contain any prime or unique farmland or any farmland of statewide significance. b) No Impact. The proposed project site is zoned RR (Industrial) and is located within the Automotive Sales and Service Overlay, which prioritizes industrial and automotive sales and associated services and does not allow for agricultural uses. The project site is not within a Williamson Act contract. c) No impact. The project site does not contain any lands designated as farmland and would therefore not result in the conversion of farmland to other uses. Sources City of Burlingame. 2013. City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Title 25 — Zoning. DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2012. "San Mateo County: Important Farmland" [map]. 16 Initial Signifitant or Potentially Significont Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Less Than Significant with Less-Than- Mitigation Significant Incorporotion Impact No Impad 1811 Adrian Road 3. 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 quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ a) Less Than Significant. The proposed project is located within the San Francisco Bay air basin and is regulated under the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emissions sources and through its planning and review processes. The most recent plan developed in response to federal air quality standards is the 2005 Ozone Plan (BAAQMD 2006). The most recent plan responding to state standards is the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The Clean Air Plan provides an integrated control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter (PM), toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases (BAAQMD 2010a). Because the proposed project would not violate air quality standards or exceed emissions thresholds established by BAAQMD, as discussed in subsection b), the project would not conflict with any applicable air quality plan and would result in a less-than-significant impact. b) Less Than Significant. BAAQMD identifies and regulates a range of known air pollutants known as criteria air pollutants. If the San Francisco Bay Air Basin contains concentrations of any of these pollutants that exceed state or national standards, the BAAQMD considers the area to be in nonattainment for those pollutants. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently in nonattainment for both 1-hour and 8-hour ozone concentrations, as well as annual concentrations for both PMlo particulate matter and PMZ.S fine particulate matter, and 24-hour concentrations of PMlo particulate matter. BAAQMD regulates emissions by establishing a threshold for projects within the San Francisco Bay Area. If a project exceeds those thresholds, impacts are considered to be potentially significant and further action must be taken. BAAQMD has adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality guidelines (2010 BAAQMD Guidelines; BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an 17 Initial St 1811 Adrian Road existing or projected air quality violation. Compared with the previous set of guidelines adopted in 1999, the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines lower the level of pollutant emissions and health risk impacts that are considered a significant environmental impact. BAAQMD's adoption of the thresholds has been challenged in court. However, the litigation is procedural in nature and does not assert that BAAQMD failed to provide substantial evidence to support its adoption of these thresholds. Because the 2010 thresholds are more conservative than BAAQMD's prior thresholds, this impact analysis is based on the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate air pollutant emissions is necessary. The evaluation of the project in relation to the screening criteria is detailed as follows. Construction Related Emissions: The proposed project involves the construction of 61,495 square feet of space within an existing building for a total area of 216,157 square feet. Both the new construction and the final total square footage are below the BAAQMD screening criteria for a general light industry or warehouse use (259,000 square feet) (BAAQMD 2010b). Because the proposed project is below the threshold square footage in the BAAQMD Screening Criteria for construction-related emissions, impacts would be less than significant. Operational Emissions: After construction, the proposed project would consist of a total of 216,157 square feet of general light industrial use. The BAAQMD screening criteria identifies that the threshold of significance for this type of use is 541,000 square feet (BAAQMD 2010b). The proposed project would be well below the threshold for operational emissions; therefore, impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant. As described in Section 1.2 of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, "by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards." Therefore, the thresholds of significance developed by BAAQMD reflect the "emission levels for which a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable" (BAAQMD 2010b). A project with emissions below the threshold of significance would not make a considerable contribution to any cumulative impacts. Because the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD screening criteria and would therefore have emissions that are below the thresholds of significance, the project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant. BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located including residences, school playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. For the purposes of air quality impact assessment, the proposed project would not be considered a sensitive receptor since it consists of construction of a commercial personal storage facility. There are no sensitive receptors in the immediate area, and the proposed project would not result in the emission of significant pollutant concentrations. e) Less Than Significant. Land uses that pose potential odor problems include uses such as wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, composting facilities, and transfer stations. The project site would not host any such use and therefore would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Also, there are no existing odor sources in the vicinity of the project site that would impact future occupants of the project site. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to the emission of objectionable odors. iI� Initial Study Sources 1811 Adrian Road BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2006. BayArea 2005 Ozone Strategy. Adopted January 4, 2006. http://www.baaqmd.gov/^'/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2005% 200zone%20Strategy/adoptedfina I_voll.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010a. BayAreo2010C1eanAirPlan. September 15, 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/^'/media/ Files/Planning%20and%20Resea rch/Pla ns/2010%20CIea n%20Air%20PIa n/CAP%20Volu me%201%20%20 Appendices.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010b. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: Californio Environmental Quolity Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/�/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/ D raft_BAAQM D_C E QA_G u i d e I i n es_M ay_2010_F i n a I. as h x? I a=e n. 19 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information Sou�res): 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Wmuld the praject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? bj Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) J1 e) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion Significant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Signifitant Mitigation Impatt Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less-Than- Significant Impott ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1811 Adrian Road No Impoct �/ /1 /� �/ ►1 ►� a) No Impact. The project site is fully developed as a warehouse facility in an urban area. The site is not expected to support any candidate or special-status species or species identified for protection in local, regional, or national wildlife plans or policies or associated habitat for such species. � c) No Impact. The project site does not support any riparian habitat or any sensitive communities identified in local regional, state, or national plans or policies. No Impact. The proposed project site is fully developed and does not support any wetlands eligible for state or federal protection. d) No Impact. The proposed project site is located in a fully urbanized area and is surrounded by fully developed properties with commercial and industrial uses. The project site and vicinity are not expected to support wildlife migratory corridors or nursery sites. The construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to inhibit movement of any native wildlife species. 20 Iritial Study 1811 Adrian Road e) No Impact. As described in response a), the project would not involve any impacts to biological resources due to the developed nature of the site and surrounding areas. The proposed project includes on-site drought-tolerant landscaping along the perimeter of the site, in the parking lot and along the sides of the building. Proposed landscaping includes a variety of shrubs and groundcover, as well as five red maple trees that would be planted at the front of the site along Adrian Road. The proposed trees are recommended for the Adrian Road corridor by the City's Parks Supervisor/City Arborist. Therefore, no impacts due to conflicts with local policies for protection of biological resources would occur. f) No Impact. The project site is not located in an area subject to a local, regional or state Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the conservation goals and objectives of any such plans. Sources City of Burlingame. 2010. The City of Burlingome General Plan, as amended. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 21 Initiat Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: aj Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeologicalresource pursuantto §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? 1811 Adrian Road Significant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Less-Than- Significant Mitigotion Signijicant Impatt Incorporation Impa[t No Impoct � ■ � ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � 11 �1 �1 /1 ■ ■ ■ Discussion a) No Impact. The proposed project site is occupied by two existing warehouse buildings. Only one of the two buildings would be altered by the proposed project. This building, located at 1811 Adrian Road, has not been identified as eligible for listing on the California register of Historical Resources or the City of Burlingame Historic Resources Inventory. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any substantial change to a historic resource. b) c) d) Less Than Significant. The proposed project involves minor modifications to the exterior and construction of a new second floor within an existing building on a fully developed and previously disturbed site. The proposed construction activities and modifications would not include significant excavation, grading, or other ground disturbance that could lead to the discovery of unknown cultural or paleontological resources. Therefore impacts related to the potential discovery, or alteration of archaeological or cultural resources or human remains would be less than significant. 5ources City of Burlingame. 2010. The City of Burlingame General Plan, as amended. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 22 Initial Study Issues (ond Supporting Information Sources): 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, includingthe risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Significant or Less Thon Potentially Significont with Significant Mitigation Impoct Incorporation i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on � the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised�, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less-Than- Significant Impact /� ►1 /1 /� �I /� 1811 Adrian Road No Impact C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � a) i) Less Than Significant. The project site is not within an Alquist—Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone; however, it is located approximately 2 miles from the San Andreas Fault (California Geological Survey 2015). Since the project site is not located in an Alquist—Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone nor on or immediately adjacent to an active fault, fault rupture hazards associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. a) ii) iii) Less Than Significant. The project site is located in a seismically active region, and the project site could experience a range of ground shaking effects during an earthquake on one of the Bay Area faults. An earthquake on the San Andreas Fault could result in very strong ground shaking intensities. Ground shaking of this intensity could result in moderate damage and could also trigger ground failures caused by liquefaction, potentially resulting in foundation damage, disruption of utility service, and roadway damage. The project site is underlain by materials that can cause moderately high shaking amplification and is within an area considered by the Association of Bay Area Governments to have a very high susceptibility for liquefaction (ABAG 2015). The project proponent would be required to comply with all applicable building code regulations and standards to address potential geologic impacts including ground shaking and liquefaction associated with proposed improvements on the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 23 Initial Study 1811 Adrian Road a) iv) Less Than Significant. The project site is relatively flat and is not located on or adjacent to a hillside. Potential impacts associated with landslides or mudslides would therefore be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant. The existing buildings and paved parking areas on the project site currently cover approximately 89% of the site area; the remaining balance is landscaped. The proposed project would not involve any grading, excavation, or significant ground disturbance beyond activities related to renovations to the existing landscaping and some additional paving for new walkways and parking areas. In addition, soil erosion after construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans, as needed. The proposed project would therefore not result in activities that would contribute to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. c) d) Less Than Significant. As described above, the project site is relatively flat and does not have a history of landslides; however, the site is in an area of very high liquefaction susceptibility. The project would be required to be designed to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. The project would conform to the City's Building Code requirement that a site-specific soils report identify any potentially unsuitable soil conditions and incorporate design recommendations accordingly. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with subsidence or expansive, liquefiable, or collapsible soils. The project site is surrounded on all sides by flat topography, and lateral spreading of soils away from the site is not considered to be a concern. In addition, adherence to the requirements of the California Building Code would ensure the maximum practicable stability of the project site and would reduce the potential for lateral spreading and liquefaction to a less-than-significant level. e) No Impact. The existing buildings on the project site are connected to the City's sewer system, and the proposed project would also be connected to the City's sewer system. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to the use of septic systems or any other alternative wastewater systems. Sources ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2015. "Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps." Accessed April 8, 2015. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility. California Geological Survey. 2015. "Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps." Accessed April 8, 2015. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm. 24 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting lnformation SourcesJ: 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significont with Significant Mitigoiion Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1811 Adrian Road Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impoct � ❑ � ❑ a) Less Than Significant. In 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires reducing statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state's plan for meeting the reduction target is outlined in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Climate Change Scoping Pian (2008 Scoping Plan; CARB 2008). CARB's 2008 Scoping Plan fact sheet states, "This plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California's carbon footprint—toward a clean energy future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today's levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide [COZ] for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020" (CARB 2008). CARB's GHG emissions inventory report found the total statewide GHG emissions in 2011 were equivalent to 448.1 million tons of COz (CARB 2013). Compared with the emissions in 2001, this is a 6% decrease. As described in Section 3, Air Quality, BAAQMD adopted the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, which establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate GHG emissions is necessary (BAAQMD 2010). Projects that are smaller than the GHG screening criteria size are considered to have less-than-significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Table 1 presents GHG screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines. 25 Initial St 1811 Adrian Road TABLE 1 BAAQMD OPERATIONAL GHG SCREENING CRITERIA Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size* Single-family 56 du Apartment, low-rise 78 du Apartment, mid-rise 87 du Condo/townhouse, general 78 du City park 600 acres Day-care center 11,000 sf General office building 53,000 sf Medical office building 22,000 sf Office park 50,000 sf Quality restaurant 9,000 sf Source: BAAQMD 2010, Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening LevelSizes. Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; du = dwelling unit; sf = square feet. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less-than-significant impacts. If the project is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. As shown in Table 1, self-storage uses are not included in the BAAQMD Operational GHG Screening Criteria; however, the proposed use can be compared to the land use types to determine whether or not the screening criteria would be exceeded. The most conservative screening criteria is the single- family land use with 56 dwelling units. Self-storage would have much lower water demand and wastewater generation than residential uses, as well as lower electricity demand. Therefore, vehicle trips would be the main source of GHG emissions from the proposed project. Single-family uses with 56 dwelling units would generate approximately 535 average daily trips (ADT) a trip generation rate of 9.57 ADT per unit, which is substantially higher than the proposed project's estimated 354 ADT. Therefore, the proposed project would be below the Operational GHG Screening Criteria, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant. The City of Burlingame's Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term solutions to reduce the City's GHG emissions. The five major focus areas include: energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach, and municipal programs. Energy efficiency and green building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce emissions. The proposed project is required to comply with the City of Burlingame's Green Building Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1(15% above Title 24) of the Green Building Ordinance or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver is accepted as the methods of ineeting compliance with this ordinance. By complying with the Green Building Ordinance, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, nor would it conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. � Initial Sources 1811 Adrian Road BAAQMD. 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/�/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research /CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climote Change Scoping Plon: A Framework for Chonge. December 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. CARB. 2014. "California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2012 — Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators." December 22, 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. City of Burlingame. 2009. Climate Action Plan. June 2009. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 27 Initial Significant or Less Thon Potentially Significont with Significont Mitigation Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation 8. HAZARDS 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? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonablyforeseeable upsetand accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the projectarea? ij For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g} Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a signifcant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion 1811 Adrian Road Less-Than- Significont Impoct No Impact ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ � a) b) Less Than Significant. The proposed project involves renovation and construction within an existing warehouse. Construction equipment accessing the site would use hazardous and/or flammable materials including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants. During project construction, there is the potential for the short-term use of hazardous materials/fuels; however, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials would be required to comply with all existing local, state, and federal regulations. Operation of the proposed project would not include any uses that would require the transport, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials, other than typical household and landscaping materials. The types and quantities of these common household chemicals would not be substantial and would not pose a health risk to residents of the project or any adjacent uses; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 28 Initial Study 1811 Adrian Road c) No Impact. The nearest school to the proposed project site is Lincoln Elementary School, located approximately 0.75 mile south of the site. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of any school. d) No Impact. The project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese, LUST, Envirostor, solid waste disposal facilities, or clean-up sites). Neither the proposed use of the site as a personal storage facility, nor any conditions related to previous site uses would result in a significant hazard to the public. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) f) Less Than significant. The project site is located approximately 0.25 mile southeast from the southern edge of San Francisco International Airport and is regulated under the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan, under the County of San Mateo Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (C/CAG 2012). The project would result in a safety hazard if it emitted light, glare, or smoke that would interfere with an aircraft's take-off or landing or resulted in the construction of any building with a height exceeding the regulations established in the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed project would not result in the installation of lights, reflective surfaces, or sources of smoke that would impede aviation. The building height restriction mandated by the Airport Land Use Plan at the proposed project site is 161 feet (C/CAG 2012). The maximum building height would be 35 feet for the tower element at the southeast corner of the building, significantly less than the height restriction limit. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. g) No Impact. The city of Burlingame does not currently have a comprehensive emergency response plan. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in any interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project would not result in any substantial changes to public roadways and would not substantially increase traffic or roadway congestion such that use of an evacuation route would be hindered. Therefore, no impact related to emergency response or evacuation would occur. h) No Impact. The proposed project is located within a fully urbanized area. Vegetation on site is limited to landscaping that is irrigated and maintained by the property owner and constitutes approximately 11% of the total site area. Based on review of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazards Severity Zones Map for San Mateo County, the nearest area of moderate wildland fire risk is approximately 3 miles away (CAL FIRE 2007). Sources C/CAG (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County). 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. July 2012. CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2007. "San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map." November 7, 2007. Environmental Data Resources Inc. 2015. "EDR Radius Map" Environmental records search. April 15, 2015 Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 29 Initial Issues (and Supporting Information SourtesJ: 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 4) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-yearflood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion Significant or Less Than Poientially Significant with Significant Mitigotion Impad Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1811 Adrian Road Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impoct � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � a) Less Than Significant. The proposed project is a C.3 regulated project and would be subject to the requirements of the City of Burlingame's C.3-regulated project requirements under the City's Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting process. Prior to project approval by the City, the project would be reviewed for compliance under the standards in the C.3-regulated project requirements. Compliance with the C.3 requirements would ensure that the project does not violate any water quality of waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant. The proposed project would connect to the City's municipal water system, which receives water from the San Francisco Public Utilities District. The project would not contribute to depletion of groundwater supplies by utilizing wells or well-water. The proposed project would result in an addition of 10,112 square feet of impermeable surface; however the proposed project is subject to all of the provisions contained within the City's C.3-regulation for stormwater management, and would not contribute significantly to a net deficit in aquifer volume that would preclude existing or planned land uses in the project vicinity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 30 Initial Study I811 Adrian Road c) d) e) Less Than Significant. The proposed project would result in the addition of approximately 10,112 square feet of new impermeable surface, including 506 square feet of new roof-area; 5,838 square feet of sidewalks, paths, patios, or driveways; and 3,768 square feet of new uncovered parking surface. The proposed project would include features to direct runoff from driveways, walkways, and parking areas into self-retaining vegetated areas to minimize site flooding. The project would not direct additional stormwater to existing stormwater drainage systems. Retention systems would include self- treating features, as defined in Section 4.2 of the San Mateo County C.3 Technical Guide, that naturally remove pollutants. Runoff from impervious features would be directed to self-retaining features as defined in Section 4.3 of the C.3 Technical Guide and would be designed with capacity to retain runoff for treatment. With these features incorporated, impacts related to site flooding, runoff, and polluted runoff from new impervious surfaces would be less than significant. f) Less Than Significant. Operation and design of the proposed project would adhere to all of the requirements outlined under provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. Project construction activities would adhere to all of the construction best management practices included in the City's C.3 regulated projects checklist. The proposed project would not routinely utilize significant quantities of chemical fertilizer, produce polluted water as a byproduct of any process, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. g) h) i) No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps for San Mateo County, the project site is not located within the 100-year flood zone. The nearest feature within the 100 year flood zone is a channelized creek approximately 500 feet north from the project site (FEMA 2015). The proposed project would not place housing or any structures that would impede or redirect flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. In addition, the proposed project is not located within the vicinity of any levee or dam. Therefore, no impact would occur. j) No Impact. The project site is approximately 0.5 mile from the nearest projected tsunami inundation line (DOC 2009). Because the project site is located well outside the inundation line, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk from tsunamis or seiches. Therefore, no impact would occur. Sources C/CAG (City/County Association of Governments, San Mateo). 2013. C.3 Stormwater Technicol Guidance, Version 3.2. January 4, 2013. City of Burlingame. 2010. The City of Burlingome General Plan, as amended. City of Burlingame. 2015. "Stormwater Division Memorandum: C3-regulated Project Checklist." November 14, 2014. DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2009. "Tsunami Inundation Map, San Mateo Quadrangle." June 15, 2009. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2015. "FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0132E." National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps. Accessed April 8 2015. https://msc.fema.gov/portal. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 31 Initial Study Issues (ond Supporting Infaimation Sourtes/: 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion Significant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Signifitont Mitigation Impact Inrorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1811 Adrian Road Less-Thon- Significant Impact Na Impoct ❑ � � ❑ ❑ � a) No Impact. This site is located in the RR Zoning District which provides areas for industrial, commercial and service uses. The proposed project is also located within the Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area, a commercial area designated for automobile sales and service in the City of Burlingame General Plan and the Burlingame Zoning Code. The site is currently occupied by two warehouse buildings. The proposed project would modify one of the two buildings to be operated as a personal storage facility. The proposed use and building scale is consistent with previous uses of the site and would not result in the physical division of an existing community. b) Less Than Significant. The proposed project is located in the Adrian Road Auto District subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and is designated Industrial — Industrial and Office Space (Auto Row Overlay District). The City's General Plan designation for the site is Industrial and Commercial, and zoning is RR (Rollins Road) zoning district. As described in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the Adrian Road Auto District 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, retail and wholesale building and garden supply, industrial training facilities, public service facilities and similar light industry." The proposed use requires a CUP to be allowed in the Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area. In addition, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan requires that a CUP be obtained for any industrial use exceeding 0.5 FAR. The proposed project would result in a FAR of 0.85 (216,157 square feet) where 1.0 FAR (253,519 square feet) is the maximum allowed. With approval of the CUP's required for the project, the proposed project would not conflict with the any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations designed to minimize an environmental effect and impacts would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The nearest habitat conservation plan to the project site is the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. The project site is not located within the jurisdiction of any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and therefore would not conflict with any applicable plans or policies. 5ources City of Burlingame. 2007. North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, as amended February 5, 2007. City of Burlingame. 2010. The City of Burlingame General Plan, as amended. 32 Initial Study City of Burlingame. 2013. City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Title 25 —Zoning. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 1811 Adrian Road 33 Initial Issues (and Supporting Information Sources/: 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion Signifitant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Signifitant Mitigotion Impatt Incorparation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1811 Adrian Road less-Than- Significant Impact Nolmpact ❑ � ❑ � a) b) No Impact. The City of Burlingame General Plan does not identify any areas of significant mineral value on the project site or in the project vicinity. The State of California Department of Mines and Geology, Mineral Resources Zones and Resource Sectors Map, designates the project site as a Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1. The MRZ-1 designation refers to an area "where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence" (California Department of Conservation 2005). Implementation of the project would therefore not impact mineral resources. Sources California Department of Conservation. 2005. "California Department of Mines and Geology, Mineral Resources Zones and Resource Sectors Map." http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/minerals/index.htm_ City of Burlingame. 2010. The City of Burlingame General Plan, as amended. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 34 Initial Study Issues (and Supporting Information SourcesJ: 12. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion Significont or Less Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigotion lmpact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 1811 Adrian Road Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � a) c) d) Less Than Significant. The proposed project is located just south of the San Francisco International Airport and west of Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway). According to the North Buriingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the project site is located between 65 and 70 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contours (City of Burlingame 2004). Existing noise sources at the project site are dominated by roadway traffic along Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway) and airport noise. Railroad noise is also a factor due to the Caltrain tracks located approximately 1,400 feet west of the project site, along California Drive. The City's General Plan Noise Element includes noise and land use compatibility recommendations for evaluating the compatibility of new uses with the on-site noise environment. The Noise Element establishes 60 A-weighted decibel dBA CNEL as the maximum suggested outdoor noise level for land uses that include single- and multi-family homes, hospitals, and schools (CNEL is a 24-hour average noise level with a 10 dBA "penalty' added to noise during the night and evening hours (7:00 p.m.— 7:00 a.m.)). As noted earlier, the project site is in an area that is already exposed to noise in the 65 to 70 dB range, and there are no residential uses in the area surrounding the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would result in intermittent short-term noise impacts resulting from construction-related activities. Construction-related activities associated with the project would include minor demolition and general building construction. Section 18.07.110 of the Cit�/s Municipal Code limits the hours of construction to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In addition, construction activities would primarily occur inside the existing warehouse building, which would minimize the potential for excessive noise levels during construction. Therefore, the project 35 Initial Study 1811 Adrian Road would not cause an increase in noise levels that would exceed standards or expose people to excess noise. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant. The proposed project is not expected to generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise during construction or operation. The project site is over 1,000 feet from the Caltrain tracks; however, passenger trains, such as Caltrain, generally do not create vibration levels that would expose people or structures to harm. Additionally, because the tracks are over 1,000 feet from the project site, any vibration created by the trains would attenuate before it reached the project site. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in less-than-significant impacts from groundborne noise orvibration. e) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project is located just south of San Francisco International Airport, and the project site is exposed to noise from aviation traffic. The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport shows that the site falls within the 65 decibel (dB) CNEL contour for noise generated by the aircraft landing or taking off from the airport (C/CAG 2012�. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan requires that an acoustical study be prepared for projects located within this noise contour. The project proponent would be required to comply with all applicable building code regulations and standards to address potential noise impacts related to the proximity to San Francisco International Airport. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 would ensure that the potential noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 1: The project sponsor shall retain a qualified acoustical engineer familiar with aviation noise impacts to prepare an acoustical study, in accordance with State Title 24 requirements. The acoustical study shall identify methods of design and construction to comply with the applicable portions of the Uniform Building Code Title 24, Appendix 36, Sound Transmission Controls and with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program so that construction will achieve an indoor noise level or 45 dBA, or less, as measured for aircraft noise events. f) No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts related to a private airstrip would occur as a result of the proposed project. Sources City of Burlingame. 1975. The City of Burlingame General Plan, Noise Element. September 15, 1975. City of Burlingame. 2007. North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, as amended February 5, 2007. C/CAG (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County). 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. July 2012. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 36 Initial Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 13. 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 indirectiy (for example, through extension of roads or otherinfrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Significont or Less Than Potentially Significant with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1811 Adrian Road No Impoct � � � Discussion a) No Impact. The proposed project involves the renovation of an existing warehouse building within a commercial and industrial district. The proposed project would not involve the construction of new residential units or the provision of infrastructure into a previously undeveloped area. Therefore, no population growth would occur as a result of the project. b) c) No Impact The proposed project site is currently occupied by a vacant warehouse building and a warehouse building operated as a donation center by Goodwill. The proposed project would not displace any housing units or people. Therefore, no impact would occur. Sources City of Burlingame. 2007. North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, as amended February 5, 2007. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 37 Initial Study /ssues (and Supporting fnformation Sources): 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Wouid the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less-Than- Significant Impact /� /� � � � 1811Adrian Road No Impact � � 1�, ��i /II a} i) Less Than Significant. Fire protection services are provided by the San Mateo Central County Fire Department. There are three central county fire stations located within the City: Station 34 at 799 California Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road (Central County Fire Department 2015). The proposed project involves the conversion of an existing warehouse building in a commercial and industrial area into a personal storage facility. Operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in increased demand for fire or emergency services or a need for modified facilities. The proposed project plans would be reviewed by the Central County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building safety codes. a) ii) Less Than Significant. Police services are provided by the Burlingame Police Department located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project involves the conversion of an existing warehouse building in a commercial and industrial area into a personal storage facility. Operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in increased demand for police services or a need for modified facilities. a) iii) No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of any residential units and is not expected to have any significant impact on the population of the City of Burlingame. The proposed project would therefore not increase the demand for school services or result in the requirement of alterations to any school facilities. a) iv) v) No Impact. The proposed project involves the modification of an existing commercial facility and is surrounded exclusively by commercial and industrial uses. The proposed project would not impact any existing parks or other public facilities and would not increase demand for parks or other public facilities. Sources City of Burlingame. 2014. Fire Division Memorandum. September 2, 2014. Central County Fire Department. 2015. "Fire Stations." Accessed April 7, 2015. http://www.ccfdonline.org/about- ccfd/fi re-statio ns/. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation KI3 Initial 1811 Adrian Road Significant or Less Than Potenfiolly Signi(icont with Less-Than- Significant Mitigotion Significant Issues (and Supporting In(ormation SourcesJ: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impoct 15. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood ❑ ❑ � � and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require � � � � the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion a) b) No Impact. The proposed project involves the renovation of an existing warehouse building in a fully urbanized commercial and industrial district for use as a personal storage facility. The proposed project is not expected to result in increased use of existing park facilities and would not involve construction or expansion of any recreational facilities which could have an adverse effect on the environment. Sources Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 39 Initial Stuay Issues /ond Supporting Infarmation SourcesJ: 15. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Woald the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs s�upporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? D�scussio n Significont ar Less Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigotion Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1811 Adrian Road Less-Thon- Significant Impact No Impact � ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ � � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ a` Less Than Significant. The proposed project is expected to generate 354 average daily trips (ADT), including 20 trips during the AM peak hour and 37 during the PM peak hour (Lars Andersen 2014). The San Mateo County Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines requires a Transportation Impact Analysis to be conducted if 100 or more new peak hour trips would be generated (C/CAG 2011). Since fewer than 100 trips would generated by the project, an analysis is not required, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant. The County of San Mateo Comprehensive Congestion Management Plan evaluates traffic impacts based on effects on intersection levels of service (LOS). The project site would be accessed via Adrian Road. The nearest intersection to the project site listed in the Congestion Management Plan is the EI Camino Real and Millbrae Avenue intersection, located southwest of the project site, with an AM LOS ranking of C and a PM LOS ranking of B(C/CAG 2011). Because the majority of traffic to the project site is not expected to come from the southwest, and the project's peak trip generation is in the PM hours, impacts on traffic related to operation would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The proposed project would have a maximum height of 35 feet, well below the 161-foot building height limit mandated within the County of San Mateo Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (C/CAG 2012), and would not emit light, glare, or smoke that would disrupt aviation and would not result in any changes in air traffic patterns due to increased air traffic. d) No Impact. The project site is currently accessed from Adrian Road via a curb cut leading to an asphalt driveway and parking area at the southeast end of the project site. This access would be used for the 40 Initial Study 1811 Adrian Road proposed project. The project would not result in any substantial changes to current automobile or truck access hazards due to a dangerous design feature such as a sharp curve or dangerous intersection. e) Less Than Significant. The proposed project would provide adequate space at the rear of the facility for fire trucks to turn around. Accessibility for emergency services is addressed in Title 17 (Fire) of the Burlingame Municipal Code. Project plans would be reviewed by the Central County Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code regulations regarding emergency access. f) Less Than Significant. The City's Zoning Code (code section 25.70.040) requires one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for warehouse and storage uses and one parking space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area for retail uses (City of Burlingame 2013). With the proposed project, the parking demand (including both buildings at 1801 and 1811 Adrian Road) is 218 parking spaces, which includes 139,329 SF of self-storage on the first and second floors (1:1000 SF parking ratio) and 1,655 SF of lobby/retail space (1:400SF parking ratio) at 1811 Adrian Road and 74,656 SF of existing storage space at 1801 Adrian Road. The project includes site improvements which will increase the total number of parking spaces on-site from 135 to 167 spaces where 218 spaces are required. Therefore, a parking variance is being requested for the difference of 51 parking spaces. A parking analysis provided by Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc., notes the following: "The ITE Manual provides a peak parking demand ratio of 0.06 vehicles per 1,000 square feet or 0.77 vehicles per 100 storage units. The calculation based upon square footage for the proposed facility is 141,482/1,000 x 0.06 = 9 parking spaces. The calculation under the unit analysis is 927/100 x 0.77 = 7 parking spaces." A total of 81 parking spaces will be available within the �ease area for Public Storage. Therefore, the proposed number of parking spaces would be adequate and impacts would be less than significant. g) Less Than Significant. The proposed project would not involve any changes to the existing bicycle, pedestrian, or public transit facilities surrounding the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any goals or policies prescribed by those documents. Impacts would be less than significant. Sources C/CAG (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County). 2011. Final Congestion Manogement Program. November 2011. http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Final-2011-CMP_Novll.pdf. C/CAG. 2012. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport. July, 2012. City of Burlingame. 2010. The City of Burlingame Generol Plon, as amended. City of Burlingame. 2013. City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Title 25 — Zoning. City of Burlingame. 2014. City of Burlingame Parking Variance Application. November 12, 2014. Lars Andersen and Associates Inc. 2014. Parking Anolysis for 1811 Adrian Rood. August 19, 2014. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 41 Initial Study /ssues (and Supporting Informotion Sources): 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projecYs projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion Significanf or Less Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporatian ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1811 Adrian Road Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impad � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ a) b) e) Less Than Significant. The project site is located in an urban area and is served by existing utility systems. The proposed use would not result in a significant increase in demand for water or wastewater services above what is currently being used. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant. According to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, existing stormwater drainage facilities have adequate capacity to serve existing and future development in the area (City of Burlingame 2007). Storm drain inlets or catch basins and mains within the City of Burlingame are maintained by the Street and Sewer Division in the Department of Public Works. As described in Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would not significantly increase the amount of impervious paved area on the site and would comply with the C.3 stormwater requirements (City of Burlingame 2014). Therefore the proposed project would not significantly increase demand for stormwater drainage facilities. d) Less Than Significant. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase on water demand over previous uses at the site. Water is provided to the site by the City water system, administered by the City of Burlingame Public Works Department. The City of Burlingame is a member of the Bay Area Water Users Association, which contracts with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The contractual limit with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is 184 million gallons per day, of which 5.23 million gallons per day is allocated to the City of Burlingame. Based on 42 Initial Study 1811 Adrian Road projected water use, the City of Burlingame is not expected to exceed its allocation before the year 2030. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have significant impacts on water supplies based on existing resources and entitlements. f) g) Less Than Significant. Solid waste service is provided to the project site by Recology. Waste generated at the site would be transported by Recology to the San Carlos Transfer station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting, and finally to the Ox Mountain Landfill for disposal (Recology 2015). Construction waste would include typical materials such as plaster, drywall sheeting, scrap wood and metal, and concrete. Operational waste would be moderate in volume and consist of the typical waste associated with the administrative operations at the personal storage facility. Ox Mountain Landfill, the landfill used for final disposal of the material generated by the City of Burlingame, has several years of capacity left at current disposal rates, plus it is possible for the landfill to be expanded into adjacent areas to allow for further capacity. Therefore, impacts on the City's solid waste capacity due to implementation of the proposed project are considered less than significant. Sources City of Burlingame. 2007. North Burlingome/Rollins Road Specific Plan, as amended February 5, 2007. City of Burlingame. 2014. "City of Burlingame Stormwater Division Memorandum." November 13, 2014. Recology San Mateo County. 2015. Solid Waste Service. Accessed April 7, 2015. www.recologysanmateocounty.com. Project plans date stamped April 15, 2015. 43 Initial Study Significant or Less Than Potentially Significant with Significont Mitigation Issues /and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporotion 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality � of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion � ❑ � ❑ � 1811 Adrian Road Less-Than- Significant Impoct No Impact ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) No Impact. The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if any project-specific effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 1 would mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative noise impacts. All other impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts from noise. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 44 Initial Study DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: u ►1 ❑� 1811 Adrian Road I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ,, � - Signature William Meeker Printed Name Mav 8, 2015 Date Citv of Burlinaame For 45 Initial Study Summary of Mitigation Measures 1811 Adrian Road 1811Adrian Road Mitigation Measure 1 The project sponsor shall retain a qualified acoustical engineer familiar with aviation noise impacts to prepare an acoustical study, in accordance with State Title 24 requirements. The acoustical study shall identify methods of design and construction to comply with the applicable portions of the Uniform Building Code Title 24, Appendix 36, Sound Transmission Controls and with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program so that construction will achieve an indoor noise level or 45 dBA, or less, as measured for aircraft noise events. 46