HomeMy WebLinkAbout998 Howard Avenue - Environmental Document (2)�
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO
❑ Office of Planning and Research
P.O Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
� County Clerk's Office
County of San Mateo
555 County Center Road, First Floor
Redwood City, California 94063-0977
FROM: City of Burlingame
Community Development Dept.
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
q�;N � � ,-;.:�� ��sr�
[ a�,s�..� ,,�=rn��<i{�,_or•r�=
C._:I:IiT; i:L�i.it iZFCORDER
„� .d �,IA� GO ^,OU� 1TV CALIF.
fvi�^,R 2 i 2016
i`JI�� �;� k��; :; �, �;. � �.n; r,,
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Sectiar,� �� � a� fic��ources
Code. �'`-� ` �
��; ��,.y c���;
988 Howard Avenue- New Three-Story Office Buildinq
Project Titie
William Meeker (650) 558-7250
State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone
(lf submitted to Clearinghouse)
988 Howard Avenue, Citv of Burlinqame San Mateo Countv
Project Location (include County)
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a new 3-story commercial building. The proposed
building would contain 1,325 SF of retail space on the ground floor with 22,295 SF of office space on the two floors
above. The project also includes a 3,500 SF roof deck. The building height would be 45 feet from average top of
curb, measured to the top of the parapet wall. The project proposes an at-grade parking area behind the lobby and
retail space on the ground floor, with access off of East Lane. In addition there would be below-grade parking
provided as well with access off of Howard Avenue with a total of 68 on-site parking spaces provided and a car
share program.
This is to advise that the Citv of Burlinqame, the Lead Aqencv, has approved the above-described project on
March 14, 2016 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project:
1. The project [�will � will not] have a significant effect on the environment.
2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA.
� A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: Citv of
Burlinqame, Planninq Division 501 Primrose Road Burlinaame CA 94010
3. Mitigation measures [�were ❑ were not] made a condition of approval of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [�was �was not] adopted for this project.
5. Findings (� were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the
available to the General
94010.
..
William Meeker,
Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is
Public at: Citv of Burlinqame. Planninq Division 501 Primrose Road Burlinaame CA
March 1
mmunity Development Director
Date
CITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
..a��y.�
�'''� "�
BURLINGAME
I
:.' �
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
PH: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
,� f, i,_,�
-. ., �
'��� 16 2015
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION :.>��w�9 �'� a��.tv�ea��R
To: Interested Individuals From: Citv of Burlin�ame
Countv Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Department
PlanninE Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlin�ame, CA 94010
Subject:
Project Location:
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-587-P)
988 Howard Avenue — Construction of a New 3- Story Commercial Building
988 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story commercial building. The proposed building
would contain 1,325 SF of retail space on the ground floor with 22,295 SF of office space on the two floors above. The
proposal also includes a 3,800 SF roof deck. The building height proposed is 45-feet.
There would be at-grade parking located behind the lobby and retail space on the ground floor, with access off of East Lane. In
addition there would be below-grade parking provided as well with access off of Howard Avenue with a total of 68 on-site
parking spaces provided and a car share program.
In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 6uidelines, notice is hereby given of
the City's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A mitigated negative declaration is a
negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effect on the
environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed
negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid effect or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole
record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of
Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study and mitigations, finds that the
project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are
available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010.
As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on November 16,
2015 and ends on December 7. 2015. Comments may be submitted during the review period. Persons having comments
concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to:
Wiiliam Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community Development Department
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Fax: (650) 696-3790 / Email: wmeeker@burlin�ame.or�
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Setback Variance for this project has not been scheduled at
this time.
Posted: November 16, 2015
988 Howard Avenue Project
(Planning File No. ND-587-P)
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)
January 2016
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Division 13, Public Resources Code
City of Burlingame
Community Development Department
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story commercial building (project). The
proposed building would contain 1,325 square feet of retail space on the ground floor with
22,295 square feet of office space on the two floors above. The project also includes a
3,800 square foot roof deck. The building height would be 45 feet from average top of curb,
measured to the top of the parapet wall on the roof deck. The project site, 988 Howard
Avenue, is located within the downtown area of Burlingame, in San Mateo County. The
0.35-acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 029-214-220) project site is surrounded
by East Lane to the west, Howard Avenue south, and Myrtle Road to the north and west.
The project proposes an at-grade parking area behind the lobby and retail space on the
ground floor, with access off of East Lane. In addition there would be below-grade parking
provided as well with access off of Howard Avenue with a total of 68 on-site parking spaces
provided and a car share program.
The existing buildings, concrete, and paving on the site would be demolished and removed
as part of the project. Additionally, the project would remove the underground fuel pumps
and storage tank. Principal construction would take between 12 to 18 months.
Determination
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and supporting documents have
been prepared to determine if the project would result in potentially significant or significant
impacts to the environment (Exhibit A, Initial Study). On the basis of the Initial
Study/MND, it has been determined that the proposed action, with the incorporation of the
mitigation measures described below, will not have a significant effect on the environment.
The 17 mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study are listed in Table 1a below. No
comments were received during the public review period, which occurred from November
16th, 2015 to December 7th, 2015. Therefore, on the basis of the whole record, there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and
this MND reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. The supporting
technical reports that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this determination is
made are available for public review at the City of Burlingame Community Development
Department office at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010—, between 8:00 am and
5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
'Table 1 a
Summa of Pro'ect lm acts
Environmental Factor Mitigation Measures Level of Environmental
Im act
Mitigation Measure AES-1: The project developer shall
install low-profile, low-intensity lighting directed
downward to minimize light and glare. Exterior lighting
shall be low mounted, downward casting, and shielded.
In general, the light footprint shall not extend beyond the
periphery of each property. Implementation of exterior
lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply with the Less than Significant
Aesthetics standard Califomia Builtling Code (Title 24, Building With Mitigation
Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce the lateral Incorporated
spreading of light to surrounding uses, consistent with
Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 that
requires that all new exterior lighting for commercial
developments be designed and located so that the cone
of light and/or glare from the light element is kept entirely
on the property or below the top of any fence, edge or
wall.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The contractor shall
implement the following best management practices:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day. Less than Significant
Air Quality with Mitigation
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose Incorporated
material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public
roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum
street swee ers at least once er da . The use of d
T�ble 1a
�. ,. � m ;
� � ;
Summa af Rro'ect 1m cts `
Environmental Factor Mitigation Measures Level of Environmental
Im act
power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited
to 15 miles per hour.
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved
shall be completed as soon as possible. Building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by
the Califomia airbome toxics control measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of Califomia Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number
and person to contact at the City of Buriingame
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond
and take corrective action within 48 hours. Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance
with a licable re ulations.
Mitigation Measure AQ•2: The contractor shall select
specific equipment during construction in order to
minimize emissions. The equipment selection would Less than Significant
Air Qualit include the regulation that all diesel-powered equipment
y larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for With Mitigation
more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, Incorporated
meet the U.S. EPA particulate matter standards for Tier 2
-- --- - -- -- en ines or e uivalent.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If construction activities
would commence anytime during the nesting/breeding
season of native bird species potentially nesting near the
site (typically February through August in the project Less than Significant
Biolo ical Resources region), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds would
g be conducted by a qualified biologist within two weeks of W�th Mitigation
the commencement of construction activities. The pre- Incorporated
construction survey would encompass the project site
and surrounding area, within 150 feet, so as to account
for construction-related noise.
Table 1 a
. Summa of Pro'ect !m acts :
` Environmentai Factor Mitigation Measures Levei of Environmental
Im act
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event archaeological
resources are encountered during construction, work will Less than Significant
Cultural Resources be halted within 100 feet of the discovered materials and With Mitigation
workers will avoid altering the materials and their context Incorporated
until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated
the situation and rovided a ro riate recommendations.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: A discovery of a
paleontological specimen during any phase of the project
shall result in a work stoppage in the vicinity of the find Less than Significant
Cultural Resources until it can be evaluated by a professional paleontologist. With Mitigation
Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective Incorporated
measures or further action (e.g., resource removal), as
determined by a professional paleontologist, shall be
im lemented to miti ate the im act.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: In the event that human
remains are discovered during project construction, there
shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site
or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains. The county coroner shall be Less than Significant
Cultural Resources informed to evaluate the nature of the remains. If the with Mitigation
remains are determined to be of Native American origin, Incorporated
the Lead Agency shall work with the Native American
Heritage Commission and the applicant to develop an
agreement for treating or disposing of the human
remains.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Project design and
construction shall adhere to Title 18, Chapter 18 of the Less than Significant
Geolo and Soils Burlingame Municipal Code, and demonstrate adherence
gy to the latest seismic design parameters as required by W�th Mitigation
the Califomia Building Code including, but not limited to, �ncorporated
anchora e, load combinations, and structure inte rit .
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Project design and
construction, including excavation activities, shall comply
with Chapter 33 of the Califomia Building Code (CBC),
which specifies the safety requirements to be fulfilled for Less than Significant
Geolo and Soils -- site work. This would include the prevention of
gy subsidence or pavement or foundations caused by vrith Mitigation
dewatering. Adherence must also be demonstrated to Incorporated
Chapter 18 of the CBC, which sets forth building
construction standards including, but limited to,
ex ansive soils.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The contractor shall comply
Hazards and Hazardous With Title 8, Califomia Code of Regulations/Occupational Less than Significant
Materials Safety and Health (OSHA) requirements that cover with Mitigation
construction work where an employee may be exposed Incorporated
to lead. This includes the ro er removal and dis osal of
iv
��` Table'la
�� Summa cf Pro'ect� Im c�s ��
Environmental Factor Mitigation Measures Level of Environmenfal
Im act
peeling paint, and appropriate sampiing of painted
building surfaces for lead prior to disturbance of the paint
and dis osal of the aint or ainted materials.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: The applicant shall contract
Hazards and Hazardous a Certified Asbestos Consultant to conduct an asbestos Less than Significant
Materials survey prior to disturbing potential asbestos containing with Mitigation
building materials and shall implement the ConsultanYs Incorporated
recommendations for ro er handlin and dis osal.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: The applicant shall
prepare, and submit, a Soils Management Plan (SMP) to
the San Mateo County Health Department for approval,
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The SMP will Less than Significant
Hazards and Hazardous address the possibility of encountering subsurface With Mitigation
Materials contaminants, including groundwater, during construction Incorporated
activities, and the measures for identifying, handling, and
disposing of subsurface contaminants. The SMP shall be
submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building
ermit.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: The contractor shall ensure
Hazards and Hazardous the appropriate handling, storing, and sampling of any Less than Significant
Materials soil to be removed from the subject property, as per the with Mitigation
SMP, so as to eliminate potential health and safety risks Incorporated
to the ublic, includin construction workers.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: In the event that
groundwater, or other subsurface contaminants, are
Hazards and Hazardous encountered during excavation, grading, or any other Less than Significant
Materials demolition/construction activities at the project site, the with Mitigation
contractor shall ensure that the procedure for evaluating, Incorporated
handling, storing, testing, and disposing of contaminated
roundwater is im lemented, as er the SMP.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Workers handling
demolition and renovation activities at the project site
Hazards and Hazardous shall be trained in the safe handling and disposal of Less than Significant
Materials residual chemicals, solvents, heavy metals, motor and with Mitigation
transmission oils, lubes, greases, antifreeze, Freon, Incorporated
_ _ � - -. . ... .
solvents, and lead-acid batteries etc. associated with the
former as station and auto re air maintenance sho .
Mitigation Measure N01-1: The contractor shall ensure
that the interior noise levels are maintained at or below
50 dBA Leq (1-hr). Treatments would include, but are
not limited to, sound-rated wall and window Less than Significant
Noise constructions, acoustical caulking, protected ventilation with Mitigation
openings, etc. The specific determination of what noise Incorporated
insulation treatments are necessary shall be conducted
on a room-by-room basis during final design of the
ro'ect. Results of the anal sis, includin the descri tion
Table 1`a
Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Factor Mifigafion Measures Level of Environmental
Impact
of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be
submittetl to the City, along with the building plans and
a roved desi n, rior to issuance of a buildin ermit.
Mitigation Measure N01-2: The contractor shall install
forced-air mechanical ventilation, as tletermined by the Less than Significant
local building official, for all exterior-facing rooms of the
Noise office builtling so that windows can be kept closed at the W�th Mitigation
occupanYs discretion to control interior noise and achieve �ncorporated
the intenor noise standards.
• -
��, , '/" _ 2C`���
William �eeker Date
Community Development Director
vi
EXHIBIT A
City of Burlingame
988 Howard Avenue Project
Initial Study
Planning File No. ND-587-P
Prepared By:
Circlepoint
1814 Franklin Street, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Prepared For:
City of Burlingame
Community Development Department
_ , _ � _ ,_ __� _ . - _ 501 Primrose Road _
Burlingame, CA 94010
November 2015
vii
CITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
CI Y
cy a �1 ,
-
Y�=�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
PH: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: Interested Individuals From: CitY of Burlinsame
Countv Clerk of San Mateo Communitv Development Department
Plannin� Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlin�ame. CA 94010
Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-587-P)
988 Howard Avenue — Construction of a New 3- Story Commercial Building
Project Location: 988 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story commercial building. The proposed building
would contain 1,325 SF of retail space on the ground floor with 22,295 SF of office space on the two floors above. The
proposal also includes a 3,800 SF roof deck. The building height proposed is 45-feet.
There would be at-grade parking located behind the lobby and retail space on the ground floor, with access ofF of East Lane. In
addition there would be below-grade parking provided as well with access off of Howard Avenue with a total of 68 on-site
parking spaces provided and a car share program.
In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of
the City's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A mitigated negative declaration is a
negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effect on the
environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed
negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid effect or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole
record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of
Burlingame has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study and mitigations, finds that the
project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are
available for public review at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010.
As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on November 16.
2015 and ends on December 7. 2015. Comments may be submitted during the review period. Persons having comments
concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to:
William Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community Development Department
-�_ -. - .- - - .- - _. - Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Fax: (650) 696-3790 / Email: wmeeker@burlin�ame.or�
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission hearing to review the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Setback Variance for this project has not been scheduled at
this time.
Posted: November 16. 2015
988 HOWARD AVENUE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
BIiRLiNC:kA4z
� ��,�`..
,ayq� t.�:iF#
Prepared for City of Burlingame
November 2015
ry
�
Page left intentionally blank
Tabie of Contents
Environmentai Factors Potentially Affected ...........................................................................................................1
Determination.........................................................................................................................................................1
ProjectDescription ................................................................................................................... . .. . ...................1
Environmental Impact Checklist
1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 6
2 Agriculture Resources ........................................................................................................................10
3 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................................................11
4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................... . ...........20
5 Cultura) Resources .................................................................. .......... ...................... ...24
6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 27
7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................................31
8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................34
9 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................................40
10 Land Use and Pianning ......................................................................................................................45
11 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................... .47
12 Noise .................................................................................................................................................48
13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................... ..54
14 PublicServices .................................................................................................................... . ,....56
15 Recreation .. .................................................................................................................................. 59
16 Transportation and Traffic .......................... ................................................................... ..... 60
17 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................ ........ 64
18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................. 69
References................................................................................ . .......................................................................71
0
Initial Study
List of Tables
Table 1 Project Components
Table 2 Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Table 3 Construction Period Emissions
Table 4 Short-term Measu�ement Data
Table 5 Vibration 5ource levels for Construction Equipment
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Site
Figure 2 Proposed Design
Appendices
Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B Shadow Analysis and Peer Review
Appendix C- Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Appendix D California Historical Resources Information System Records Search
Appendix E Geotechnica) Report
Appendix F Phase i and II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G Noise Assessment
Appendix H Trip Generation and Parking Demand Analysis; and Peer Review
�
988 Howard Avenue
Initiai Study
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Number:
988 Howard Avenue
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Catherine Barber, Senior Planner
Telephone: (650) 558-7252
Email: cbarber@burlingame.org
988 Howard Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
029-214-220
6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
7. General Plan Designation:
8. 2oning:
9. Description of Project:
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Dimitrios Sogas
1290 Howard Ave, Suite 323,
Burlingame CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 703-1042
E-mail: dsogas@yahoo.com
MMU (Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area)
MMU (Myrtle Road Mixed Use Areaj
See project description below
See project description below
�
988 Howard Avenue
Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
988 Howard Avenus
The environmental factars checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially 5ignificant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the foilowing pages.
� Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
� AirQuality � BiotogicalResources
� Cultural Resources � Geology & Soils
❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions � Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑ Nydrology & Water Quality ❑ Land Use & Planning
� Minerai Resources � Noise
❑ Population & Housing ❑ Public Se►vices
❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation & Traffic
� Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of 5ignificance
iv
initial 5tudy
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
988 Howard Avenue
❑ 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
QECLARATION pursuant to appticable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EfR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions ar mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
. � . , �r � ,
N7
William Meeker, Community Development Director Date
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
Page left intentionally blank
IniUal Study 988 Howard Avenue
5ummary of Mitigatian Measures
Mitigation Measure AES-1 The project developer shall instail low-profile, (ow-intensity lighting direded downward to
minimize light and giare. Exterior lighting shall be low mounted, dawnward casting, and
shielded. in general, the light footprint shall not extend beyond the periphery of each
property. Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on ali buildings shall also comply
with the standard California euilding Code (TitVe 24, Building Energy Ef�ciency Standards)
to reduce the lateraf spreading of light to surrounding uses, consistent with Burlingame
Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 that requires that ali new exterior lighting for
commercial developments be designed and located so that the cone of Iight and/or glare
from the light element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge
or walL
Mitigation Measure AQ 1 T'he contractor shall implement the following best management practices:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, stagi�g areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haui crucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at (east once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shail be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reduci�g the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California
airbarne toxics control measure Title 13, 5ection 2485 of California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage shali be provided for const�uction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shail be maintained and properiy tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. Ail equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be �unning in proper wndition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telepho�e number and persan to contact at the Ciry
of Burlingame regarding dust complaints. This person shali respond and take corrective
action within 48 hours. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 1'he contractar shall select specific equipment during construction in order to minimize
emissions. The equipment selection would include the regulation that all diesel-powered
equipment farger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days
continuously shall, at a minimum, meet the U.S. EPA particulate matter standards forTier
2 engines ar equivalent.
P�litigation PAeasure BIO-1 lf construction activities would commence anytime during the nesting/breeding season of
native bird species potentially nesting near the site (typically February through August in
the project region), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds woufd be conducted by a
qualified biologist within two weeks af the commencement of construction activities. The
pre-construction survey wouid encompass the project site and surrounding area, within
150 feet, so as to account for construction-related noise.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 in the event archaeologicai resources are encountered during construction, work will be
halted within 100 feet of the discovered materials and workers will avoid altering the
materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the
situation and provided appropriate recommendations.
vii
Initiai Study 988 Howard Avenue
Sumrnary of Mitigattan Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 A discovery of a paleontological specimen during any phase of the project shall result in a
work stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional
paleontologist. Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or
further action (e.g., resource removal), as determined by a professional paleontologist,
shall be implemented to mitigate the impact.
Mitigation Measure CUL3 In the event that huma� remains are discovered during project construction, there shall be
no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent human remains. The county coroner shall be informed to evaluate the
nature of the remains. if the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the
Lead Agency shall work with the Native American Heritage Commission and the applicant
to develop an agreement for treating or disposing of the human remains.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 Project design and construction shall adhere to Title 18, Chapter 18 of the eurlingame
Municipal Code, and demonstrate adherence to the latest seismic design parameters as
required by the California Building Cade induding, but not limited to, anchorage, load
combinations, and structure integrity.
Mitigation Measure GEO-Z Project design and construction, including excavation activities, shall comply with Chapter
33 of the California Building Code (CBC), which specifies the safety requirements to be
fulfilled for site work. This would include the prevention of subsidence oc pavement or
foundations caused by dewatering. Adherence must also be demonstrated to Chapter 18
of the CBC, which sets forth building construdion standards including, but limited to,
expansive soils.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 The contractor shall comply with Title 8, California Code of Regulations/Occupational
Safety and Health (OSHA) requirements that cover construction work where an employee
may be exposed to lead. This includes the proper removal and disposal of peeling palnt,
and appropriate sampling of painted building surfaces for lead prior to dlsturbance of the
paint and disposal of the paint or painted materials.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 The applicant shall contract a Certified Asbestos Consultant to conduct an asbestos survey
prior to disturbing potential asbestos containing buiiding materials and shall implement
the ConsultanYs recommendations for proper handling and disposal.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 The applicant shal) prepare, and submit, a Soils Management Plan (SMP) to the San Mateo
County Health Department forapproval, prfar to the issuance of a building permit. The
SMP wili address the pouibility of encountering subsurface contaminants, including
groundwater, during construction activities, and the measures for identifying, handling,
and disposing af subsurface contaminants. The SMP shall be submitted to the City prior to
" .- �- issuanc� of a building permit.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4 The contractor shall ensure the appropriate handling, storing, and sampling of any soil to
be removed from the subject property, as per the SMP, so as to eliminate potential health
and safety risks to the public, including construction workers.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 In the event that groundwater, or other subsurface contaminants, are encountered during
excavation, grading, or any other demolition/construction activities at the project site, the
contractor shall ensure that the procedure for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and
disposing of contaminated groundwater is implemented, as per the SMP.
viii
Initiat Study 988 Howard Avenue
Summary of Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6 Workers handling demolition and renovation activities at the project site shall be trained
In the safe handling and disposal of residual chemicals, solvents, heavy metals, motor and
transmission oiis, lubes, greases, antifreeze, Freon, solvents, and lead-acid batteries etc.
associated with the former gas station and auto repair maintenance sho .
Mitigation Measure N01-1 The contractor shail ensure that the interior noise levels are maintained at or below 50
dBA I.�q (1-hr�. Treatments would include, but are not limited to, sound-rated wall and
window constructions, acoustical cauiking, protected ventilation openings, etc. The
specific determinatfon of what noise insulation treatments are necessary shall be
conducted on a room-by-room basis during final design of the project. Results of the
analysis, including the description of the necessary �oise cont�ol treatments, shall be
submitted to tE�e City, along with the buiiding plans and approved design, prior to issuance
of a building permit.
Mitigatlon Measure N01-2 The contractor shall install forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the local
building official, for all exterior-facing rooms of the office building so that windows can be
kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control interior noise and achieve the interior
noise standards.
Initial Study
Page left intentionally blank
x
/
988 Howard Avenue
IniUal Study
Project Description
988 Howard Avenue
Existing Project Setting
The project site, 988 Howard Avenue, is located within the downtown area of Burlingame, in San Mateo
County. The 0.35-acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 029-214-220} project site is surrounded by East
Lane to the west, Howard Avenue south, and My�tle Road to the north and west.
Existing Conditions and Land Use
The project site is located within the Myrtle Road Mixed Use (MMU) planning area of the Burlingome
Downtown Specific Plan.l MMU allows for a variety of small commerciai, residential, and retail uses. The
MMU planning area is meant to serve as a buffer between the downtown commercial district and the
residential neighborhoods located east of this area.
The praject site is relatively flat and is located approximately 30 feet above mean sea level. The site is located
app�oximately 0.2 miles east of the Caltrain tracks and approximately 1 mile west of the San Francisco Bay.
The site is fully developed with a gas station/auto repair maintenance business. Vegetation is limited with
several shrubs, but includes three (3) deciduous trees {approximately 4 to5 feet high) and one (1} City of
Burlingame Street Tree (appraximately 12 feet high). The project site is currently occupied with two attached
buildings; a one-story building with a footprint of approximately 1,000 square feet (sf) and a second attached
one-story building of approximately 4,OQ0 sf. Fuel pumps and underground storage tank associated with a fuel
station are located at the site; however, the gas station has not been active for approximately 2 years Access
to the site is provided by driveways at Myrtie Road, Howard Avenue, and East Lane (see Figure 1).
Residentia) land uses and several commercial businesses, including a fitness studio and market, surround the
site to the east and north. Other key surrounding land uses are shown on Figure 1. As shown, the Caltrain
corridor is to the southwest; the Buriingame Caltrain Station approximately p.2 miles west of site; Washington
Elementary School approximately 0.1 miles northeast of the site; Burlingame High School is approximately 0.5
miles north of the site; and Washington Park within 0.1 mile of the project site.
Proposed Project Components
The project includes the construction of a three-story building that would include a mix of retail and
commercial uses and an underground parking garage (see Table i). The building footprint would cover
approximately 73 percent of the lot (11,160 sf of the 15,352 sf lot). The building height would be 45 feet from
average top of curb, measured to the top of the parapet wall on the roof deck. A conditional use permit would
be required to exceed the MMU zoning district allowance of 35-foot high structures. Approximately 68
standard commercial parking spaces (8 feet-6 inches x 18 feet) would be provided, which includes car stackers
--- --- - that would provide 27 standard commercial spac�s. A detailed description of each level is provided below.
The project plans are included as Appendix A.
1 The Downtown Surlingame Specific Plan area is framed by Oak Grove Avenue to the north, Anita Road to the east, Peninsula Avenue
to the south, and EI Camino Real to the west.
Initial Study
Tabfe 1 Project Components
988 Howard Avenue
' Proposed Component Type SquarQ �eet (sfj
Retail Use 1,325
Commerciai Use 22,295
Roof Deck 3,800
Landscaping 820
Standard — 30 spaces
Stacked— 27 spaces
Parking Spaces 68 parking spaces
Tandem — 8 spaces
ADA — 3 spaces
source: Levy Design Partners, 2015
Proposed Building
Basernent Level
The basement level would be approximately 9 feet below grade and include 39 commercial parking spaces.
Access to the basement (evel would be via the ground floor entrance and downward vehicular ramp that
would be provided from Howard Avenue. The parking area would inciude a bicycle room, an elevator room,
and two staircases with access to the above #hree levels. The basement also includes a mechanical room,
bicycle storage and building storage.
Ground Level
The ground level would be at grade and would include the main commercial lobby,1,325 sf of retail space, and
parking. The 27 car stackers would be located at this level and would be accessed via East Lane. Three
handicap parking spaces woutd be located immediately adjacent to the lobby area and e�evator, Pedestrians'
could enterthe building from doors on East Lane, Howard Avenue, or Myrtle Road. Upperfloors would be
accessible via an elevator or staircase in the lobby or a staircase on the northeast side of the project site near
the Myrtle Road entrance.
Second Level
- - -_— ... . _
The second level woufd include 11,180 sf of commercial space, including five exterior decks located around the
perimeter of the space. Structural columns would be scattered throughout the commercial area for support
far #he overall structure. A men and women's restroom and closet are located on northern side of the second
level.
2
Initial Sfudy
988 Howard Avenue
Third Level
The third level would include 11,115 sf of commercial space, inciudi�g five exterior decks that would be
located around the perimeter of the space. A men and women's restroom and closet would be located on
northern side ofthe third level, directly above the second levei restrooms.
Roof Levet
The roof level would be accessible via two staircases and an elevator and would contain 3,800 sf of exterior
deck space. The deck would include tables, lounge chairs, and landscaping for users of the building. A 42-inch
tall glass railing would surround the deck and a low-height parapetwould extend past the deck an additional
few feet.z The roof would also contain mechanical equipment and exhaust from the garage.
Design and Landscaping
The project would be designed with modern design concepts. The ground level lobby and store front would
have large floor to ceiling glass windows. The commercial floor would have a similar open feel, with floor to
ceiling windows and aluminum sun screens. The commercial floors would also include exterior decks that
wrap around the building. The exterior siding would either be finished with stucco, metal panel, or composite
wood ranging 6etween beige, brown, and grey colortones.
The four existing trees and several shrubs located on the western portion of the project site along East Lane
would be removed to accommodate project components. Landscaping on the ground level perimeter would
include a variation of permeable pavers, decorative pebbles, traditional planters on top of 42-inch concrete
structures, evergreen shrubs, Ginkgo Biloba street trees, and o#her tree planting in 24-inch box structures. The
roof level would be landscaped with traditional4-foot square planter pots with 24-inch palm trees or drought
tolerant evergreen trees.
Utilities
The Burlingame Public Works Department provides water and wastewater service to the project site. The
project site is connected to the City's utility infrastructure and includes 10-inch water lines and 6-inch sanitary
sewer lines. The new building would tie-in to these existing lines. The Department of Public Works has
indicated that the 6-inch sanitary sewer line that serves the subject property is at or near capacity. The
applicant will need to do an analysis to determine if the sewer main requires upsizing. This analysis will be
reviewed by the City and if required, the applicant will be required to pay for their pra-rata share of the
upsizing or a designated run of the line, the details of which would be determined by the Department of Public
Works prior to building permit approval. The existing 10-inch water line is su�cient to provide for the
increased need in water usage for the proposed uses; however new construction is required to compfy with
____- ___. _ _ _
California Fire Code requirements for fire flow, based on the size of the building and type of construction, and
hydrant spacing. Upon building permit submittal Central County Fire Department will require that the project
comply with State fire code for emergency water supply (hydrants) with regard to the increase of square
footage at the project site and necessary flow rate (gallons per minutes); if the existing 10-inch canno# meet
Z A parapet is a low protective bar�ier along the edge of a roof, terrace, balcony, etc.
3
Initlal Study 988 Howard Avenue
the flow rate the� the applicant would be responsible for upsizing the water line. 7he Street and Sewer
Division of the Department of the City Public Works Department maintains Burlingame's stormwater
infrastructure. The project site is connetted to an existing 15-inch stormwater line and the new building would
tie-in to this existing tine to convey stormwater infrastructure. Bio-swales for stormwatertreatment and '
drainage around the project site would be installed as well. Best ma�agement practices would be
implemented with regard to site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, and pollutant cont�ol.
Construction
The existing buildings, concrete, and paving on the site would be demolished and removed as part of the
project. Additionally, the projed wauld remove the underground fuel pumps and storage tank. Principal
construction would take between 12 to 18 months. 7he walls of the basement level would require shoring or
bracing technique to retain surrounding areas below grade and would not exceed 12 feet in excavation. The
project would remove approximately 6,000 cubic yards of soil, which would be disposed af at either �x
Mountain (Half Moon Bay) or Dumbarton Quarry (Newark). Typical construction equipment would include
dozers, graders, tractors, cranes, forklifts, and generators. No pile driving would be required. Materials would
be staged on site, mostly on the eastern portion of the site (adjacent to Myrtle Rd). Construction would occur
during the construction hours allowed bythe Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 18.07.110, specifically:
Weekdays: 7:00 am — 7:00 pm
Saturdays: 9:00 am — 6:00 pm
Sunday and Hotidays: 10:00 am —6:00 pm
2013 California Green Building Code
The p�oject would comply with the 2013 California Green Building Code and implement energy efficiency
measures to comply with the 2013 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Water efficiency and
conservation measures such as metering, efficient plumbing fixtures, and wastewater reduction would be
implemented. Furthermore, outdoor landscaping would be designed with automatic irrigation controllers and
sensors to reduce outdoor water usage. The project would install a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
unit (HVAC) and refrigeration system that are energy efficient and reduce potential leak reduction.
Access and Circulation
The praject site is located just west of US 101 and east of EI Camino Real; both majar traffic corridors providing
access to Burlingame. Currently there are four driveways on the site, two would be removed and vehicles
would access and exit the project site via entrances either on Howard Avenue or East Lane. The project
- � location would provide easy access to the Burlingamc Caltrain stati�n. @icycle parking areas vrould be
provided as welL Future employees in the building would be within walking distance to the downtown portion
of 6urlingame, on the west side of the Caltrain corridor, where there are a number of restaurants and
amenities.
4
IniUal Study
Project Approvals
The project requires the following approvals:
988 Howard Avenue
• Design review— required for new commercial buildings to determine (CodeSection 25.57.010(c)).
• Conditional Use Permit for building height (45'-0" proposed whe�e 35'-0" is the maximum allowed in
the Myrtle Road Mixed Use District) (Code Section 25.34.055).
• Rear Setback variance to relocate the formal front entrance on East Lane (proposed rear setback of
10'-0" where a 20'-0" is the minimum required) (Code Sedion 25.34.060).
• Parking variance for reduction of required on-site parking by 5 spaces or consideration far the approval
of a car share program. If the City approves the car share program, the project applicant would
withdraw the request for parking variance because the car share program would qualify the project for
a 10 percent reduction in parking (Code Section 25.70.Q10(a)).
• Adoption of a mitigated negative declaration — California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permit is to be obtained for the shoring at the
excavation in the basement per CAL/OSHA requirements
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit
• Grading permit
• Tree removal permit from the City Director prior to construction
IniGal Study
Environmental Impacts
/ssues �and Supporiinp informaflon SourcesJ:
i. AESTHETICS—wou�d the propect:
a} Haye a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista7
b) Substantially damage scenic resoucces, including,
hut not limited to, trees, rock autcroppings, and
historic buitdings within a state scenic highway7
cj Substantiai{y degrade the existing visua! character
or quality of the site and its surroundings7
d) Geate a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affed day or nighttime
views in the area?
less Than
Significonf or Slgnlflcant
Potentially wfth Less 7han
3lgnificant Mttlgat)on SFgnlfitant
lmpact (ncorporction tmpact
❑ o 0
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ �
►�/
�
988 Howard Avenue
No fmpact
�
�
❑
❑
Setting
The City of Burlingame is located within San Mateo County, east of the Santa Cruz Mountains and west of the
San Francisco Bay (eay). Burlingame is surrounded by the City of Milibrae to the northwest, the Bay to the
east, the City of San Mateo to the southeast, and the Town of Hillsborough to the southwest. Most of the City
is located on gently sloping valley floor and is a highly developed, urban/suburban area. The western portions
of the City are located on foothills rising to the Santa Cruz Mountains that offer scenic views of the 5anta Cruz
Mountains, the eay, and the East Bay Hills.
The project site lies within the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area (MMUj in the northeastern portion of the
Burlingame powntown Specific Plan area. According the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan lnitial
Siudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan 1S/MND), Mixed Use Areas should
be encouraged to create active pu6lic places. New buildings would contribute to existing character and
pedestrian nature of downtown, with active storefronts, windows, and doors at ground level. Architecture
would include the types of details that are cammon to Burlingame, and would use similar materials, colors,
proportions, window types, and overall compositions.
This project is located on a flat, urbanized site surrounded by retail, commercial, and residential uses. Existing
development on the project site includes a gas station and an automobile repair business housed in two
T T � attached single-story commercial buildings. Remaining portions of the site are fully paved and used for
automotive storage. Four trees and small patches of existing landscaping are scattered around the edges of
the site. Sightlines within the project vicinity are typically restricted by flat topography, law elevation, and
surrounding development.
6
IniUal Study 988 Howard Avenue
The surrounding area consists of one- and two-story buildings with an occasional taller structure. The
lmmediate neighborhood includes an automotive service garage abutting the property to the north; an
automobile storage lot across Howard Avenue; a two-story mixed use building across the Myrtle Road; and on-
street parking, automobile storage, and the Caltrain railroad tracks, approximately 0.2 miles west, a�ross East
Lane. Many commercia) structures in the area have no setback from the road, while other structures have
paved parking lots between the sidewalk and the front of the building.
A shadow report was prepared as part of the proposed projed in response to public concern of potentlal
aesthetic impacts of the project. While shadow effects are not a CEQA topic, this report is included as
Appendix B.
Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenit vista? (No Impact)
According to the City of Burlingame General Plan (general plan), impor#ant vistas include the hillside leading to
the Skyline Ridge as seen from the Bay plain, and the Bay as seen from the hillside. The project would not
impact either scenic resource. Public views of the foothills rising to the Santa Cruz Mountains are obscured by
existing development and landscaping in the project vicinity. The project would not alter public views of the
Bay from the hillside, which would be relatively similar in scale to other existing structures in the Burlingame
Downtown Specific Plan area. No impact to scenic vistas would occur.
bj Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact)
The intent of ihe California Scenic Highway Program is to protect and enhance California's natura! beauty and
to protect the social and economic values provided by the state's scenic resources. State scenic highways are
officialfy designated by Scenic Highways Advisory Committee. According the General Plan Scenic Roads and
Highways Element, the project is not located near a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings7 (Less Than Significant)
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would involve earthmoving operations and grading activities. As a result,
construction equipment, const�uction vehicles, staging areas, and associated construction debris would be
visible on the project site for the duration of construction (approximately 12-18 months). The visual character
_._ __-_.. __ and quatity of the site would change for a temporary period of time, depending on the work and equipment
used. However, the visual effects of construction activities would be similar to other types of development
and construction that typically occur within the area and are temporary in nature.
IniGal Study
Operation
9$S Howard Avenue
The proposed prajact would construct a three-story mixed-use structure with a rooftop garden on a currently
developed parcel surrounded by residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, and transportation corridors. As
discussed below, the project is designed to be compatible with the light/indust�ial vernacular of the existing
neighborhood while incorporating a visuai transition fnto the neighboring lyon Hoag neighborhood and
creating a pedestrian-oriented atmosphere. Figure 2 depicts renderings of the proposed project. The
proposed structure is located Qn the no�thern portion of #he site, adjacentto the northern property line to
maximize separation from residentiai developments. The solid vertical mass along East Avenue is consistent
with the industrial buildings that face the railroad tracks, while staggered surfaces along Howard Avenue and
Myrtle Avenue prevent the structure from looming over the sidewalk and other public areas. The exterior
siding would either be finished with stucco, metal panel, or composite wood ranging between beige, brown,
and grey color tones. The various architectural textures,.profiles, materials, and color pailets were selected
based on their consistency with the visual character of the area; however, the overall design reflects a more
madern architectural style than what currently exists in the surrounding community.
The project applitant proposes a three-story structure that would measure 45 feet to the top of the parapet
from average top of curb. The new structure would greatly exceed the height of the existing single-story
building by approximately 35 feet. In response, the p�oject deslgn incorporated upper-story setbacks and
balcanies to reduce the stnicture's impasition on the surrounding area. The open roof level would consist of a
3,800 sf exterior deck with landscaping, a glass railing, and a(ow-height parapet. The roof would alsa contain
mechanical equipment and exhaust from the garage. The project has been designed forthe pedestrian nature
of the Burlingame powntown Specific Plan area. The ground level would feature large floor-ta-ceiling glass
windows to provide active storefronts. Commercial floors would have an open feel, with floor-to-ceiling
windows, aluminum sun screens, and exterior decks that wrap around the building. The project would also
incorporate 820 square feet of landscaping on the ground level perimeter that would include a variety of
permeable pavers, decorative pebbles, traditional planters, evergreen shrubs, and street trees. Parking would
be underground aod on the ground level.
The project applicant is requesting a Rear Setback Variance to locate the formal front yard on East Lane. This
variance would allow a 20-foot setback along Myrtle Road, which would be landscaped to create a well-scaled
transitian along Howard Street into the mixed-use Lyon Hoag neighborhood. The variance would also result in
a 10-foot setback along East Lane. This smalle� setback would have less of a visual impact to East Lane, which
is essentially a frontage road alongside the Caltrain tracks that consists of surface parking and low-scale
industrial buildings converted into offices.
Although the height of the proposed building would be 45-feet, which istaller than the surrounding buildings,
the helght is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit and this scale of development was envisioned as part of
the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The increased (andscaping and articulated fayade wauCd provide a
more pedestrian atmosphere consistent with the SpecificPlan. The project would not substantially deg�ade
the visual quality and character of the site and project area and therefore would have a less-than-significant
impact.
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area? (Less Than Signi�cant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The project site is currently developed and urbanized. Streetlights, exterior commercial lighting and vehicular
lights exist in the surrounding area and along adjacent corridors. The new building would contribute additional
sources of light; however exterior lighting shall be designed and installed to comply with extsting regulations to
reduce light poilution. The glass surfaces on the proposed structure would result in increased suniight
reffection, ambient light, and glare beyond existing conditions. This is considered a potentially significant
impact. The following mitigation measure is anticipated ta reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure AES-1: The projed developer shali install low-profile, low-intensity lighting directed
downward to minimize light and glare. Exterior lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, and
shielded. In general, the light footprint shall not extend beyond the periphery of each property.
Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures an all buildings shall also comply with the standard California
Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading of light to
surrounding uses, consistent with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 that requires that all new
exterior lighting for commercial developments be designed and located so that the cone of light and/or glare
from the light element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge or wall.
lnitial Study
lssues (and Supporting lnformatlon Sourcesj:
988 Howard Avenue
Cess Than
Sipnlfkant or SlgnffJcortt
Poteniially wlth Less Than
Sfynl�cont MitiQatlon Siqntficant
lmpoct Intotporation /mpact
Na fmpoct
z. AGRICULTURE RESUURCES—
In determining whether impacts to agricuitural resources are signiflicant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and 5ite Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
D2partment of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Wauld the projed:
aj Convert Prlme Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [] ❑
Farmland of Statewide Importance (farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
■ //
b} Conflictwithexisting toning 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-agricuitural use7
❑ �
❑ �
a ❑
❑ ❑
Setting
The project site is fully developed with a gas station and auto repair services. The United States Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service soil map delineates the project site as Urban Land, with
the farmland classification as Not Prime Farmland. The California Department of Conservation, Natural
Resources Agency 2010 map of Important Farmland identifies Burlingame as Urban and Built Up Land.
Discussion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, ar Farmiand af 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 use7 (No Impact)
and
b� Confllct with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract3 (No Impact)
and
_ -._ _
c} Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to thelr location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use7 (No Impact)
There are no active agricultural lands on or adjacent to the property site, or properties subject to a Wiiliamson
Act contract. The project site is not designated for agricultural uses in the General Plan Land Use Map;
therefore, the project woufd not conflict with existing zoningforagricultural use. Furthermore, the proposed
project site is cu�rently in an urban setting and falls within a planning area of the Burlingame Downtown
Specific Plan area, which contains land use policies intended to promote and expand development.
Consequently, the project woufd not result in farmland conversion to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no
impact would accur.
10
Initial Study
988 Noward Avenue
Less Than
S1gnlflcant or Sign)ficant
Potentlalfy with Less Than
SlgnFflcant M1Ugotlon Signlflcant
issues(andSupponinglnformationSourcesJ: Impaci tncorporadon lmpad Nolmpact
a. AIR QIIALITY—
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
eontrol district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Wouid the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Vlolate any air quality standard or contribute
substantialfy to an existing or projected air quality
violation7
cj Result in a cumulatively conside�able net Increase []
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is �on-attainment under an applicable
federal o� state ambient air quality sta�da�d
(including refeasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)7
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentretions7
e) Frequentlycreate o6jectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people�
❑ ❑ ❑ �
❑ ❑ � ❑
/�/
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
i■ ■
� ❑
� ❑
Setting
An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment was prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin in September
2015 to identify and evaluate the potential air quality effects related to the project (see Appendix C of this
initiat study).
Air Pollutants of Concern
The San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-
level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PMla), and fine particulate matter (PM�). High ozone levels are
caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitroge� oxides (NOxj. These
precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the
emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area's attempts to reduce ozone levels. The
-" highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air
pollutant sources. High ozone (evels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function,
and increase coughing and chest discomfort.
11
loitial Study 988 Howard Avenue
Particulate matter is another pro6lematic air poliutant of the Bay A�ea. Particulate matter is assessed and
measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or fess
(PMlo) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM�.S). Elevated
concentrations of PMlo and PMz,s are the result of both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized
emissions. High particulate matter leveis aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung
function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancerj, and result in reduced lung function growth 1n children.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually
because they cause cancer} and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants. TACs are found in
ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and
commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their
source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse
health affects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the
cancer risk from TACs (6ased on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), dieset exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and flne particles. This complexity makes the
evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel
exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are
listed as carcinogens either under the state"s Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants
programs.
CARB adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobfle sources to reduce
emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy duty diesel trucks that
represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These regulations include the solid waste
collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in-use public and utility fle�ts, and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus
regulations. In 2007, CARB approved a new regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from
existing on-road heavy-duty diesel fueled vehicles. The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific
performance requirements between 2014 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010
model-year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over the compliance period and
depend on the model year of the vehicle.
BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. At the state level, the CARB (a
part of the California Environmental Protedion Agency [EPAJj oversees regional air district activities and
` regulates air quality aYthe state level. The BAAQMD has recently published California Environmental Quality
Act (CEqA) Air Quality Guidelines that are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects.
5ensitive Receptors
There are groups af people more affected by air potlution than othe�s. CARB has identified the following
persans who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes,
and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classifed as sensitive
receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include
residentia) areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The ciosest
12
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
off-site sensitive receptors are residences located above the street Meve( retail shops on the corner of Howard
Avenue and Myrtle Road, approximately 50 feet across from the project site. Other sensitive receptors are
located, across My�tle Road, to the north, northeast, and east of the project site.
Significance Thresholds
In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA.
These thresholds were designed to establish the level of air pollution emissions that could cause significant
environmental impacts under CEQA and were posted on BAAQMD's website and included in the Air District's
updated CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011j. The significance thresholds identified by BAAQMD and used in
this analysis are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Construction 7hresholds Operationai Thceshaids
` Pollutant Average Daily Emissions Average Daily Annuai Average �missions
(ibs/dayj Emissians Ibs/da ) ` (to�sJyear
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PMio 82 $2 15
PMZs 54 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour averageJ or 20.0 ppm (1-hour
average)
Construction bust Ordinance Not Applicable
Fugitive Dust or other Best Management
Practices
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk 10 perone million
Chronic or Acute Hazard Index 1.0
Incremental annual average PMzs 03 µg/m3�
Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from all sources within 1,000 foot zone of influence)
and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk 100 per one million
Chronic Hazard Index 1p.0
Annual Average PMZs 0.8 µg/m3
Greenhouse Gas Emissians
Compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
GHG Annual Emissions OR
1,100 metric tons or 4,6 metric tons per capita
Note: Ibs = pounds, ppm = parts per million, ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PMIo = course particulate matter or
particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PMZS = fine particulate matter or particulates with an
aerodynam(c diameter of 2.5µm or less; and 6HG = greenhouse gas; µg/m3 = Micragrams per meter cubed
Source: Iltingworth & Rpdkin, 2015
13
Initial Study 988 Howarcl Avenue
BAAQMD's adoption of significance thresholds contained in the 2011 CEQp Air 4uality Guidelines was called
into question by an order issued March S, 2012, in California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. BAAQMD
(Alameda Superior Court Case No. RGI0548693j. The order requires BAAQMD to set aside its approval of the
thresholds until it has conducted environmental review under CEQA. The ruling made in the case concerned
the environmentai impacts of adopting the thresholds and how the thresholds woutd indirectly affect land use
devefopmen# patterns. In August 2013, the Appellate Court struck down the lower court's order to set aside
the thresholds. However, this litigation remains pending as the California Supreme Court recently accepted a
portion of CBIA's petition to review the appellate court's decision to uphold BAAQMD's adoption of the
thresholds. The specific portion of the argument to be considered is in regard to whether CEQA requires
consideration of the effects of the environment on a project (as contrasted to the efFects of a project on the
environment). Therefore, the significance thresholds contained in the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are
applied to this project.
The project site is located in the northeastern portion of San Mateo County, within the San Francisco Area Air
Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the state and federa( level. The San
Francisco Area Air Basin meets all such ambient air quality standards requirements, with the exception of
ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM�) and fine particulate matter (PMz.$). High ozone levels
are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These
precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the
emissians of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area's attempts to reduce ozone levels.
Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No Impact)
As noted above in the setting discussion, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is in non-attainment for state
and federal standards for 03, PMZS and PMla. Steps needed to achieve compliance with these regulations have
been identified, as described below.
The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Clean Air Plan. The Clean Air Plan includes about 55 control
measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or indirectly. The
control measures are divided inta five categaries that include:
■ Measures to reduce stationary and area sources
■ Mobile source measures
■ Transportation control measures
�■ Land use and local impact measures
■ E�ergy and climate rneasures
A project would be determined to con#lict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it
would be inconsistent with the regional growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment, or regional
growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The emission strategies in the Clean Air Plan were developed, in part,
14
Ini6a1 Study
988 Haward Avenue
on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). The project is cansistent with the Myrtle Mixed Use zoning for the site. As such, the
use of this site for commercial purposes is already included in the Clean Air Plan.
The project would not directly increase the City's population as it does not include residential units. The
existing garage and automobile repair shop, on the project site, would be replaced with a single three-story
mixed-use building. Due to the close proximity of public transit, including Caltrain, Samtrans, and BART, no net
increase in traffic is anticipated with project implementation. Consequently, development of the project
would not conflict with population and VMT projections used to develop the Clean Air Plan planning
projections (see Section 16). The project would not obstruct implementation of these plans, and therefore no
impact would occur.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Less Than Significantj
BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for the non-attainment air pollutants and their precursors.
These thresholds are for azone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOxj, PM,o and PM2.5, and apply to both the
construction period and the operational period impacts.
The California Emissions Estlmator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 was used to predict emissions from
construction of the site assuming full build out af the project, by inputting the project land use types and size,
and anticipated construction schedule. The proposed project land uses were factored into the CaIEEMod land
use categories as follows: 22,295 sf of "General Office Building," 1,325 sf of "Strip Mall" (which refers to the
proposed retail fand uses}, and 68 parking spaces entered as "Enclosed Parking with Elevator." Additionalfy,
the project would require approximately 6,000 cubic yards (cyj of soil export, and default construction settings
for the proposed project footprint, all of which were accounted for in CalEEmod.
Construction
The air quality emissions modeling assumes the project would be constructed over 123 work days (e.g.,
approximately b months) as a conservative scenario. Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the
totat construction emissions by the number of construction days. Table 3 below shows average daily
construction emissions of ROG,'NOw PMIo exhaust, and PMZ,S exhaust during tonstruction of the project. As
indicated in Table 3, predicted project emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshalds (see
Appendix C for additional information).Construction activities would generate dust and equipment exhaust on
a temporary basis during construction activities from site preparation, demolition, ground disturbance, and the
--- _
operation of construction equipment and other vehicles. The effects af construction activities would be locally
elevated (evels of TACs, ozone precursors (ROG and NOx), PMlo and PM�,S downwind of construction activity
(see Table 3). Construction dust has the potentia) for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. Standard
Permit Conditions require that all basic BAAQMD BMPs be implemented, as described in Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 below.
15
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality and
fugitive dust-related impacts associated with grading and new construction to less than significant.
Table 3 Construction Period Emissions
Scenario
ConsUuction emissions (tons)
Average daily emissions (pounds}'
BAAQMD Thresho/ds (pounds perday)
ROG
0.35 tons
5.7 Ibs
54 Ibs
NO�c PM�oExhaust PM�s Exhaust
0.96 tons 0.06 tons 0.05 tons
15.6 Ws 1.0 Ibs 0.8 (bs
541bs 821bs 541bs
No No No
Exceed Threshold? I No
Note: Assumes 123 Work Days (approximately 6 months)
Source: Illingwarth & Rodkin, 2015
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. The contractor shall implement the following best managemeht practices:
L All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
�oadsj shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material aff-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onta adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum
street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry powe�sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicie speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Buiiding
pads shall be laid as soon as possible aftergrading unless seeding orsail binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airbome toxics control measure
Title 13,Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running
in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Burlingame
regarding dust complaints, This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The
BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Operation
In the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines update, BAAQMD identifies screening criteria for the sizes of land use
p�oje�ts that could result in sig�ificant air pollutant emissions. For operational impacts, the screening project
size is identified at 346,006 sf for commercial developments. Office p�ojects of smaller size would be expected
to have less-than-significant impacts with respect to operational-period emissions. 5ince the project proposes
to operate at 22,Z95 sf of office space and 1,325 sf of retail, it is concluded that emissions would be below the
16
Initial Study 98& Howard Avenue
BAAQMD significance thresholds for the operational period. Additionally, development would be nearexisting
transit with regionai connections and could reduce vehicle-related emissions, as well as potentially provide
employment for the surrounding residential uses.
Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the project would be the pollutant of greatest concern
at the local level. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to cause
high-localized concentrations of carbon monoxide, Air pollutant monitoring data indicate that carbon
monoxide levels have been at healthy levels (i.e., below state and federai standards) in the Bay Area since the
early 1990s. As a result, the region has been designated as attainment for the standard. The highest
measured level over any 8-hour averaging period during the last 3 years in the Bay Area is less than 3.0 parts
per millian (ppm), compared to the ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. According to the Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for the project, interseckions affected by the project would have traffic
volumes less than the BAAQMD screening criteria. Therefore, the project would not cause a violation of an
ambient air quality standard for C0.
Project construction and operation would not cause a violation of any air quality standards or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore this impact would be less than
significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria poilutant far 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)? (less
Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a
cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient
in size to by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead a project's individual
emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse ai� quality impacts. If a project's contribution
to the cumulative lmpact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality would be considered
significant.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that a significant air quality impact would result if the project would
result in a cumulatively cansiderable net increase of any criteria pollutant or a precursorto that pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable national or state ambient air qualfty standard
(including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for 03 precursors). This is judged by
comparing dire+ct and indirect project emissions to the BAAQMD significance thresholds of 54 pounds per day
-- - for ROG N0 or PM . and 82 ounds er da for PM Annual si nificance thresholds are 10 tons er ear
� w z s, P p Y io• 8 p y
for ROG, NO�, or PM2,5i and 15 tons per yearfor PMlo•
As stated above, according to BAAQMD, implementation of the proJect would, therefore, result in a less-than-
significant cumulative impact to air quality from criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions. Given the
nature o#the proposed use (i.e., office/retail) and given the mixed-use land use type, the operational criteria
pollutant screening size for the project is 346,000 sf. The project would implement 22,295 sf of office space
17
Initial Study 988 Howard Avenue
and 1,325 sf of retaii, and would therefore be below the screening criteria developed by BAAQMD. Given this,
the project would not exceed the poilutant emissions thresholds. Therefore, the project's contribution to
cumulative air quality impacts is not considered cumulatively considerable.
Due to #he project size, operational period emissions would be less than significant. However, because the
project proposes to demolish existing facilities ansite, modeling of construction emissions was conducted to
quantify project impacts (see Table 3�. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be
less than significant if best management practices (BMPs) are employed to reduce these emissions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce any violation or contribution to existing or
projected air quality violations to a less-than-significant level.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated)
Operation of the project is not expected to cause any localized emissions that could expose sensitive recepto�s
to unhealthy air pollutant levels. No stationary sources of TACs (typically factories, refineries, power plants,
etc.), are praposed as part of the project. Construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhausts
on a short-term temporary basis. The project would not introduce any new sensitive receptors to the area.
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic could generate diesel exhaust, which is a
known 7AC. Diesel exhaust and PMzs can pose both potential health and nuisance impacts to nearby
receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences located above the street level retail shops on the
corner of Howard Avenue and Myrtle Road, approximately 50 feet east of the project site. There are other
residences located further from the project site, across Myrtle Road to the north, northeast, and east.
Refined community risk assessment modeling forthe project buildout was conducted using CaIEEMod.
BAAQMD significance thresholds for cancer causing carcinogens are set at 0.3µ/m3 for PMu, and 5µ/m3 for
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). Lifetime cancer risks associated with project implementation were calculated
using a dispersion model; the maximum modeled annual PM�,S concentration was 0.22µ/m3, and the maximum
modeled annual residential DPM concentration was 0.212µ/m3, both of which are significantly lowerthan the
BAAQMD significance thresholds. During project construction, the incremental residential childhood cancer
risk at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) receptor would be 18.6 in one million and the maximum
incrernental residential adult cancer risk would be 1.0 in one million. Cancer risk and non-cancer impacts to
adult residents are below BAAQMD significance thresholds of 10 in one million or greater for PMZ,S and DPM
(see Appendix C). However, the residential childhood cancer risk of 18.6 in one million is above the BAA4MD
threshold of 10 in one million, and would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would
---- -- -- reduce risks associated with construction emissions, and lncreased cancer risk, to a tess than si;nificant level.
The implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would further reduce impacts
from fugitive dust. Any impacts associated with project implementation and the exposure of sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2. The contractorshall select specific equipment during construction in order to
minimize emissions. The equipment selection would include the �egulation that all diesel-powered equipment
larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum,
meet the U.S, EPA particulate matter standards for Tier 2 engines ar equivalent
18
Inidal Study
988 Howard Avenue
e) Would the project frequently create objectionable odors affeding a substantial number of people?
(Less Than Significantj
The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction from equipment
operation and truck activity. These emissions may be noticeable from time to time by adjacent receptors.
However, they would be localized and are not likely to adversely affect people off site by resulting in confirmed
odor complaints. No sources of significant odors that would Gause compiaints from surrounding uses are
anticipated with the construction of the mixed use building; the proposed uses include office space and retail,
neither of which typically produces objectionable odors. Therefore any impacts associated with the creation
of frequently occurring, objectionabie odors would be less than significant.
19
Ini6ai Study
988 Howard Avenue
Leu Than
Signlfiwnt or Sipn�cont
Potentiaqy with LessThaq
Slgni�cont Mitigatlon Signifitant
issaes (ond Supportinp Informatlon SourcesJ: Impact lncorporation Jmpact No ►mppct
a. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—
Wauld the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ � � �
through habitat modifications, on any spectes
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in locai or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and 1Mldlife Service7
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [] [] Q �
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional ptans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Eish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service7
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally � � [� �
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastai, etc.j or state-protected
wetfands, through direct remavai, filling,
hydrological Interruptfon, or other means?
d) Interfere substantiaily 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 nurserysites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances � � � �
pratecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance7
f) Fundamentally conflict with the provislons of an ❑ ❑ � �
adopted Habitat Gonservation Plan, Natural
Community Canservation Plan, prather approved
local, regional, or state habitat wnservation plan7
__- — - - __ Setting .._ . _- . _ __ _
The biological resources occurring on and nearthe project site were evaluated by Pacific Biology on August 4,
2015. The project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by dense commercial and residential
devebpment. The project site is completely developed and is currently used as a gas station and auto repair
maintenance business. Vegetation on the site is limited to small areas of landscaping along thesidewalk and
to several non-native trees along the fence line.
20
Initial Study
DISCUSS1011
988 Howard Avenue
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orthrough habitat modifications, on any species
identified a5 candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,
regutations, ar by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service�
(Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) was reviewed to identify the location of special-status
species documented in surrounding areas, and the suitability of onsite habitats to support special-status
species was evaluated during the August 2015 site visit. Based on the CNDDB, no specia!-status species have
been documented on the project site or within approximately 2 miles of the site. The project site does not
provide suitable habitat for any regionally occurring special-status plant or wildlife species forthe following
reasons: (1) the site is in a densely developed urban area and is isolated from areas of natural habitat; and (2)
the site is paved and is being actively used as a gas station and auto repair maintenance shop. Therefore,
impacts to speciaf-status plant and wildlife species from development and aperation of the project are not
expected to occur.
The trees on and near the project site provide potential nesting habitat for common, urban adapted hird
species. The active nests of most native bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.
704) and the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503j. The proposed project may require the removal of
four trees, which could result in the loss of an active bird nests. Additionally, construction noise has the
potential to disturb nesting potentially occurring in nearby areas. Therefore, the loss of arr active bird nest
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/orthe California Fish and Game Code is a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure BI�-I; lf construction activities would commence anytime during the nesting/breeding
season of native bird spectes potentially nesting near the site (typically February through August in the project
region), a pre-canstruction survey for nesting birds would be canducted by a qualified biologist within two
weeks of the commencement of construction activities. The pre-construction survey would encompass the
project site and surrounding area, within 150 feet, so as to account for construction-related noise.
If active nests are found in areas that could be directly affected or are within 150 feet of construction and
would be sub�ect to prolonged construction-related noise, a no-disturbance buffer zone should be created
around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have
fledged. The size of the buffer zones and types of construction activities restricted within them would be
determined by taking into account factors such a� the following:
■ Noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise
and disturbance expected during the construction activity;
■ Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and
■ Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds.
21
I�U� Study
988 Howard Avenue
b) Have a substantiat 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? [No Impact)
During the August 2015 site visit, it was confirmed that no riparian habitat or other sensitive plant
communities exist on or nearthe project site. Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive
plant communities would occur.
c) Have a substantiai adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to: marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)
During the August 2015 site visit, it was confirmed that no creeks, wetlands, and other potentially jurisdictional
resources are present on or near the project site. 7herefare, no impacts to federally protected wetlands and
other waters would occur. -
d) tnterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with an established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites? (Less Than Significant)
Wildlife corridors are described as pathways or habitat linkages that connect discrete areas of natura) open
space otherwiseseparated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation, and ather natural or
manmade obstacles such as urbanization. The project site is paved and is surrounded by dense residential and
commercial development and does not connect areas of natural open space. Therefore, the project site is not
part of an expected wildlife movement corridor. For these reasons, the proposed project would not
substantially interfere with the local or regional movement of wildlife species and related impacts would be
less than significant.
e} Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? (Less Than Significant)
The Gity of Burlingame defines a"protected tree" as any tree with a trunk circumference of 48 inches or more
measured 54 inches above the ground. The City of Burlingame defines a"street tree" as any woody perennial
plant that grows on City property (right-of-way). The proposed project requires the removal of four trees, all
of which have a circumference of less than 48 inches and do not meet the definition of a"protected tree".
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on protected trees. However, one of the trees to be
removed is (ocated in the City right-of-way and is a City of Burlingame streettree. 7he proposed project
includes planting seven City of Burlingame street trees. Additionally in compliance with the Burlingame
---- -" Municipal Code 11:04.035, prior to removal of any street tree, the project applicant would be required to
obtain a permit from the City Arborist. With adherence to such policies and replanting efforts, the impact
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
22
IniUal Study
988 Howard Avenue
fj Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natura( Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local, Regional, or state habitat Conservation plan? (No
Impact)
The site is not part of or near an existing Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan
or any other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat consenration plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
23
Initiat Study
Issues (and Supporting !»formoUon SourcuJ:
s. CULTURAL RESOURCES—
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significanceofa unique archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.57
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature7
d) Disturb any human remains, fnciudingthose
interred outside of formal cemeteries7
Setting
Less Than
rgnificant or S/gni�cant
Potenttaily with lessThon
Slgnlflcont MlUga[ion SJgnlffcant
fmpact Incorporatiart Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ �
❑ �
■ 1./
■
■
■
988 Howard Avenue
No lmpact
�
a
❑
❑
A cultural records search for the project site was conducted through the California Historical Resaurces
Information System (CHRiSj at the Northwest Information Center (NWICj ln August 2015. The results of this
recards search are discussed below and included as Appendix D. A number of archaeological sites, Native
American culturat resources, and paleontological resources have been discovered throughout San Mateo
County. Given this, there is potential to uncover unrecorded buried cultural resources. The City of Burlingame
does not contain buildings and structures that appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5? (No Impactj
There are 23 structures within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan area that were identi�ed as potentially
eligible for the CRHP and the NRHP. In addition, there are 51 structures within the downtown area that convey
� -- --- -—certain aspects of Burlingame's histary and heritage, �ut are nat eligibla for the CftHR and PlRHP. Ho�r2v2r,
none of these potentially historic resources are on the project site. Acco�ding to the CHRIS records search, no
recorded buildings or structures are located within or immediately adjacent to the project site. Therefore,
implementation of the project would have no impact on a historical resource.
24
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to §15QG4.5? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated}
Native American cultural resaurces have been found within San Mateo County, but none have been identified
within the project area. The CHRIS records search stated there is a low potential for unrecorded Native
American resources in the project area, as well as low potential for un�ecorded histaric-period archaeological
resources. Moreover, because the project site is fully developed, construction of the projecc would occur in an
area that has been subject to deep subsurface disturbance for over 80 years. Therefore, implementation of
the project is anticipated to have no effect on a known unique archaeologica) resource. However, there is a
potential ta discover unidentified cultural resources during construction activities. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. Implementation of the mitigation measures below would reduce this potentially
significant impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: in the event archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work
will be halted within 100 feet ot the discovered materials and workers will avoid altering the materials and
their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate
recommendations.
If an archaeologlcal site is encountered in any stage of development, a qualified archeologist will be consulted
to determine whether the resource qualifies as an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource. In
the event that it does qualify, the archaeologist will prepare a research design and archaeological data
recovery plan to be implemented prior to or during site construction. The archaeologist shall also prepare a
written report ofthe �nding, file it with the appropriate agency, and arrange for curation of recovered
materials.
c) Directly or indirectty destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
(Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporatedj
No known paleontological resources have been recorded at the project site or within the vicinity; the nearest
known fossi!-bearing site is located at least 4 miles removed. Further, the site is fully developed. A gas station
and auto repair maintenance shop currently occupy the site; the gas station is not operational and has been
inactive for approximately two years, but the associated underground storage tank remain. Given the lack of
known resources and that the fully-developed site has been previously disturbed, the probability of
encountering paleontological resources is low. However, construction activities could potentially destroy
unknown paleontological resources. This is considered a potentially significant impact. In the event that
paleontological resources are discovered during site development, implementation of Mitigation Measure
- -- CUL-2 would mitigate this potentially significant impact to less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: A discovery of a paleontological specimen during any phase of the project shall
result in a work stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional paleontologist.
Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or further action (e.g., resource removal),
as determined by a professionat paleontologist, shall be implemented to mitlgate the impact.
25
Initial Study 988 Howard Avenue
dj Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (less Than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
It is possible that unmarked burials may be unearthed during project construction. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. If human remains are uncovered, the project applicant would comply with the
Califomia Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding human remains, and the California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 regarding the treaiment of Native American human remains. As a result,
implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL3 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: in the event that human remains are discovered during project construction, there
shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains. The county coronershall be informed to evaluate the nature of the remains. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Lead Agency shall work with the Native American
Heritage CommissiQn and the applicant to develop an agreement for treating or disposing of the human
remains.
26
Initial Study
lssnes (ond Supportinglnformatlon SourcesJ:
e. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—wou�d the
project:
a) 6cpose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i} Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault7 Refer to
Oivision of Mines and Geology Speciai
Publication 4Z
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iiij 5eismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
ivj Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil7
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) ee located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Build(ng Code j1494, as
it may be revised}, creating substantial risksto life
or property7
ej Ha•re soils Incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater
dis�osal systems where sewers a�e not available for
the disposal of wastewater7
Signi/Itant or
Potentioily
Signifiwnt
lmpact
❑�
Less Thon
Slgnlflca�t
wfth
MifJgaUon
lncorporoNon
I�
❑ �
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ �
❑ �
■ ■
Cess Than
Signi�tant
fmpact
❑�
988 Howard Avenue
No tmpact
)�1
❑ ❑
� ❑
❑ �
� ❑
a o
❑ ❑
� ��
Setting
Burlingame is in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, in eastern San Mateo County, adjacent to the San
Francisco Bay. The eay Area is considered one of the most seismically active areas in the country and is subject
to the effects of future earthquakes. The majority of Burlingame (except for the northwestern portion) is
essentially fiat (less than 1 percent slopej and is underlain by geologic materials consisting mostly of dense clay
and clayey sand alluvial fan deposits dating 1.6 million to 10,000 years. These soils tend toward general
stability and have a low infiltration rate (less than 0.2 inches per hour).
27
Initial5tudy
988 Howard Avenue
Qualified geotechnical engineers recently completed a geotechnical investigation for a project located at 225
California Drive, which is within less than a 0.1 mile radius. Due to the ciose proximity to that site and the
project site, the findings of the investigation related to regionai setting, site conditions and geotogic hazards
are assumed to be similar and that report was used to prepare this section (Appendix E).
Discussian
aj Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on ihe most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geotogist for the a�ea or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fauit? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42. (No impact}
The following four historically active faults are located within 15.5 miles of the project site:
■ San Andreas Fault (approximately 2.9 miles west)
• San Gregorio Fault (approximately 9.9 miles northeast)
■ Monte Vista-Shannon Fault (approximately 10.9 miles southeast)
■ Hayward (Total Length) Fault (approximately �5.5 miles east)
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972) and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990j direct the
State Geologist to delineate regulatory zones to assist cities and counties in preventing the construction of
buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. According to the California
Department of Conseruation, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fauft Zone, nor
is Burlingame affected byAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault 2ones. Additionally, no known surface expression of
fault traces cross the site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporatedj
The City is in relative proximity to historically active faults; as such, there is potential for development within
the sphere to be subject to strong seismic ground shaking, including the project site. The intensity of
earthquake ground motions would depend on the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the fault
and rupture zone, earthquake magnitude, earthquake duration, and site-specific geologic conditions. The San
Andreas Fault is the closest active fault to the project site, approximately 2.9 miles west. Earthquakes along
--=-- -- -- this fault are characteristically very strang (iv�odified iviercalii Intensity VIII) and groundshaking of this intensity
could result in heavy damage. Given this, implementation of the project would expose people and structures
to strong seismic groundshaking if an earthquake were to occur in the area. This is a potentially significant
impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure maximum practicable protection available to
users of the buildings and associated infrastructure and reduce this patential impact to a less-than-significant
level.
28
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Project design and construction shall adhere to Title 18, Chapter 18 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code, and demonstrate adherence to the latest seismic design parameters as required
by the California Building Cotle including, but not limited to, anchorage, load combinations, and structure
integrity.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significantj
Because the project site is in a seismically active region, some potentiai forseismic-related ground failure
exists. The project site is flat and is underlain predominately by stiff to very stiff clays and medium dense to
dense sands. Given this, the potentiai for significant seismic settiement is low. The Association of Bay Area
Governments mapped the project site as having low potential for liquefaction. Additionally, an analysis
perFormed by geotechnical enginee�s (see Appendix E) concluded low potential for liquefaction to affect the
site. Therefare, the impact would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides? (No Impact)
The downtown area of Burtingame expe�iences a grade change of approximately 15 feet (less than 1 percent
slopej. The area is relatively flat, without steep or unstable slopes, and does not have an irregular surface. As
such, natural slope instability does not affect the project site. Landslides are not considered a hazard in the
area. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosien or the loss of topsoil? jLess Than Signiflcant)
The project site is developed and is occupied with a gas station and auto repair maintenance shop. The
existing building and asphalt would be demolished and removed as part of the project. Construction activities
would be required to comply with the provisions in Appendix J of the California Building Code (CBC) (2007) in
regards to grading, excavating, and earthwork construction. Soil erosion after construction would be
controlled by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans, as needed. Additionally, the
building footprint would cover approximately 73 percent of the lot (11,160 sf of the 15,352 sf lot) with the rest
of the site mostly paved or landscaped. Therefore, there would be little exposed soil on site that would
contribute to soil erosion effects. Further, conformance to the City grading standards and the county
Stormwater Management Plan would prevent substantial erosion as a result of construction and
implementation associated with the project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
c) ee located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially resutt in on or off-site landslide, latera! spreading, subsidence,
- -.--- �--- -- liquefaction or collapse? (Less Than Significant �•rith Pllitiga;ion In;.or�crated)
and
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-ib of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
29
Initial Study 988 Howard Avenue
As previously discussed, the project site is not located in an area with high susceptibility to landslide effects or
liquefaction owing to its flat topography. The geotechnical report determined the potential for lateral
spreading to be low. While the soil is adequate to support the proposed infrastructure, geotechnical engineers
recently measured ground water at a depth at 16.5 feet below grade, which could significantly impact
excavation and other underground construction.
Expansive soils typicaliy have a plasticity index (PIj of 15 orgreater. According to the geotechnical report, test
results indicated a PI of 7 for surFace soils, which indicates a low expansion potential to wetting and drying
cycles, and a PI of 16 for soils at a depth of 9.5 feet, which indicates medium swelling potential. This is
considered a significant impact. The following mitigation would reduce this impact to (ess than significant.
Mitigation Measu�e GEO-2: Froject design and construction, including excavation activities, shall comply with
Chapter 33 of the CBC, which specifies the safety requirements to be fulfilled for site work. This would include
the prevention of subsidence or pavement or foundations caused by dewatering. Adherence must also be
demonstrated to Chapter 18 of the CBC, which sets forth building construction standards including, but limited
to, expansive soils.
e) Adherence to Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would ensure maximum practicable protection available
to users of the buildings and associated infrastructure and reduce impacts from expansive soils to
a less-than-significant-level. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
of alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater? (No Impact)
The project site would dispose of wastewater using existing wastewater infrastructure operated by the City of
Burlingame. No asped of the project would entail any use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
30
InfUal Study
luues (and Supponing lnjormatfon Sources):
�. GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS—wou�d the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact an
the e�vironment7
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emiuions of greenhouse gases?
less Than
Signi�cant
Potentfally with LessThan
Sipnificant MiUpation Significant
lmpact fncorporatlon Impact
❑ O �
❑ ❑ �
988 Howard Avenue
No Impatt
❑
❑
Setting
An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHGj Emissions Assessment was prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin in
September Z015 to address air quality and GHG emission impacts associated with the project (see
Appendix C).
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth's temperature. This phenomenon, known as
the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. The most common GHGs are carbon
dioxide (COZ) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N20j, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)• These are
released into the earth's atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of
GHGs are generally as follows:
■ CO� and N20 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion
■ N20 is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops
■ CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices �e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill
operations
■ Chlorofluorocarbons {CFCsj were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents but
their production has been stopped by international treaty
■ HFGs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling
■ PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum
production and_semi-conductor manufacturing
Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the earth's energy balance. This is expressed in terms of a
global warming potential (GWP), with C0� being assigned a value of 1 and sulfur hexafluaride being several
orders af magnitude stronger with a GWR of 23,900. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is
multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (COZe).
31
Initial Study
988 Noward Avenue
An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global warming is currently affecting
changes in weather patterns, average sea (evel, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation
�ates, and that it would increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources
within California could be adversely affected by the ciimate change trend. Increased precipitation and sea
level rise could increase coastal flaoding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration
and/or loss of plant and animal species couid also occur, Potential effects of global climate change that couid
adversely affect human health inciude more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in
climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and
drought; and increased levels of air pollution.
The BAAQMD May 2017. CEQA Guidelines included GHG emissions-based significance thresholds. These
thresholds include a"bright-line" emissions level of 1,100 metric tons per year for land-use type projects and
10,000 metric tons per year for stationary sources, Land use projects with emissions above the 1,100 metric
ton per year threshold would then be subject to a GHG efficiency threshold of 4.6 metrictons per year per
capita. Projects with emissions above the thresholds would be considered to have an impad, which,
cumulatively, would besignificant.
According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, the City adopted the Burlingame Climate Action
Plan in June 2009 with the goal reducing GHG emissions to 286,402 MT COZe by 2020.3 Although the
Burlingame Climate Action Plan is not an established Climate Action Plan, the City also conforms to the state
target for 2050 (emissions at 80 percent below 1990 levels) set forth in Executive Order (EO) 5-03-05.
Additionally, EO B30-15 establishes an interim statewide GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below
1990 levels by 2030. Additionally, the construction and operation of all new buildings in the City are required
to comply with energy efficiency standards included in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 24
identifies specific energy efficiency requirements for building construction and systems operations that are
intended to ensure efficient energy usage over the long-term life of the building.
Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant)
GHG emissions associated with development of the proposed project would occur over the short-term from
construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust and warker and vendortrips.
There would also be long-term operational emissions associated with vehlcular traffic within the project
_- ___. __,__ vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal. Emissions for the proposed project are discussed
below and were analyzed using the methodology recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
Construction
ProJect constructlon activities are predicted to generate 108 MT of COze using the conservative "default"
construction scenario outlined in Section 3, Air Quality. Neither BAAQMD nor the City has an adopted
3 Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan IS/MND, May 201D,
32
Initial Study 988 Howard Avenue
threshold of significance for constructian-related GNG emissions and project construction emissions would be
below the BAAQMD operational significance threshold of 1,100 MT of CO�e annually. Using this threshold, the
projecYs impact is considered less than significant. However, BAAQMD encourages the incnrporation of best
management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and appiicable. Best
management prac�ices may include, but are not limited to; using alternative fueled {e.g., biodiesel, electric)
canstruction vehicles/equipment for at Ieast 15 percent of the fleet; using at least 1D percent local building
materials; and recycling or reusing at Ieast 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials (see
Mitigation Measure AQ-1}. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce construction-related impacts
to a less than significant level.
Operation
Due to the project size, operational periad GHG emissions would be lessthan significant. BAAQMD identified
screening criteria forthe sizes of land use projects that could result in significant GHG emissions in their May
2011 update to the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For operationa) impacts, the screening projectsize is
identified at 53,000 sf for commercial land uses. Mixed use development projects of smaller size would be
expected to have (ess-than-significant impacts with respect to operational period GHG emissions. Since the
project proposes to operate 22,295 sf of office space and 1,325 sf of retail, it is concluded that emissions
would be below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 1,100 MT of COZe annually. Impacts associated with
the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, directly or indirectly, wouid be less than significant with project
implementation.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less Than Significant)
As stated above, the project would be subject to the most recent requirements under rule making developed
at the state and local level regarding greenhouse gas emissions and would be subject to local policies that may
affect emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and any
impacts would be less than significant.
33
Inidal Study
lssees (and Suppoeiiny lnformatlon SourcesJ:
s. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS—wou�a the pro�ect:
a} Geate a significant hazard to the public or the
environment throughthe routine transport, use, or
d+sposal of hazardous materials?
b) Ueate a significant hazard to the public orthe
e�vironment th�ough reasonably fareseeable upset
and accident conditions i�volving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit ha:ardous emissions or handle hazardous or
a�utely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school7
d� Be located on a site which is included on a f ist of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant ta
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 airpart land use pian
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
t�va miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
w•ould the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physicaily interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h} Expose peopie or strudures to a signifitant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
-' ' '`" where wildlands are adjacent to uroanized areas or
where �esidences are intermixed with wildiands?
988 Howard Avenue
less Thon
Slgn/ficant or Signiflcant
FofenUalty with Less 7han
SJgnljTcant MiUgation SignifTcani
lmpad Incorporation Impact Na tmpoct
❑ ❑
❑ �
� ❑
a ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
� ❑
❑ �
❑ �
O �
❑ �
❑ �
Setting
The project site has been has bee� operating as a gas station and auto repair maintenance shop for the past
several decades. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by Green Environment, Inc.
(GEIj in September 2014 to identify and evaluate the potential hazardous materials on and in the project
34
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
vicinity. Due to the historic and present use of the project site a Phase fl ESA was also conducted to evaluate
the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and to examine any potential impacts resulting from the past
use and storage of petroleum hydrocarbons orother chemical substances (see Appendix F).
The existing buildings were constructed between 1959 and 1978 and have the potentia) to contain asbestos
and lead-based paint. Health hazards associated with asbestos include increased risks of cancer and
respiratory-related illnesses and diseases, while lead may cause a range of health effects, including behavioral
problems, learning disabilities, seizures and death. Exposure to groundwater contamination, asbestos, and
lead-based paint during construction and demolition activities could resuit in a potentially significant hazard to
human health unless properly mitigated.
Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposat of hazardous materials? (Less Than Significant)
The project applicant is propqsing office and retail land uses at the project site. Common chemicals used for
such land uses include cleaners, toners, correction fluid, paints, and maintenance materials. Use ofthese
types of products and chemical would not invalve substantial use, transport, and disposal of hazardous
materials.
During construction, paint, building material finishing products, and automotive oil would be used as well.
However, such materials are used temporarily and typically do not generate hazardous air emissions or pose a
(ong-term threat to human health orthe environment. The project would remove approximately 6,000 cubic
yards of soil, which would be disposed of at the appropriate facility. Contaminated soil would be sent to either
Ox Mountain (Half Moon Bay) or Dumbarton Quarry (Newarkj, as autlined in the Soils Management Plan (SMP)
described in Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 below. Improper disposal could fncrease risk of exposure for nearby
residents through direct contact or by adversely affecting soil, groundwater, or other surface waters on and
around the site. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4 would ensure proper disposal methods for such resources.
Hazardous materials transportation, use, and disposal, as part of the project, would be subject to state and
federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. Additionally, the project would comply with hazardous
materials policies in the Burlingame Downtown Specific P(an IS/MND. With adherence to local, state, and
federal regulation regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, the project would have a
less-than-significant impact.
bj Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
,.-. __--_ __ .. -____ _,. and accident conditions involving thQ relerss Qf ha:ar�+ass materials inta th� envirortm�stt? (Less
Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The project site is currently developed with a gas station, and an automobile repair business. According to the
Phase I ESA, hazardous material use and storage on the project site includes the retail dispensing of gasoline
and diesel fuel from underground storage tank via fuel pumps, the use and storage of motor and transmission
oils, lubes, greases, antifreeze, Freon, solvents, and lead-acid batteries for automobile repair and service, as
well aa potential risk from halogenated volatile organic compounds from an unidentified local area plume. The
Phase I report determined that 32 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites are located within 0.5 miles
of the project site, and concluded that only 1 of these sites has the potentia) to impact the project site. The
35
initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
LUST and 5pills, Leaks, investigations, and Cleanups (SLIC) sites are located at Z15 California Drive,
approximately 600 feet southwest from the project site. As described ebove, a Phase 11 ESA was conducted to
sample the soil and groundwater at the project site for potential hazardous substances. Based on the Phase il
ESA, the soil sample and soii vapor results contain Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCj, and Heavy Metals. However, these levels were determined to be below the environmental
screening levels (ESLj published by the RWQCB's Screening for EnvJronmental Concems ot Sites with
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. As a result, exposure to these soi[ contaminants is nat expected tn cause
a significant impact to human health during construction and operation of the project.
The Phase II also collected groundwater samples at the project site and the samples showed that the TPHmo
result of 1,000 µg/L and the methyl tert butyl ethe� (MTBE) result of 28 µg/L (recovered at32 ft below grade)
exceeded the thresholds for potable drinking water resource protection. Furthermore, the TPHmo result also
exceeded the threshold for non-potable water resources.
Operation
The project would connect ta the existing municipal services, which would not use the extraction of
groundwater for water supply. The San Mateo Health Department was consulted regarding the groundwater
contamination and indicated that the groundwater contamination is not a concern for project
implementation. The project proposes to construct an office building on the project site; after construction,
employees and guests operating from the new building would not come into contact with any contaminated
soils/groundwater.
Construction
As described above, reported groundwater contamination at the proJect site was found to be at approximately
32 feet below ground surFace. Construction workers are not anticipated to come into contact with
groundwater because project excavation would reach approximately 12 feet. Additionally, construction
workers could potentially be exposed to asbestos and lead-based products during the demolition/construction
activities. Although construction workers are not expected to come into cantact with subsurface
contaminants, the San Mateo County Health Department requires that aSoils Management Pfan (SMP) 6e
submitted fortheir approval prior to issuance of a building permit (Mitigation Measure HAZ3�. The SMP shall
address the possibility of encountering subsurface contaminants, including groundwater, during construction
activities, and the relevant measures for identifying, handling, and disposing of subsurface contaminants.
Furthermore, implementation of the Title 8, California Code of Regulations/Occupationa) Safety and Health
--- --- -_(OSHA) requirements, outlined in E".it:b�:i�n M��su: �s HAZ-! and HA?-6 betow would reduce the potential
hazard with asbestos and lead-based paint to a less-than-significant level.
lmplementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6 would reduce the impacts associated with
demolition and construction to a less-than-significant level.
36
IniUal Study
Mitigatian Measure HAZ-1. The contractor shall comply with Title 8, California Code of
988 Howard Avenue
Regulations/Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) requirements that cover construction work where an
employee may be exposed to lead. This includes the proper removal and disposal of peeling paint, and
appropriate sampling of painted building surfaces for lead prior to disturbance of the paint and disposal of the
paint or painted materials.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. The applicant shall contract a Certified Asbestos Consultant to conduct an
asbestos survey prior to disturbing potential asbestos containing buiiding materials and shall implement the
Consultant's recommendations for proper handling and disposal.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3. The applicant shall prepare, and submit, a Soils Management Plan (SMP) to the
San Mateo County Health Department for approval, priorto the issuance of a building permit. The SMP shall
address the possibility of encountering subsurface contaminants, including groundwater, during construction
activities, and the relevant measures for identifying, handling, and disposing of subsurface contaminants: ?he
SMP shall be submitted to the City priorta issuance of a building permit.
Mitigation Measure HAZ�4. The contractor shall ensure #he appropriate handling, storing, and sampling of any
soil to be removed fromthe subject property, as perthe SMP, so as to eliminate potential health ancf safety
risks ta the public, including construction workers.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-5. In the event that g�oundwater, or other subsurface contaminants, are
encountered during excavation, grading, or any other demolition/construction activities at the project site, the
contractor shall ensure that the procedure for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of
contaminated groundwater is implemented, as per the SMP (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-3).
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6. Workers handling demolition and renovation activities at the project site shall be
trained in the safe handling and disposal of residual chemicals, solvents, heavy metals, motor and transmission
oils, lubes, greases, antifreeze, Freon, solvents, and lead-acid batteries etc. associated with the former gas
station and auto repair maintenance shop.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ 1 through HAZ-6, impacts associated with hazard to the
public orthe environment through reasanably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.
c} Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less Than Significant)
_ ---
__ _ _.__..--_ . _..
Washington Elementary School, located approximately 0.1 miles east of the property, is the only school within
0.25 miles of the project site (see Figure 1). As stated above, hazardous materia) use and storage on the
project site includes the retail dispensing of gasoline and diesel fuel from underground storage tank via fuel
pumps, the use and storage of motor and transmission oils, lubes, greases, antifreeze, Freon, solvents, and
lead-acid batteries for automobile repair and service, as well contaminated soil and groundwater from an
unidentified plume in the project vicinity. Additionally, during constructian, the project could involve the
handling, and disposal, of hazardous was#e products, such as asbestos and lead. Most of the above-mentioned
substances are typically found within commercial sites. Handling of such substances from the site would be
37
Initiai Study 988 Howard Avenue
regulated by state and federal hazardous material laws, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, State Water Code, Undergraund Storage Tank Code, Cortese
Act (listing of hazardous waste and substances sites), and Praposition 65 (safe drinking water and toxics
enforcementJ; all of which would minimize the risk of exposure to nearby land uses, induding Washington
Elementary. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6 would further reduce
potential impacts to risk of exposure to nearby land uses.
As stated above, the project would inciude office and retail �and uses on the project site. Common chemicals
used in commercial and office settings include cleaners, toners, correction fluid, paints, and maintenance
materials. Use of these types of products and chemicais would not emit hazardous emissions or require the
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. For these reasons, the project would have a less-than-
significant impact to schools with 0.25 mile of project site.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ma#erials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard ta the
public or the environment? (No Impactj
The State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (also known as the "Cortese List") is a
planning document used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in
providing information about the location of hazardous materials sites. According to the Department of Toxic
Substances Control, the project site is not currently listed on the'Cortese' list pursuant to Government Code
Section 659b2.5. Therefore, the project would have no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not heen adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact)
San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is approximately 2 miles north of the project site. According to the
Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, the project site is within the 19965an Mateo Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP)°. The ALUP is subject to land use policies and restrictions, which includes a 300
feet height restriction associated with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA} regulations. The proposed
project includes the construction of a three story, 45-foot, office building. Given that the height of the building
is belaw the 300-foot height restriction, there are no anticipated safety hazards to people residing or working
in the project area as a result of p�oject implementation. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f� Ecr 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? (No Impactj
There are no private airstrips within the project vicinity. Therefore, there would be no safety hazards to
people residing or working in the project area as they pertain to private airstrips and no impact wauld occur.
4 Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, 2030. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (pg.149).
38
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact)
The project would build the new structure on previously developed commercial land. Access paints to the site
would be constructed to ensure proper access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with an adopted emergency response or evacuation pian and no impact would occur.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands? (No Impact)
The praject site and the surrounding vicinity are entirely developed. The area does not contain, and is not
adjacent to wiidlands. Accordingly, implementation of the project would not resuit in the exposure of people
or structures to significant loss, inJury, or death involving wiidland fires and no impact would occur.
39
Ini6al Study
BI
h�
ij
J)
988 Howard Avenue
tess Thon
Sign�cont or Slgnljlcant
PotenHalfy with Less Than
S/gnificont MI2lqaGon Slgnificant
lssuesfandSuppardnglnformationSourtesJ: /mpact ltttorpo�atioe Impact Nolmpact
s. HYDROLOGYAND WATER
QUALITY—would the project:
a) Violate any water qualiry standards or waste
discharge requirements7
b) Substantiaily deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantialiy with groundwater recharge
such thatthere would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lower'�ng of the lowl groundwater table
level (e.g., the produdion rate of pre-existing nearby
wells wou�d drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substant(ally 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 drai�age pattern of the
site or area, includingthrough the alteration of the
course of a sveam or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which wauld result in flooding on- or off-site?
ej Geate or contribute runoff water whtch would
exceed the capacity of exisUng or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
fl atherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Piace housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federa! Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map o� other flood hazard
delineation map7
Piace within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flowsl
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a resuR of the faflure of a levee or dam?
Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ D
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
� ❑
❑ �
� o
� �
� ❑
� ❑
❑ �
❑ �
� o
� ❑
SEttf!!,[J
San Mateo County is within the San Francisca Bay portion of the Coast Range Geologic Pravince. Annual
average precipitation in San Mateo County is reported at approximately 19.6 inches. The State Water
-� ` Resources Control Board (SWKC�) and the Regionai 1Nater Quaiiiy Control 8oard (nVJQCB} rnonitor water
quality in the eay Area. These agencies oversee the implementation of the National Poliutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discfiarge permits. The SWRCB has imptemented a NPDES Genera)
Cvnstruction Permit for the State of California for projects disturbing 1 or more of acres of soil. Construdion
activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or
excavation. Dischargers are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit and are required to file a
Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) priorto commencement
of construction. The City participates in the San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP),
40
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
end is required to implement Low impact pevelopment (LID) BMPs under Municipai Regional Stormwater
Permit (MRPj(Provision C.3.b.). LID practices include source cantrol BMPs, site design BMPs, and stormwater
treatment BMPs onsite or at a joint stormwater treatment facility.
eurlingame Water Division of the Public Works Department, which purchases treated water from the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission, provides potable water to the project site. Approximately 85 percent of
the water supply comes from the Hetch Hetchy watershed in the 5ierra Nevada Mountains and approximately
15 percent comes from local watersheds. The project area does not contain any natural surface drainage.
Stormwater runoff is entirely contained within a storm drainage system that utilizes Burlingame Creek, Ralston
Creek, and Ter�ace Creek fo� drainage purposes. The project site does not include any surface waters; the
nearest bodyof surface water to the subject property is the San Francisco Bay, located approximately 1 mile
east of the project site. Groundwater was encountered intermittently during the Phase II ESA testing at
app�oximately 32 feet below ground surface (see Appendix F). According to the Federal Eme�gency
Management Agency (FEMAj Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMj, the project site is located within Zone 6, which
is an area subject to inundation by a 0.2 percent annual chance flood event.
Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Less Than Significant)
Construction of the new building would involve ground disturbing activities such as trenching, grading,
demolition, and vegetation removal. The maximum depth of these activities would be approximately 12 feet
below ground surface. Groundwater is approximately 32 feet below ground surface and would therefore not
be encountered during construction activities.
Construction activlties also have the potential to result in runoff that contains sediment and other pollutants
that could degrade water quality if not properly controlted. Sources of pollution associated with construction
include chemical substances from construction materials and hazardous or toxic materials, such as fuels. As
stated above, over 1 acre of soil would be disturbed during construction; therefore, the project would be
subject to a State NPDES General Construction Permit which would require submittal of a N01 to the SWRCB.
Erosion control requirements are stipulated in the NPDES Permit issued by the RWQCB. These requirements
include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that contains BMPS. The purpose of the SWPPP is to
identify potential sediment sources and other pollutants and prescribe BMPs to ensure that potential adverse
erosion, siltation, and contamination impacts would not occur during construction activities. Implementation
of a SWPPP with BMPs would contro) erosion and protect water quality from potential contaminants in
stormwater runoff emanating from the construction site. BMPs may include damp street sweeping, providing
appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas, temporary cover of
dIstu�bed surfaces, etc., which would help to protect water quality.
Once operational, the project site would generate wastewater associated with office and retail land uses. Such
land uses do not contribute significant amounts of pollutants that would violate water quality standards or
waste disCharge requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with water quality standards and wastewater
discharge requirements would be less than significant.
41
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
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
wouid not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (No
impact)
The project site is fully paved and developed and does not directly contribute to groundwater recharge. The
groundwater basin in the existing project site is not currently utilized for potable water. The project does not
include plans to use groundwater resources for future uses. The project would not substantially deplete
groundwater as there is no plan to create water wells on the site and the future land users on the site would
receive municipa) water from the City of Burlingame Water Division of Public Works. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
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-5ite? (less Than Signlficant)
and
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteretion
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? ( Less Than Significant)
There are no natural drainage features on or near the project site. The existing drainage pattern entails the
use of (ined channels, culverts, and underground pipes, all of which eventually drain into the San Francisco
Bay. Project construction would involve ground disturbing activities. As noted above under item 9a, project
construction would be subject to the NPDES General Construction Permit that imposes strict requirements and
control on construttion and post-construdion activities. Furthermore, the site is currently developed with
areas of impervious pavement. Once operational, the amount of surface runoff generated by the project is not
expected to increase compared to existing conditions and the new building would not significantly alter the
quantity of impervious surfaces or the existing drainage patterns. No new water intensive activities are
proposed that would cantribute substantial additional runoff that could exceed the capacity of stormwater
drainage systems in the area.
The Street and Sewe� Division of the Department of the City Pu61ic Works Department maintains Burlingame's
stormwater infrastructure. The project site is connected to existing 15-inch stormwater lines and the new
building would tie-in to these existing lines to convey stormwater infrastructure. Bio-swales for stormwater
_., - _- - � . . _
treatrr�ent and drainage around the project site would be installed as well. Additionally, with compliance to
state and local regulations, and the implementation of BMPs, impacts to drainage patterns and surface runoff,
resulting in erosion or siltation would be minimized. As such, the project would not contribute substantial
amounts of sediment to storm drain systems or alter existing drainage patterns to the extent that would result
in flooding on-o� off-site. The impact would be less than significant.
42
Initiat Study
988 Haward Avenue
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existi�g or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (less
Than Significant)
and
f) Otheruvise substantially degrade uvater quality? (Less Than Significant)
As stated above in c), and d), the proposed project would not alter the existing impervious surFace to a point at
which the drainage, and surface runoff, in the area would be affected. Standard Permit Conditions would
require the project to Implement a SWPPP with BMPs during construction activities to protect water quality
from potential contaminants in stormwater runoff emanating from the construction site. The project would
also be subject to the requirements of Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit.
Use of the project site by motor vehicles would typically result in the deposit of various materials on the
roadway and adjacent areas that constitute urban pollution as previously discussed. However, such vehicle
use would nat be substantially greater than that under existing conditions, and no new significant sources of
polluted runoff would be created. With compliance to state and local regulations, and the implementation of
BMPs, impacts to surface runoff, resulting in additianal saurces of polluted runoff, or degradation to water
quality, would be less than significant.
g) Place housing within a 100-year fload hazard area as mapped an a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
ar Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map7 (No Impact)
and
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirett flood flows?
(Na Impactj
The project site is categorized by FEMA as Zone B(500-year floodplain}, which is an area subject to inundation
by a 0,2 percent annuai chance fload event. The project indudes the canstruction of an office building, and as
such, no housing would be constructed as a result af the project. Therefore, na impact wauld occur.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury ar death irnolving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? jless Than Significant)
The closest dam to the project site is Crystal Springs Dam, located approximately 5 miles southwest of the
project site. Due to the dam's distance from the project site, it does not pose extensive safety hazards to the
___.. project; the 5-mile distance would significantly reduce the velocity of moving water, and consequently any
possible impacts in the unforeseen incidence of dam failure would not expose people or structures within the
project vicinity to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death, Additionally, the dam is currently undergoing
43
initial Study 988 Howard Avenue
renovations to enhance the safety of the structure in the event of a major earthquakes. Implementation of the
project would not signi�cantly change the existing conditions and expase people or structures to significant
risk due to failure of a levee ar a dam. Therefore, the impacts due to development in Flood Hazard Areas
would be less than significant.
jj Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Less Than Significantj
Tsunamis are large ocean waves generated by earthquakes and can be damaging to lowland coastaf areas. The
project site is approximately 10 miles away from the Pacific coast, and the risk of damage due to a tsunami is
low. According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, downtown Burlingame is located 25 feet
above sea level, and any large wave would have dissipated to less than 18 feet by the time it reaches the City.
Large earthquakes can afso generate oscillating waves in enclosed bodies of water (seiche), such as bays, lakes
and reservoirs. The project site is located approximately 1 mile west of the San Francisco Bay, and 3 miles
northeast of Crystal Springs Reservoir (at its closest point), and 5 miles northea5t of the Crystal Springs Dam.
Since the project site is not located in the immediate vicinity of any bays, lakes, or reservoirs, the probability of
a seiche from either the San Francisco Bay, or the Crystal Springs Reservoir, or dam, having enough
momenium to affect the property site is low. Furthermore, as no steep slopes are located in close proximity ta
the project site, the possibility of inundation by landslides or mudflows would be remote. Therefore, the
impact would be less than significant.
5 County of San Mateo Public Works.2015. Crystal Springs Dam Bridge Replacement Project. Available:
http://publicwo�ks,smcgov.org/crystal-springs-dam-bridge-replacement-project. Accessed: October 15, 2015.
44
Initiai Study
tssues (and Supporttng Informailon SourcesJ:
so. LAND USE AND PLANNING—
Would the project:
a} Physically divide an established community7
988 Howard Avenue
Less Thon
SignJficcnt or Signiflcant
AotentFaNy wlth Less Than
Slgnlflcant Mltfyatfon Slgn/Jicant
lmpoct lncorporatlon fmpact Nolmpact
'�.
�■
�■
►�1
►�
bj Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or �
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the generai
pian, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinancej adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an enviranmental effedl
c) Conflict with any applicabie habitat conservation �
plan or natural community conservatlon plan?
�
�
/1
Setting
The project site is within Burlingame City limits and within the Bu�lingame Downtown Speci�c Plan area.
Burlingame is divided into a series of planning areas. According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan
IS/MND, the project site and adjacent parcels are within the Myrtle Road Mixed Use (MMU) planning area.
The land use designation for MMU is mixed use retail/residential. The land use designation allows for a variety
ofsmall commercial, residential, and retail uses. The area is meant to serve as a buffer between the
downtown commercial district and the residential neighborhoods to the east. The downtown area contains a
variety of land uses, including commercial, office, cultural, civic, and quasi-civic.
Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact)
As previously discussed, the project site is currently developed with commercial land uses within an existing
neighborhood. The project would redevelop the site lnto retail and office uses. Given this, implementation of
the project would not result in physical division of an established community into two or more areas.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
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, loea) coasta! prog�am, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Impactj
The project site is governed by the General Plan, Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, and the Burlingame
Municipal Code (BMC). According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, the project site and
adjacent parcels are designated MMU, which supports retail and office uses. The project would redevelop a
vacant commercial property and construct a building with a mix of retail and cammercial uses, which is
consistent with Chapter25.34 MMU District Regulations of the BMC, The�efore, the projed would not conflict
with any land use plans or policies, and no impact would occur.
45
Inidal Study
988 Howard Avenue
c) Conflict with any applicable conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? jNo Impactj
According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, the site is not part of or near an existing Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan or any other local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Pian, Natural Community Conservation Plan, orother approved locai, regional, arstate
habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
46
Initial Study
Issues (and Suppertl»g Informaf/on SourtesJ:
�s. MINERAL RESOURCES—woum the
project:
a) Result ln the loss of availability af a knawn mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of ihe state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a lacally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan ar other land
use plan?
less Than
SignFficant or Sipnificanf
Potentlo/fy with LeSSThon
Significant MitigatFon Sipnificant
impact Incorporctlon lmpact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ D
988 Howard Avenue
No lmpact
�
�
Settir�g
The California Geologica) Survey (CGS) is responsible under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMARA) for classifying land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) based on the known or inferred mineral
resource potential of that land. Based upon available data, the project site and area surrounding the project
limits have been classified as MRZ-1, which is defined as "areas where adequate geologic information indicates
that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their
presence:' This finding is reflected in the San Mateo County General Plan Minerai Resources Map.
Discussion
a)
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a known minera! resource that would be of vatue to the region
and the residents of the state? (No Impactj
and
Result in the loss of availabiliry of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, speci�ic plan or other land use plan? (No Impactj
The project site is currently developed and not used for mineral recovery activities. Moreover, no known
mineral resources are known to exist within Che project site and area surrounding the project limits, as
indicated byThe Mineral Resource Zones and Resource 5ectors San Francisco and San Mateo Counties Maps
and the San Mateo County General Plan. Implementation of the project would not result in the loss of
- ---- - availability of a known mineral resource af value to thr region and residents of the state, nor of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impact would occu�.
47
Initiai Study
luues (and Supporcing lnformafion SourcesJ:
12. NOISE—Would the project result in:
a) Expose persons to or generate noise (evels in excess
of standards esWblished in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or appticable 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 nolse
levels in the project vicinityabove levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the projea vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a projeci located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a pubiic airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels7
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to exces:ive noise levels7
Less Than
Significantor Signlficar+t
Potentio(!y wlth less7han
Srpnlficaat MIUyaUon S)gnijlcant
Impact IncorporoUon Impact
❑ � ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ �
❑ ❑
'■ ■
/�1
/�/
�
►�I
�
988 Howard Avenue
No lmpact
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
�
Setting
iliingworth and Rodkin, Inc prepared a Noise Assessment for the project site in September 2015 that includes
details of the analysis and provide5 background information noise and vibration. The Noise Assessment is
included as Appendix G.
Noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity af the project site inciude residential land uses located approximately
50 feet to the north and northeast across Myttle Road. San Francisco International Airport is about 2 miles
"--- -- northeast of ihe site: -Railroad noise and vehide traffic noise are the primary sources of noise in the vicinity a�
the project site; railroad tracks run parallel to East Lane as close as 110 feet from the project site and the
Burlingame Caltrain Station is 0.2 miles from the project site, across East Lane. Additionally, a survey of
existing commercial uses in the vicinity of the project site revealed that occasional car washes and servicing at
the auto dealership to the northwest are temporary stationary noise sources affecting the site.
48
initial SWdy
988 Howard Avenue
A noise monitoring survey was done to quantify ambient noise levels at representative noise-sensitive
locations adjacent to the project site. The survey was conducted August 4 to 6, 2015, and included two short-
term measurements (ST-1 and ST-2), and two long-term measurements (LT-1 and LT-2j, taken throughout the
project site as summarized in Tabie 4. Each of the two short-term measurements consisted of two consecutive
10-minute measurement intervals.
Table 4 Short-term Measurement Data
Measurement '
Lacattan OatelTime L.eQ� ' Lm�� L���' L��)� Ltso>* �-a��
ST-1: 25 feet from center of ��015 71 89 83 62 53 79
13:33-13:40
Howard Avenue, 90 feet from
railroadtracks ��015 60 70 68 58 50 73
13:40.14:00
ST•2: 35 feet from center of ���� 5 59 75 69 54 48 71
13:50.14:00
Howard Avenue,190 feet
from railroad tracks �v2015 62 80 72 56 50 70
74:00-14:10
Sourte: l.ling�vorth & Rodkin, 2015
Notes:'l�q - Most commonly, environmental sounds are desaibed in terms of an averege level that has the same acoustical energy as
the summation of ell the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq.
Lr,,,X-The maximum A-weighted noise level duringthe measurement period.
l{�- 7he A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, of the time during the measurement period.
L���-The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 50%, of the time during the measurement perlod.
4��- The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 90%, of the time during the measurement period.
L�d„�-The day/night average sound levei.
The City established noise and land use compatibility standards in the General Plan, to guide development, and
protect citizens from the harmful and annoying effects of excessive noise. The suggested maximum outdoor
noise levels fo� commercial land use zones is 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL), while indoor noise level planning criterian are established to be 45 dBA CNEL. Additionally, the
General Plan established recommended noise emission standards for cnnstruction equipment operating within
the City (see Appendix G), and states that no construction noise can be emitted past the property line so as to
create a noise leve! increase of more than 5 dBA Lmax above ambient lm,� noise levels.
A�lowable hours of construction within the City are between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays, 9:00 am and
6:00 pm on Saturdays, and 10:00 am and 6:00 pm on Sundays and holidays, as established by the Burlingame
Municipal Code Section 18.07.110.
_-_
Discussion
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? (Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporatedj
Project construction is expected to last 12 to 18 months, and would occur between the hours designated by
the General Plan. The development of the project is expected to generate noise, and would temporarily
increase noise levels at nearby sensitive land uses. Project construction activities that are expected to impact
noise levels within the project vicinity include demolition, site preparation, grading/excavation, trenching,
49
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
exterior/int�rior building, and paving- all of which utilize heavy construction equipment. Construction
activities would intermittently exceed the threshold at noise sensitive receivers to the north and northeast.
The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) would reduce construction noise impacts to a less-than-
significant level:
■ Noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site
associated with the project in any way would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm,
Monday through Friday, and 9:00 am to 6:0� pm on Saturdays, and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sundays
and holidays. All internal combustion engine driven equipment would be equipped with intake and
exhaust mufflers which are in good condition and appropriate forthe equipment.
■ Stationary noise generating equipment (e.g., concrete crushe�j would be located as far as possible
from sensitive receptors, and acoustically shielded with temporary noise barriers, material stockpiles,
etc. to reduce noise levels at nearby residences.
■"Quiet" air compressors and other stationery noise sources would be utilized where technology exists.
■ The contractor would prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-
generating construction activities. This plan shall be distributed to noise-sensitive uses within 1,200
feet of the project site.
■ A"disturbance coordinator° would be designated, and would be responsible f�r responding to any
local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of
the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable
measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented as soon as possible. A telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator should be posted at the construction site and included in the notices
sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
The project would increase noise on- and off-site from existing conditions; the project would place future users
in an environment that exceeds the standard for the type of land use proposed. The future noise environment
at #he project site would continue to result primarily from local transportation, and Caltrain railroad noise
within the project vicinity. According to the noise analysis performed for the project, the future exterior noise
exposure is calculated to be up to 77 dBA CNEL, which exceeds the Cit�s standard of 65 dBA CNEL. These
noise levels at the roof top deck would be reduced by more than 15 dBA as a result of shielding by #he
proposed building, parapet walls surrounding the deck, and because of increased distance from the western
border of the project. Therefore, exterior operatianal noise sources associated with the project would be
reduced to less than 62 dBA, and would not cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels a6ove existing
-- -
con itions:— --
With regard to interior noise levels, due to vehicle traffic and the close proximity of the Caltrain, the future
users at the site could potentially experience noise levels ranging from 6b dBA CNEL to 73 dBA CNEL LeQ(1-hr),
which would exceed interior noise and land use compatibility standards. The State of California's wall and
roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to adjacent roadways Sound Transmission Class (STC} rating of at least 50 or a
�a
Inifial Study
988 Howard Avenue
composite Outdoor-IndoorTransmission Class (OITC) rating of no less than 40 would provide at least 35 to 40
dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. Additionally, the inclusion of adequate forced-air mechanical
ventilation systems is normally required so windows may be kept closed at the occupant's discretion.
The sound-rated construction materials established in the California Building Cal Green Code in combination
with forced-air mechanical ventilation would satisfy the threshold. However, this is a potentially significant
impact that would be minimized to fess than significant with the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measure NOI-1. The contractor shall ensure that the interior noise levels are ma intained at or
below 50 dBA leQ�l-n��• Treatments would include, but are not limited to, sound-rated wall and window
constructions, acoustical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc. The specific determination of what
noise insulation treatments are necessary shall be conducted on a room-by-room basis during final design of
the project. Results ofthe analysis, including the description of the necessary noise contro) treatments, shall
be submitted to the City, along with the building plans and approved design, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2. The contractor shall install forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the
local building official, for all exterior-facing rooms of the office building so that windows can be kept closed at
the occupant's discretion to control interior noise and achieve the interior noise standards.
With implementation of the above BMPs, and Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, noise-related impacts
that would expose people to interior noise levels above standards established by local and state policies would
diminish, and noise levels associated with construction and operation of the project would be reduted to a
less-than-significant level.
b) Expose people to or generate excessive g�oundborne vibration or g�oundborne vibration levels?
(Less Than Significant)
The California Department of 7ransportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 Peak Particle velocity inches
per second (in/sec PPV) for buildings that are structurally sound and designed to modern engineering
standards; hawever, groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec PPV could have the potential to result
in significant vibration impacts. The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when
heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams) are used, and construction activities such as
demolition, site preparatian work, foundation work, new building framing and �nishing, and paving could
result in perceptible groundborne vibration. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions,
construction methods, and equipment used (see Table 5). The nearest residential land uses would be
- approximately�0 feet northeast the project siie across �vlyrtle Road. At this distance, vioration levels would
be expected to be 0.06 in/sec PPV or less. All vibration levels expected at nearby residences would, therefore,
be below the p.3 in/sec PPV significance threshold. As a result, any exposure of people to groundborne
vibrations exceeding established standards would be less than significant.
51
Initial 5iudy
Table 5 Vibration Source Levels for Constructian Equipment
988 Howard Avenue
Equipment PPV at 25 ft(in/sec) Approximate L„ at25 ft(VdB)*
Upper 1.158 112
Pile Driver (Impactj Range
Typical 0.644 104
Upper 0.734 105
Pile Driver (Santc) Range
Typical 0.170 93
Clam Shovel Drop 0.202 94
in Soil 0.008 66
Hydromill {slurrywall) 0.017 75
in Rock
Vibratory Roller 0.230 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulidozer 0.003 58
Notes:'VdB—Ybration dedbels
Lv— Vibration Level
INsec — Inches per secand
Source: IBingworth 8 Rodkin, 2015
c) Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? (Less Than Significant)
A significant impact woutd occur if the permanent noise level increase due to project-generated noise was 3
dBA Ld„ or greater for existing levels exceeding 60 dBA Ld„ or was 5 dBA Ldn or greater for existing levels at or
below 60 dBA Ld,,. Ambient noise levels at the nearest receptors are above 60 dBA CNEL at times, and would
exceed 60 dBA CNEL with the project; therefore, the 3 dBA CNEL or greater significance threshold would apply.
A review of the Traffic Analysis Report prepared forthe project, concludes that the proposed project would
not resuit in a net increase in the overall vehicle trip generation (see Section 16 and Appendix H). As a result
the traffic noise generated by the project would be similar to existing conditions. Additionally, an enclosed
parking lot would be located on the basement level. However, the entrance and exit would share the same
driveway, accessed via East Lane along the western border of the project site. Noise-generating activities
(vehicle circulation, engine starts, door slams, etc.) at the parking lot would generally coincide with activities in
52
initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
the existing use at the site parking lot, and as a result, the proposed parking lot would not substantially
increase ambient noise levels at the project site or in the surrounding vicinity. The project would not result in
a permanent increase is ambient noise levels above those noise levels currently generated by existing
conditions.
d) Result in a substantia) temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vlcinity
above le�els existing without the proJect? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
As stated above in a) and c), the development of the project is expected to generate noise, and would
temporarily increase noise levels at nearby sensitive land uses. Project construction activities that are
expected to impact noise levels within the project vicinity include demolition, site preparation,
grading/excavation, trenching, exterior/interiar building, and paving- all of which utilize heavy construction
equipment. Construction activities would intermittently exceed the threshold at noise sensitive receivers to
the north and northeast. This is considered a significant impact. With implementation of the BMPs stated
above, and Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and IVOI-2, temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the projed
vicinity would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
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? (Less Than Significantj
SFO is the closest airport to the project site, located approximately 2 miles northeast of the site. While
occasional airc�aft overflights are audible, intermittent aircraft noise is not a significant contri6utor to the
ambient noise environment. The Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND identifies that the project site is
within the airport land use plan (ALUP) for SFO; however, the project site does not fall within the fi0 dB CNEL
or higher contours of noise generated by planes taking off and landing. As a result, both exterior and interior
noise {evels resulting from aircraft would be compatible with the project; therefore the project would result in
a less-than-significant impact.
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? (No Impact)
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not expose
people residing, or working in the project area to excessive noise (evels, and there would be no impact.
53
inikiat Study
lssues (and SupportJng Informotion Sources):
is. POPULATION AND HOUSING—
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
eithe� directly jfor example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectiy (for example,
through extension of roads o� other infrestructure)?
bj Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
cj Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the �onst�uction of replacement
housing elsewhere7
Less Than
STgni�cant o� Slgn/f)tont
Potentla!!y wlth Less7han
Signlficant Mitlgation Sipnificant
/rnpad Incorporatlon lmpaci
❑ ❑ �
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�
❑�
988 Howard Avenue
IVo lmpac!
❑
�
�
Setting
According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, the population in the City of Burlingame was
29,342 in January 2010, and the population is expected to grow by 3.9 percent before 2020, and an additional
2.9 percent between 2020 and 2030. Jobs in the City are expected to increase by 6,340 between 2010 and
2030. OveraU, the community is 6ecoming increasingly built-out due to the lack of undeveloped acreage
within the City boundary.
Discussion
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly jfor exampte, by prcposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Less Than Signi�cant)
The project is mixed use retail/commerciai, with a combined maximum occupancy of approximately 359
persans. While the projed would provide employment opportunities, it would be uniikely that the
development would be large enough to attract growth on a regional level from the amount of jobs it would
provide. The project would conform to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, Zoning Code regulations. The
project would be an infill-type development. As a result, the project would not indirectly induce growth
through intensification and development of surrounding land uses because the surrounding areas are already
developed. Additionally, the project would not involve the extension of an existing road or infrastructure that
would provide access to other portions of the City and county. Therefore, the impact would be less than
significant.
54
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
and
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (No lmpactj
As previously discussed, a gas station and auto repair shop currently occupy the site. Given this, project
implementation would not cause displacement of existing housing or residents that would necessitate the
construction of replacemerrt housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.
55
Initial Study
Issues rond Supporting lnjarmatlon SourcesJ:
3A. PUBLIC SERVICES— wou�a the pro�ect:
a) Rzsult in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physicaliy altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which couid cause significant
environmental impacts, in arder to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
pecformance objectives for any of the public
senrices:
i) Fire protection7
ii} Police protedion7
iii) Schools7
Iv} Parks?
v} Otherpublicfacilities?
Signljicant or
Potenttally
S)gn1/Tcanf
Impoct
■
�
�
■
■
Less Thon
Slgnificcnf
wiih
MtUgaUnn
Incorpoiotlon
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
988 Howard Avenue
Less Than
Signff'icant
Impacf No Impoct
�
■
�
■
�
/1
/1
/�1
►�/
/1
Setting
The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) provides fire protection services within Burlingame, Millbrae, and
Hillsborough. CCFD has 87 full-time employees including 82 uniform personnel. CCFD's equipment includes
six fire engines, one fire truck, and one search & rescue truck. There are six fire stations within the CCFDs
jurisdiction; the closest fire station is located 0.65 miles northwest of the project site at 799 California Drive.
The current response time for the CCFD is approximately 4 minutes for 95 percent of emergency calis, which is
above the 6 minute 59 second County standard response time.6
The Burlingame Police Department (BPD) provides emergency services to the City af Burlingame. BPD has one
police station and it is located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. According to a conversation with Lieutenant Kiely, BPD
employs 56 employees that include 37 sworn officers. The General Plan does not designate a standard ratio of
police ofFicers to residents, or a standard emergency response time; however, Lieutenant Kiely indicated that
the current emergency response time is acceptable at approximately 7.5 minutes?
6 Christine Reed, Fire Inspedor; Central County Fire Department; Personal communlcation; 5eptember 30, 2015.
71ay Kiely, Lieutenant; Burlingame Police Department; Personal communication; September 24, 2015,
56
Initial S:udy
988 Howard Avenue
Burlingame contains five neighborhood schools that serve grades Kindergarten through grade 5(K-5), one
middle school for grades 6 through 8, and one high school.
eurlingame also operates 18 recreational facilities, a 34.5-acre Milis Canyon Wildlife Refuge and a 2-acre
Shorebird sanctuary. As stated in Section 15, the recreational facilities in Burlingame are managed by the
Department of Parks and Recreation. The project site is located approximately 0.1 miles from the nearest
recreational facility, Washington Park.
Discussion
�) Result in substantial adverse physical lmpacts associated with the provision af new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in arder to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance abjectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? (No Impactj
The project would construct a mixed-used commerciai and retail building on the project site that is already
developed. No residential land uses are proposed and thus would not result in a direct increase in population.
The CCFD has determined that there is adequate equipment, staff, and facilities to provide services to the
project site, and no additional staff, facilities, or equipment would be needed as a result of project
implementatione. As a result, there wauld be no impact to fire protection services.
ii) Police protection3 (No Impactj
The project would construct a mixed-used commercial and retail building on the project site that is already
developed. No residential land uses are proposed and thus would not result in a direct increase in population.
BPD has determined that there is adequate equipment, staff, and facilities to provide police services to the
project site, and no additional staff, facilities, or equipment would be needed as a �esult of project
implementation. As a result, there would 6e no impact to police services.
iii} Schools? (No Impact)
The project virould construct a mixed=used commercial and reteil building on tfie project site that is already
developed. No residential land uses are proposed and thus would not result in a direct increase in population.
Since the project wauld not result in a population increase, or a corresponding increase in school-aged
children, the project woutd have no direct impact on school facilities. Development could indirectly increase
population through its close proximity to an existing t�ansit cente� and job creation associated with project
construction and operation; however, this popu(ation influx would be minima! and is not likely to create the
need for a new school facility. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the project.
$ Christine Reed, fire Inspector; Central County Fire Departrttent; Personal communicatlon; September 30, 2�15.
57
Initial Study
ivj Parks? (No Impactj
and
vJ Other public facilities? (No Impact)
988 Howard Avenue
The closest public park to the project site is Washington Park, which lies approximately 0.1 miles northwe5t of
the project site. As discussed above, the project does not propose residentiai land uses and wouid not
increase the population in Burlingame. Thus, there is no anticipated significant increase fn the use of public
parks, recreational, or other public facilities associated with project buildout, and no substantial adverse
physica) impacts associated with project implementation that would require provision of new or physically
altered park facilities. Implementation of the project would �ot alter access to parks or public facilities during
con5truction ar operation. The�efore, there would be no impact.
58
Initial 5tudy
issues (and Supporti�g lnformatton SourcesJ:
is. RECREATION:
a) Would the project inc�ease the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility wouid occur or be
accelerated7
b) Dces the project include recreational facilitles or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilitfes which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment7
Less Than
SlgnTflcan! or Signiflcan!
Potentiapy wfth lessThan
Slgn/ftcant MitiyatJan Signi�cant
Impact Inco�po�atton lmpact
❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ �
988 Howard Avenue
Nn lmpact
�
❑
Setting
Burlingame has approximately 18 recreation sites that consist �f: 4 playgrounds, 9 parks, and 2 recreational
cente�s. The 18.9-acre Washington Park is located less than 0.1 mlles north of the project site. The 1.1-acre
Pershing Park is located approximately 0.6 miles west of the project site.
Discussion
a) Wouid the projert increase the use af existing neighborhood and reglonal parks or other
recreatianal facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated? (No Impact)
and
b) Does the project include recreationai facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Less Than
Significant)
As described, Washington Park and Pershing Park are located within Q.25 mile of the project site. These
neighborhood parks provide recreationai opportunities for the nearby community. The proposed project
would construct a mixed-use commercial and retail structure on an already developed project site. As a result,
no residential development is proposed and thus would not directly increase the population. Tfierefore, the
____ project would not require development of new park facilities. Additionally, the proposed roof deck of the
project would provide outdoor seating and open space areas for building tenants. Implementation of the
project would not alter access to this pa�k during construction or operation. Therefore, there would be no
impact.
59
Initia! Study
lssues �and Supporting informatlon SounesJ:
i6. TRANSPORTATION and
TRAFFIC—
Wouid the project:
tess Than
Signifrcant or Signlficant
Potentlolly with
Signifitant MlUgaUon
lmpact lnto�poratlon
a} Cause an increase in trafflc which fs substantial in ❑
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., resuh in a substantial increase in
eitherthe numberofvehfcle 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 munty
congestion management agency for designated
roads or h(ghways7
c] Result in a thange in air traffic pattems, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
lacation that results in substaniial 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 access7
fl Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycie racks)?
�I
988 Howard Avenue
Leu Than
Significont
Impad Nolmpact
/�/ �
❑ ❑ �
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ �
� ❑
� ❑
� ❑
Setting
A Trip Generation and Parking Demand Analysis was prepared by Nelson/Nygaard in March 2015 for the
proposed project and is induded in Appendix H. The memo describes the existi�g and future conditions for
transportation with and without the proposed commercial develapment. Additionally, information on the
regional and local roadway networks, pedestrian and transit conditions, and an anatysis of the effects on
transportation facilities associated with the project are included. Additionally, a peer review of the Trip
Generation and Parking Analysis was prepared by Abrams Associates in Odober 2015 to corroborate the
deductions made by Nelson/Nygaard.
The prnject site is located just west of US 101 and east of EI Camino Real; both are major t�affic corridors
providing access to Burlingame. Transit facilities serving the projectsite include public transit and pedestrian
and bicycle facilities. Two major public mass transit operators, Samtrans and Caltrain, provide service adjacent
to the project area. The project site is approximately 0.2 miles from the Calt�ain station, and 0.125 miles from
the Samtrans bus station (route 292). Additionally, all of the roads within a 0.25 mile radius of the project site
contain sidewalks for pedestrians and 25 percent of the roads include complete bike lanes for bicyclists.
60
Inidal Study
Dtscussion
988 Howard Avenue
a) Cause an increase in tra�c which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a su6stantial increase i� either the number of vehicie trips, the
volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (less Than Significantj
The project site is fully developed with commercial land uses and the lot is paved and generates approximately
674 daily trips. As autlined in the project description, the project proposes the construction of a new three-
story building with a basement that would include a mix of retail and office land uses. New occupants of the
building would be within walking distance of the downtown area with easy access to retail and restaurants.
Additionally, the project site is (ocated 0.2 miles from the Burlingame Caltrain Station and 0.125 miles from
Samtrans public transit. Based on the Trip Generation Analysis, implementation of the project would result in
a total trip reduction of up to 16Z percent.
The standard ITE trip generation rate would be 306 daily trips for proposed office/retail developments of the
size and scope of the project; however, the project would generate fewer trips due to the close proximity of
public transit and downtown amenities. The Trip generation analysis prepared for the project shows that the
number of trips generated by the project would be 256 daily trips, including 27 new AM peak trips and 23 new
PM peak trips. As shown in Table 6, the net trips, with pass-by trips included, the project would have a similar
amount of daily trips when compared to existing conditions9. Given the project's close proximity to public
transit facilities, and the availability of commercial resources to the project site, there is no expected increase
in traffic in relation to the existing conditions. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.
Table 6 Existing and Proposed Trips
Daily THps
Existing Site
Proposed Project
et trips with pass-by
20
!rat�
674
256
Slmilar to exlsting conditions
�umber af AM Peak Trips
49
22
29
Number of PM Peak Trlps
55
32
33
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the caunty
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (No Impact)
The City/County Association of Governments of 5an Mateo County 2013 Congestion Management Program
(C/CAG 2013, CMPj requires new development projects that generate 100 or more net new peak hour trips to
the CMP raadway to implement Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures that would reduce potentia)
impacts. The CMP excludes construction traffic from conformance with CMP traffic Level of Service (LOS)
standards.
9 A pass-by trlp is made by tra�c already using the adjacent roadway and enter the site as an intermediate stop on the way from
another destination. The trip may not necessarily be "generated" by the land use under study, and thus, not a new trip added to
the transportation system.
61
IniUal Study 988 Howard Avenue
As described in question a), the project site is fully developed with commercial land uses and the lot is paved
and generates approximately 674 trips per day. The project would include the construction of a new three-
story building with a basement that would include a mix of retail and commercial land uses. Daily vehicle
ingress/egress would generate 256 daily trips and thus would be lower than curzent vehicle ingress/egress
given the ciose proximity of the proposed project to downtown amenities, and public transit. When taking
into account the pass-by traffic from adjacent roadways, the projec� would generate approximately 29 AM
peak trips and 32 PM peak trips, which is the same amount of peak hour traffic as the existing gas station.
While construdio� activities would require additional trips for hauling material and equipment to and from
the project site, such efforts would be temporary in nature and (imited to associated construction activities.
The new facility is not expected to generate 100 or more peak hourtrips to the US 101 or SR 82 (CMP
roadevays) given that the new facility would generate fewer trips than existing conditions. As such, the project
would not significantly conflict with the applicable congestion managernent program, and there would be no
impact with project implementation.
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? (No Impact)
SFO is approximately 2 miles north of the project site. According to the Burlingame powntown Specific Plan
IS/MND, the project site is within the 19965an Mateo Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALIJP)10. The
proposed development entails the construction of a three-story building, and no aircraft use would be
required for operation or construction of any of the project buildout. As such, the project would not lead to an
increase in air traffic, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the project would result in n� impact.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design'feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatlble uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less Than Significant)
The project would have two unsignalized entry/exit points; one on East (ane, the other on Howard Avenue.
Based on the traffic memorandum prepared for the project, there are no anticipated increases in safety or
operational hazards associated with project implementation. Motorists exiting the site would have sufficient
site distance at the two proposed driveways. The project site design has been required to confo�m to design
standards and is not expected to create impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists, or traffic operations, Therefore,
impacts associated with potential increases in hazards due to project design features would be less than
significant.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (less Than Significant)
The project would not change the existing roadway systems, and would be easily acce5sible to emergency
--_. __ _.
vehicles. All lane widths within the project would meet the minlmum width that can accommodate emergency
vehides and the final emergency vehicle access plan would be subject to final approval from the Fire
Department. Additionally, emergency vehicles have the right of way during an emergency when their sirens
are turned on, and other vehicles are required to pull over to the side of the road. No internal site circulation
10 gurlingame Downtown Specific Plan I5/MND, 2U10. Pg.131
62
lnitial Study
988 Noward Avenue
or access issues have been identified that would cause a traffic safety problem or any unusual traffic
congestion or delay. Therefore, the development of the project is expected to have a less than significant
impact regarding emergency vehicle access.
f) tonflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative t�ansportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, birycie racks)? (Less Than Significantj
The proposed three-story building has the potential to attract employees who would commute from nearby
areas, and would utilize the public transport in the project area. As stated above, the project site is
approximate(y 0.2 miles from the Caltrain station, and 0.125 miles from the Samtrans bus station, and would
promote continued use of these pubiic transit facilities. The amount of daily trips generated by the project
would be less than existing conditions, but similarto existing conditions when accounting for pass-by traffic.
Therefore, the project would not result in degradation of the levei of service on any roadway segments
currently being.utilized by bus transit in the area and, as such, no significant impacts to transit are expected.
As a result, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
63
IniGat Study
lssues (a,pd Svanor,�ina Inlormatton Sourcesl:
i�. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS—wou�d the pro�ect;
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
appiicable Regional Water Quality Cont�ol Board7
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facllities or expansion of
existing faciUties, the canstruction of which cauld
cause significant environmental effects7
c) Require ar result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facil�ties, the wnstruc#ion of which couid
cause significant environmental effects7
dj Have sufficientwater supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitiements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed�
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
fj Be served by a landfiil with su�cient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs7
g) C�mply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste7
Less Than
Sfgnf�cant or 5iynifrcont
Potendalfy wlth Less Than
S7pnlficant Mitigation Signi�cant
Impoct Incorpwatlon lmpaci
❑ � ❑
❑ ❑
o ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
►��
►_�
/�1
►�/
/�1
■
988 Noward Avenue
No impoci
�
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
�
Setting
The Burlingame Public Works Department administers the City's water system. According to the Burlingame
Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, the City receives it water supply from the 5an Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC) which o6tains 85 percent of its water supply from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and 15 percent
from local watersheds._ The City also uses well water and retycled water for supplying non-potable water used
for irrigation. According to the City of Burlingame 2010 Urban Wafer Management Plon, the City's average
water demand is 4,32 million gallons per day (mgd), or 82 percent of the City's 5.23 mgd allotted supply.
64
Iniqal Study
988 Howard Avenue
Generally, 43 percent of water consumption is from single-family residential uses,l8 percent by multi-family
residential uses,l4 percent by industrial uses,l0 percent from commercial uses, 6 percent from ir�igation
uses, and 2 percent from institutional uses?1
The City's Public Works Department services the Burlingame's wastewater system. Wastewater flows are
carried to the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) at 1103 Airport Boulevard, which serves the entire City of
Burlingame as well as approximately one-third of the Town of Hillsborough. According to the Burlingame
Downtown 5pecific Plan IS/MND, average daily flow through the WWTP is 3.2 mgd, or 58 percent of the
facility's 5.5 mgd capacity.
Burlingame's stormwater system conveys runoff from upstream resldential tributary areas through the
Downtown area and east towards the San Francisco Bay. The Street and Sewer Division of the Burlingame
Department of Public Works maintains the stormwater inrtrastructure within the City. The aging downtown
system is exceeding design capacity, which makes the downtown area prone to flooding during large storm
events. x2 The existing site is completely paved, and drains to a catch basin in the northern portion of the site
and curbside gutters that empty to a 15 inch stormwater drain line atong Myrtle Road.
Allied Waste Industries (AWI) provides solid waste collection, transportation, and disposal services to the City
of Burlingame. AWI hauls waste to the San Carlos TransferStation, located at 25 Shoreway Road in San Carlos,
then to Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, located at 12310 San Mateo Rd, Half Moon Bay. This facility has a
maximum throughput of 3,598 tons per day and had a remaining capacity of 26,898,089 cubic yards (as of
January May 31, 2011)13. When the 2001 permit was issued, Ox Mountain Landfill's scheduled closure date
was 2023.ia
Discussion
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control eoard? (No Impact)
The project site is fully developed with commercial land uses and the lot is paved. Wastewater generated on
the project site would continue to originate from commercial sources and no industrial wastewater would be
generated by the project. As a result, no specific changes to the wastewater treatment plan wauld be required
to treat these flows. Therefore, no impacts related to the RWQCB wastewatertreatment requirements would
be expected.
li Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., 2011. City of Burlingame Urban Water Management Plan.
12 Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, May 2010.
13 CalRecycle Facllity, 2015
la CalRecycle Documents, 2015
65
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
b) Would the project require or resuit in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction af which couid cause significant
environmental effects? (Less Than Significant)
The project site is fully developed with commercial land uses and the lot is paved. As autlined in the project
description, the projectwould construct a newthree-story building with a basement that would include a mix
of retai) and commercial land uses. The building footprint would cover approximately 73 percent of the lot
(11,160 sf of the 15,352 sf lot). The existing project site is connected to the City's utility infrastructure and
includ�s 10-inch water lines and 6-inch sanitary sewer lines. The new building would tie-in to these existing
lines. With regards to water and wastewater, the project would increase water demand and wastewater
generation because the square footage of the building would increase from the existing site.
The Department of Public Works has indicated that the 6-inch sanitary sewer line that serves the subject
property is at or near capacity. While the proposed project would not result in a significant increase jn
wastewater generation, it may require that the (ine be upsized. The applicant will need to do an analysis to
determi�e if the sewe� main requires upsizing. This analysis will be reviewed by the City and if required, the
applicant will be required to pay for their pro-rata share of the upsizing or a designated �un of the line, the
details ofwhich would be determined by the �epartment of Public Works priorto building permit approval.
The existing 10-inch water line is sufficient to provide for the increased need in water usage for the proposed
uses; however new construction is required to comply with California Fire Code requirements for fire flow,
based on the size of the building and type of construction, and hydrant spacing. Upon building permit
submittal Central County Fire Department will require that the project comply with State fire code for
emergency water supply (hydrants) with regard to the increase of square footage at the project site and
necessary flow rate (gallons per minutesJ. However, as noted in the setting discussion above, the City's water
and wastewater infrastructure serving the project site would continue to have capacity to handle the project
and would not require construction of additional facilities. The impact would be (ess than significant.
cj Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmentat
effects? (Less Than Significantj
The project site is fully developed with commercial land uses and the lot is paved. The building footprint
woutd cover approximately 73 percent of the lot (11,160 sf of the 15,352 sf lot). The proposed project would
tie into an existing 15 inch storm drain system. Overall, the project would implement $ZO sf of landscaping,
including bioswales for stormwater retention and treatment. Perrrious pavers would be used in exterior areas
-- -- -to allow for additional stormwater infiltration and detention. Th�se efforts woulci assise to convey addition�l
stormwater runoff and no expansion of stormwater facilities would be required. The impact would be (ess
than significant and no mitigation is required.
..
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitleroents and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less Than Significant�
The project site is currently developed for commercial uses, and has an estimated existing water demand of 77
gallons per day (gpdj. From 2005-2Q10, Burlingame consumed an average of 4.32 million gailons per day
{mgdjls. According to the project applic�nt, the project is estimated to require an additiona) 2,710 gpd, a>.1
percent increase in the average daily demand. According to the eurlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND
and the Urban Water Management Plan, the City is allocated 5.23 mgd (5,230,000 gpd), and proposed
development efforts outlined far the downtown area are not expected t� exce�d its totai water supply
through 2030. Furthermore, the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND accounted for this project and
concluded that it would result in a negligible impact to water supplies. The impact would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
e) Would the praject result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may se�ve the project that it has adequate capacity to senre the project's projected demand in
additionto the provide�'s existing commitments? (Less Than Significant)
The WWTP (ocated at 1103 Airport Boulevard treats wastewater in Burlingame and one-third of the 1`own of
Hillsboraugh. This facility's average yearly flow is 3.2 mgd (3,200,000 gpdj, which has a total plant capacity of
5.5 mgd (5,500,000 gpd). Accordingto the projectapplicant, the prpject is estimated to generate about 2,655
gpd, a<.1 percent increase in current average daily flow. Furthermore, the Burlingame Downtown Specific
Plan IS/MND accounted for this project and concluded that it would result in a negligible impact to wastewater
treatment capacity. The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
f} Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposa) needs? (Less Than Significant)
The Ox Mountain Landfill had a remaining capacity of 27 million tons in 2011. There is currently a 15-year
agreement for this facility, �vhich will expire in 2018. According to AWI, which owns and operates the Ox
Mountain Landfill, the landfill has a remaining life period that extends beyond #he existing 15-year agreement
at current disposal rates. The existing project site is developed with commercia! land uses. The proposed
project would likely increase the overall solid waste generation because the building would increase in size.
However, such an increase would be negligible and the Ox Mountain landfill would continue to have plenry of
capacity foc such a negligible increase. Impacts from solid waste disposal would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
15 Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., 2011. Gty of Burlingame Urban Water Management Plan.
6l
Initial Study
988 Howard Avenue
gy Would the p�oject comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (No Impact)
The project consists of proposed commercial land uses. These commercial land uses would not result in the
generation of unique types of solid waste that would conflict with existing regulations applicable to waste
disposal. The project would be required to comply with eurlingame's solid waste disposa) requirements,
including recycling programs established under Assembly Bili (Ae) 939. As a result, the project would comply
with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and there would be no impact.
ss
Initial Study
Less Than
Slgnificant a 5lgnificani
Pofentfally wiih Less Than
StgnJflcant MRigation Signlflrnnf
Issuet (and Supporting InfarmatJon SaurcesJ: Impact intorporation /mpocf No lmpact
is. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
988 Howard Avenue
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 communiry,
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 histary or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are indivldually
limlted, 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
cunent projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
�-�
o ❑
❑ ❑
� 1�
c} Does the projed have environmental effetts which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indiredly?
❑ �
❑ �
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? (Less than signi�cant)
The project site does not provide suitable habitat for any regionally occurring special-status plant or wildlife
species for the following reasons: (1} the site is in a densely developed urban area and is isolated from areas of
natural habitat; and (2) the site is paved and is being actively used as a gas station and auto repair
maintenance shop. Therefore, impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species from development and
operation of the project are not expected to occur. Mitigation measures are provided for pre-construction
surveys for nesting/breeding birds to further protect such bird communities. Mitigation measures that would
adequately protect a known historical resource and any currently unknown cultural resources that may be
uncovered during project construdion are also included herein. With this mitigation, the project would not
have the poten#ial to degrade the quality of the environment; affect habitat, fish, and wildlife species; or
cultural resources:------
C�'
IniGal Study
988 Howard Avenue
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 connestion with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)? (Less than Significant)
The existing project site is currently developed for commercial uses. The project inciudes demolishing the
existing structure and constructing a three-story building with a basement and the proposed uses would be a
mix of retail and commercial uses.
The project would have potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biology, cultural resources, geology and
soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. Incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce these
impacts to a less-than-significant level. The project site is already developed for commercial uses. Although
the proposed project would construct a commercial building that would increase the squarefootage from
existing conditions, such an increase would not be substantial enough to make a cumulatively considera6le
contribution.
Furthermore, the project site is governed by the City's Generai Plan, Burlingame Downtown Spetific Plan, and
the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC). According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, the
project site and adjacent parceis are designated MMU, which supports retail and office uses. The project
would tedevelop a vacant commercial property and construct a building with a mix of retail and commercial
uses, which is consistent with Chapter 25,34 MMU District Regulations ofthe BMC.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either diredly or indirectfy? (Less than Significantj
The implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein wou Id redute all potential impacts to a less-
than-significant levei. Therefore, the project would thus not result in impacts that would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
70
IniGal 51udy
References
988 Howard Avenue
Abrams Associates. Z015. Peer Review of Neison/Nygaard Vehicle Trip Generation vnd Parking Demand
Analysis
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. Truck and Bus Regulation. Last Revised: September 21, 2015.
Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed: September 22, 2015.
California Department of Conservation. (n.d.} Guidelines for Clossification and Designation of Mineral Lands.
Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/guidelines/documents/classdesig.pdf. Accessed:
August, 2015.
California Department of Conservation. 2006. Important Farmland in Califomia. Available:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/overview/DocumentsJfmmp2006_08_11.pdf. Accessed:
September 24, 2015.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. California Natura) Diversity Data Base {CNDDBj.
Records search for San Mateo County.
California Geological Survey. 1983. Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sectors, Speciai Report 146, Plate
2.3, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties.
CalRecycle. 2015. Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Londfill (OX MtnJ (41-AA-0002J. Available:
http://www,calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilitiesJDirectory/41-AA-0002/Detail. Accessed: Octaber 8, 2015.
CalRecycle. 2015. Dacuments: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (OX MtnJ (41-AA-0002J. Available:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41-AA-0002/Document. Accessed: October 8,
2015.
Christine Reed, Fire Inspector, Central County �ire Department; Personal communication; September 30, 2015.
City of Burlingame. Aprif 2000, Clty of 9urlingame General Plan.
City of Burlingame. (n.d.). Burlingame Parks and Playgrounds. Available:
http://www.burlingame.orgJindex.aspx?page=419&recordid=201.
City of Burlingame. October 201� (Amended September 2011j. Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.
Cornerstone Earth 6roup. March 2015. Geotechnical /nvestigation 215 California Drive Office Building.
County of San Mateo Public Works. 2015. Crystal Springs Dam Bridge Replacement Project. Available:
http://publicworks,smcgov.org/crystai-springs-dam-bridge-replacement-project. Accessed: October 15,
2015.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (ENVIR05TOR). 2015. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List.
Available: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public. Accessed: September 23, 2015.
Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., 2011. City of Burlingame Urban Water Management Plan.
71
initlal Study
988 Noward Avenue
Iilingworth and Rodkin. September 2015. 988 Howard Avenue AirQuality & Greenhause Gas Emissions
Assessment.
Jay Kiely, Lieutenant; Burlingame Police Department; Personal communication; September 24, 2015.
Nelson/Nygaard. 2015. Vehicle Trip Generotion and parking Demond Ana(ysis.
Northwest Information Center. 2015. California Historica) Resources information System (CHRIS) records
search.
PB5&J. 201U. Burlfngame Downtown Specific Plan lnitia! Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. San Franeisco,
California. Prepared fior City of Burlingame, California.
San Mateo County. 20i3. The City/CountyAssociation of Governments of San Mateo Counry2013 Congestion
Manqgement Program. Available: http://ccag.ca.gov/programs/t�ansportation-plans/congestion-
management. Accessed: September7, 2015.
State Water Resources Control Board . 2015. GeoTracker, 215 California Drive, Burlingame, CA. Available:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/mapJ?CM D=runreport&myaddress=ZlS+California+drive+burlin
game+CA. Accessed: September 23, 2015.
72
��u�'i FiOWcirel 1�vI�YtUr' !.%�`L%E!�!i
Legettd
Project Site
H Existing Site Access
�N
o� �zoo
so �— ioa
FEET
Project Site
Source: Circlepoint; Google Earth, 2015
,
988 Hoavarci �1ven�.�e IS/NiND
� q ,. �,� « �a�
� �
..—
rr'^ .
3 � ��� � . v� �� ��F �� �.�
. �
.3 �� � � �� . � � �:. 's� ..
� � � ,
� ri .. a . ,�.�
� � � � �� � � ;t.
'� _ t,. t L��� a � ¢ �; �
... . .w .� . � �� � � '"� � �
a 9 � �. �' cy �, t.
p
��� � � .. � �
� � � � � ' c = y� � `�� , �s .�, t
��' ;� ���, , ������: � , � � � ^ 4 i � � � � �� � � � � .
' " , �. .
�
. �-� a ,�� � a : rti
� ���:.� "�� iia _ �� :� .�
w_
,.>
� ..:�
�i �� - �����
� ��'
1 � 3D Perspective: Corner of East Lane & Howard Avenue
� , ,,,
r 1 �s� �� � � �=� �a ��
�"' � �� � ��'�$ � ' "� v: �' .- �. 4
�� a =��- fi ; � � . � .. � _
�-` s ' � s
' ;� ��. � . p, �, �" n �" �, a
s+.' �. ..�� t �$ � ; �� �� ; �
s
� T
�;,�_.ks. ' ., ., a��- ` � ! `. 8 r— ' � i i �_� e F
.a � �a��
���' �.�.�..a 3�,P'f ' . � � �` _�': ��s��-
.
� �. � �
_ m. ..,
�_,, . _ �,�
. �. .....��=�-�..,�°°„� �` �W �
.. :�� .��g,e ..;�..�. .. - ,:. . ,` . .
2� 3d Perspective: Corner of Howard Avenue & Myrtle Road
Proposed Design
Source: Cevy Design Partners, 1015