Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout85 California Drive - Environmental Documentc City of Burlingame 85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE PROjECT Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by: Circlepoint 46 S 1st Street San Jose, CA 95113 Prepared for: City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 December 2016 85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE PROjECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) December 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 proposed project site is located at the southwest corner of Bayswater Avenue and California Drive and encompasses four parcels and portions of a fifth and sixth parcel (APN 029-242-020, - 030, -040, -050 and a portion of -230). The project site is bordered by California Drive to the north, Bayswater Avenue to the west, a Mazda dealership to the east, and a two-story multifamily residential building to the south. Automobile sales and service facilities are also located adjacent to the site across California Drive and Bayswater Avenue. The project site is located in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (Downtown Specific Plan) area. Within the Downtown Specific Plan, the majority of the site is located in the California Drive Mixed Use District; the remaining portion of the site is located in the R-4 Incentive District. The project site is tocated in the California Drive Auto Row (CAR) zoning district designated primarily for automobile-related uses. The remaining portion of the site is located in the R-4 District designated primarily for high-density multifamily residential land uses. The project would construct a new 14,239-square-foot automobile service facility with a 1,627- square-foot parts storage mezzanine at the site (8,725 square feet of enclosed building area and 5,514 square feet of covered drive aisle area). This would include demolition of a 115-square- foot office at the rear of the existing showroom and the existing 2,620-square-foot service facility and Hertz rental office. The existing showroom on the northeast end of the site would remain. As part of the project, the new service facility would be constructed over four parcels and portions of a fifth and sixth parcel, and the parcels would be combined into one, totaling 23,012 square feet (0.53 acres). The remaining portions of the fifth and sixth parcel, outside of the project site, would be combined into one 9,000-square-foot parcel and continue to be used for storing new vehicle inventory. The service facility would consist of 16 service bays, parts and tool rooms, a service writer office and a customer lounge. The front of the lot would contain an outdoor vehicle display area and 15 parking spaces for customers and employees. The total construction duration is estimated to be eight months. 3 Determination A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is proposed by the City of Burlingame for the project. The Initial Study 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, 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. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is included as Exhibit B. The public review period occurred from Wednesday, November 23, 2016 to Monday December 12, 2016 and no comments were received during that time. On the basis of the Initial Study and the whole record, it has been determined that the proposed action, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures described below, would not have a significant effect on the environment. 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 1a Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmental lmpact Aesthetics Miti�ation Measure AES-1: The project developer Less than Significant shall install low-profile, low-intensity lighting with Mitigation directed downward to minimize light and glare. Incorporated 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 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. 4 Table 1a Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmentallmpact Air Quality Miti�ation Measure AQ-1: The contractor shall Less than Significant implement the following BMPs: with Mitigation Incorporated i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3) All visible mud or dirt tracked onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR)). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 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 Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Table 1a - Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigatlon Measure Environmentallmpact Air Quality Miti�ation Measure AQ-2: All diesel-powered off- Less than Significant road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and with Mitigation operating on the site for more than two continuous Incorporated days shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent Biological Miti�ation Measure BIO-1: If construction activities Less than Significant Resources would commence anytime during the with Mitigation nesting/breeding season of native bird species Incorporated potentially nesting near the site (typically February through August in the project region), a pre- construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within two weeks of the commencement of construction activities. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly affected or are within 150 feet of construction and would be subject to prolonged construction-related noise, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall 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 will be determined by taking into account factors such as 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. Table la Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Miiigation Measure Factor Environmental Impact Biological Miti�ation Measure BIO-2: Prior to the removal of Less than Significant Resources any trees, the project applicant shall evaluate if the with Mitigation on-site trees meet the requirement to be considered Incorporated a"protected" tree. A permit shall be obtained from the Parks and Recreation Department prior to the removal of a protected tree. Cultural Resources Miti�ation Measure CUL-1: In the event Less than Significant archaeological resources are encountered during with Mitigation construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of Incorporated the discovered materials and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. If an archaeological 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 of the finding, file it with the appropriate agency, and arrange for curation of recovered materials. Cultural Resources Mitisation Measure CUL-2: A discovery of a Less than Significant paleontological specimen during any phase of the with Mitigation project shall result in a work stoppage in the vicinity Incorporated 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. Table la Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmental lmpact Cultural Resources Miti�ation Measure CUL-3: In the event that human Less than Significant remains are discovered during project construction, with Mitigation there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of Incorporated 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. Geology and Soils Mitisation Measure GEO-i: Project design and Less than Significant construction shall adhere to Title 18, Chapter 18.28 of W�th Mitigation the Burlingame Municipal Code, and demonstrate Incorporated compliance with all design standards applicable to the California Building Code Zone 4 would ensure maximum practicable protection available to users of the buildings and associated infrastructure. Geology and Soils Miti�ation Measure GEO-2: Project design and Less than Significant construction, including excavation activities, shall with Mitigation comply with Chapter 33 of the CBC, which specifies Incorporated the safety requirement to be fulfilled for site work. This would include prevention of subsidence and pavement or foundations caused by dewatering. Geology and Soils Miti�ation Measure GEO-3: The applicant shall Less than Significant prepare a monitoring program to determine the with Mitigation effects of construction on nearby improvements, Incorporated including the monitoring of cracking and vertical movement of adjacent structures, and nearby streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other improvements. As necessary, inclinometers or other instrumentation shall be installed as part of the shoring system to closely monitor lateral movement. The program shall include a pre-condition survey including photographs and installation of monitoring points for existing site improvements. Table la Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmental lmpact Hazards and Miti�ation Measure HAZ-1: The contractor shall Less than Significant Hazardous comply with Title 8, California Code of with Mitigation Materials Regulations/Occupational Safety and Health Incorporated Administration (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. Hazards and Miti�ation Measure HAZ-2: The applicant shall Less than Significant Hazardous contract a Certified Asbestos Consultant to conduct with Mitigation Materials an asbestos survey prior to disturbing potential Incorporated asbestos containing building materials and following the Consultant's recommendations for proper handling and disposal. Hazards and Miti�ation Measure HAZ-3: Workers handling Less than Significant Hazardous demolition and renovation activities at the project with Mitigation Materials site will be trained in the safe handling and disposal Incorporated of any containments with which they are handling or disposing of on the project site. Noise Miti�ation Measure NOI-1: The following measures, Less than Significant in addition to the best practices specified in Impact 3, With Mitigation shall be implemented to reduce vibration impacts Incorporated from construction activities to a less-than-significant level: ■ For all construction proposed to be located within 20 feet of adjacent structures, a construction vibration-monitoring plan would need to be implemented to document conditions prior to, during and after vibration generating construction activities. All plan tasks shall be undertaken under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented Table la Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmentallmpact to include the following tasks: ■ Perform a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for each identified structure. Surveys shall be performed prior to any construction activity and after project completion and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in structures, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of foundations, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structures. ■ Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site. ■ Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities. ■ The results of all vibration monitoring shall be summarized and submitted in a report shortly after substantial completion of each phase identified in the project schedule. The report will include a description of measurement methods, equipment used, calibration certificates, and graphics as required to clearly identify vibration- monitoring locations. An explanation of all events that exceeded vibration limits will be included together with proper documentation supporting any such claims. 10 Table la Summary of Mitigation`Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmental lmpact Transportation Miti�ation Measure TRA-1: Prior to issuance of Less than Significant and Traffic grading and building permits, the project applicant with Mitigation shall submit a Traffic Control Plan. The Traffic Control Incorporated Plan would indicate how parking for construction workers would be provided during construction and ensure a safe flow of traffic in the project area during construction. The requirements within the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: truck drivers would be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and U.S.101, as determined by the City Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress would occur only at the main driveways to the project site; specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles would be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction vehicle ingress and egress; warning signs indicating frequent truck entry and exit would be posted on adjacent roadways if requested; and any debris and mud on nearby streets caused by trucks would be monitored daily and may require instituting a street cleaning program. Transportation Miti�ation Measure TRA-2: On-street parking to the Less than Significant and Traffic east and west of the outbound driveways on with Mitigation Bayswater Avenue shall be prohibited by painting red Incorporated curb for a distance of approximately 20 feet on either side. ,J" I 2 f 22 I l ip William Meeker, City of Burlingame Date Community Development Director 11 EXHIBIT B City of Burlingame 85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE PROJECT Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Prepared by: Circlepoint 46 S 1st Street San Jose, CA 95113 Prepared for: City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 December 2016 B-1 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM _ � a �, . � ,.: ,,; . �� � �� �; " �` ; ` Mitigatio�; Monitonng, and Reporting Program - K : �. � . .. ,, � . _ ��. ` Level of Environmental Responsible . Factor Mitigation Measures Environmental Pa� Timing ' ' Impact Aesthetics Miti�ation Measure AES-1: The Less than Project Project project developer shall install low- Significant Applicant design and profile, low-intensity lighting with construction directed downward to minimize light Mitigation and glare. Exterior lighting shall be Incorporated 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 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. Air Quality Miti�ation Measure AQ-i: The Less than project Project contractor shall implement the Significant Applicant/ design and following BMPs: W�th Contractor construction Mitigation 1) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking Incorporated areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- site shall be covered. 3) All visible mud or dirt tracked onto adjacent public roads shall be B-3 � v Mitigation; Monitoring,;�and Reporting Program Environmental : Level. of Responsible ' Factor Mitigation Measures Environmental pa�y Timing ` Impact removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5) Ali roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR)). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properlytuned 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 Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. B-4 q ;, .,, , ..M�tigation,,Monitoring, and Reporting Pragra� _ ° . ;. Environmental Level of Responsible Factor Mitigation Measures Environmental Party Timing Impact Air Quality Miti�ation Measure AQ-2: All diesel- Less than project During powered off-road equipment larger Significant Applicant/ construction than 25 horsepower and operating on with Contractor the site for more than two continuous Mitigation days shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. �ncorporated EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. Biological Mitisation Measure BIO-1: If Less than project Before Resources construction activities would Significant Applicant/ construction commence anytime during the W�th Qualified nesting/breeding season of native bird Mitigation Biologist species potentially nesting near the Incorporated site (typically February through August in the project region), a pre- construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within two weeks of the commencement of construction activities. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly affected or are within 150 feet of construction and would be subject to prolonged construction- related noise, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall 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 will be determined by taking into account factors such as 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; B-5 Mit�gation; Monitoring, and Reporting Program . �a' Level of ' Environmental Mitigation Measures Environmenfal '' Responsible Timing Factor Party Impact ■ 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. Biological Miti�ation Measure BIO-2: Prior to Less than project During Resources the removal of any trees, the project Significant Applicant/ City construction applicant shall evaluate if the on-site with trees meet the requirement to be Mitigation considered a"protected" tree. A Incorporated permit shall be obtained from the Parks and Recreation Department prior to the removal of a protected tree. Cultural Miti�ation Measure CUL-1: In the Less than project During Resources event archaeological resources are Significant Applicant/ construction encountered during construction, with qualified work shall be halted within 100 feet of Mitigation Archaeologist the discovered materials and workers �ncorporated /City shall avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. If an archaeological 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 B-6 �. M�tigation, Monitoring; and Reporting �Program ° ,, � Leve1 of Environmental Miiigation Measures Environmental Responsible' Timing Factor Party '' ` Impact written report of the finding, file it with the appropriate agency, and arrange for curation of recovered materials. Cultural Miti�ation Measure CUL-2: A Less than project During Resources discovery of a paleontological Significant Applicant/ construction specimen during any phase of the W�th Qualified project shall result in a work stoppage Mitigation paleontologist in the vicinity of the find until it can be �ncorporated /City 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. Cultural Miti�ation Measure CUL-3: In the Less than Project During Resources event that human remains are Significant Applicant/ construction discovered during project with Clty construction, there shall be no further Mitigation excavation or disturbance of the site Incorporated 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. Geology and Miti�ation Measure GEO-1: Project Less than Project Project Soils design and construction shall adhere Significant Applicant design, prior to Title 18, Chapter 18.28 of the with to issuance Burlingame Municipal Code, and Mitigation of building demonstrate compliance with all Incorporated permit design standards applicable to the B-7 � � Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Level of Environmenfal Mitigation Measures Environmental Responsible Timing Factor Party Impact California Building Code Zone 4 would ensure maximum practicable protection available to users of the buildings and associated infrastructure. Geology and Miti�ation Measure GEO-2: Project Less than project Design and Soils design and construction, including Significant Applicant construction excavation activities, shall comply with with Chapter 33 of the CBC, which specifies Mitigation the safety requirement to be fulfilled �ncorporated for site work. This would include prevention of subsidence and pavement or foundations caused by dewatering. Geology and Mitisation Measure GEO-3: The Less than project Project Soils applicant shall prepare a monitoring Significant Applicant design, prior program to determine the effects of with to issuance construction on nearby improvements, Mitigation of building including the monitoring of cracking Incorporated permit and vertical movement of adjacent structures, and nearby streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other improvements. As necessary, inclinometers or other instrumentation shall be installed as part of the shoring system to closely monitor lateral movement. The program shall include a pre-condition survey including photographs and installation of monitoring points for existing site improvements. Hazards and Mitisation Measure HAZ-1: The Less than project During Hazardous contractor shall comply with Title 8, Significant Applicant/ construction Materials California Code of Regulations/ with Contractor Occupational Safety and Health Mitigation Administration (OSHA) requirements Incorporated that cover construction work where an employee may be exposed to lead. B-8 `A Mitigation; Monitanng� and Reporting Program Level of ' Environmentaf Responsible Factor Mitigation Measures Environmental Party Timing Impact 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. Hazards and Miti�ation Measure HAZ-2: The Less than Project Project Hazardous applicant shall contract a Certified Significant Applicant design, prior Materials Asbestos Consultant to conduct an W�th to issuance asbestos survey prior to disturbing Mitigation of a building potential asbestos containing building Incorporated permit materials and following the Consultant's recommendations for proper handling and disposal. Hazards and Miti�ation Measure HAZ-3: Workers Less than project During Hazardous handling demolition and renovation Significant qpplicant/ construction Materials activities at the project site will be with Contractor trained in the safe handling and Mitigation disposal of any containments with Incorporated which they are handling or disposing of on the project site. Noise and Miti�ation Measure NOI-1: The Less than project During Vibration following measures, in addition to the Significant Applicant/ construction best practices specified in Impact 3, W�th Contractor shall be implemented to reduce Mitigation vibration impacts from construction Incorporated activities to a less-than-significant level: ■ For all construction proposed to be located within 20 feet of adjacent structures, a construction vibration-monitoring plan would need to be implemented to document conditions prior to, during and aftervibration generating construction activities. All plan tasks shall be undertaken i� M�t�gatioin, Monitori�g; and Reporti�g Program Environmental ; Level of Responsibie ` Factor Mifigation Measures Environmental Party Timing Impact under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented to include the following tasks: � Perform a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for each identified structure. Surveys shall be performed prior to any construction activity and after project completion and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in structures, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of foundations, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structures. ■ Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site. ■ Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities. ■ The results of all vibration monitoring shall be summarized and submitted in a report shortly after substantial completion of B-10 �' F..G . 4. Mitigation, Monito�ing,"and Reporting Program � f Level of Environmenfal ` ' Responsible Factor Mitigation Measures Environmental Party Timing `' Impact each phase identified in the project schedule. The report will include a description of measurement methods, equipment used, calibration certificates, and graphics as required to clearly identify vibration-monitoring locations. An explanation of all events that exceeded vibration limits will be included together with proper documentation supporting any such claims. Transportation Miti�ation Measure TRA-1: Prior to Less than Project Design and Traffic issuance of grading and building Significant applicant phase, prior permits, the project applicant shall with to issuance submit a Traffic Contro) Plan. The Mitigation of a Traffic Control Plan would indicate Incorporated grading/ how parking for construction workers building would be provided during construction permit and ensure a safe flow of traffic in the project area during construdion. The requirements within the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: truck drivers would be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and U.S. 101, as determined by the City Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress would occur only at the main driveways to the project site; specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles would be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction vehicle ingress and egress; warning signs indicating frequent truck entry and exit would be posted on adjacent roadways if requested; and any debris B-11 r .:� .: '.: �: �:' . . � ��.. � .. ., ; , , ..��;. _ ��_1Nitigation;�Monitoring, an� Reporting Program Level of Environmental Mitigation Measures Environmentai Responsible Timing Facfor Party Impact and mud on nearby streets caused by trucks would be monitored daily and may require instituting a street cleaning program. Transportation Miti�ation Measure TRA-2: On-street Less than project Before and Traffic parking to the east and west of the Significant Applicant / project outbound driveways on Bayswater with Clty operation Avenue shall be prohibited by painting Mitigation red curb for a distance of Incorporated approximately 20 feet on either side. B-12 EXHIBIT C City of Burlingame 85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE PROJECT Initial Study Errata Prepared by: Circlepoint 46 S 1st Street San Jose, CA 95113 Prepared for: City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 December 2016 G1 INITIAL STUDY ERRATA Revisions to the 85 California Drive Project Initial Study are necessary in light of revisions to the project that were not updated in the text of the Initial Study prior to public circulation of the environmental document, and to correct parcel information and a typographical error. Throughout this erratum, bold, underlined text represents language that has been added to the Initial Study; *^�* �•��*� �+���^+"�^��^� represents text that has been deleted from the Initial Study. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15073.5 (b), recirculation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration would be required from a"substantial revision" to the project. CEQA Guidelines 15073.5 (b) defines a"substantial revision" as follows: A new, avoidable significant effect that requires new mitigation measures to be added to reduce the effects to less than significant The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions are required. Changes to the project have not resulted in new avoidable or unavoidable significant environmental effects or new mitigation measures. As demonstrated below, the changes to the project description have not changed the overall conclusions in the tS/Proposed MND. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15073.5, recirculation of the IS/Proposed MND is not required. SUMMARY OF CHANGES Subsequent to public circulation, it was determined that the existing R-4 lot at the corner of Bayswater Avenue and Highland Avenue is comprised of two parcels with a single Assessor's Parcel Number (APN), whereas the initial study erroneously stated that this lot consisted of only one parcel. The initial study has been updated to reflect that the project site would include a total of four parcels and portions of a fifth and sixth parcel. The project applicant revised the project plans to adjust the rear lot line of the proposed project site so as to encompass a smaller area of the existing R-4 lot at the corner of Bayswater Avenue and Highland Avenue. This resulted in a decrease in the size of the proposed project site from the originally proposed 24,925 square feet to 23,012 square feet—a net decrease of 1,913 square feet. The proposed building footprint did not change as part of this revision to the project plans. G3 TEXT CHANGES TO THE INITIAL STUDY The following text changes were made to the project description on page 4 to correct and update project information. The proposed project site is located at the southwest corner of Bayswater Avenue and California Drive and encompasses four parcels and �portions of a fifth and sixth parcel (APN 029-242-020, -030, -040, -050 and a portion of -230). The project site is bordered by California Drive to the north, Bayswater Avenue to the west, a Mazda dealership to the east, and a two-story multifamily residential building to the south. Automobile sales and service facilities are also located adjacent to the site across California Drive and Bayswater Avenue. The following text changes were made to the project description on page 4 to correct and update project information. The project site occupies #ivesix separate parcels, is relatively level (with an average slope of 2 percent), and two parcels are developed with a single-story Subaru showroom building, a single-story Subaru automobile service facility, a Hertz automobile rental office located in the service facility building, and automobile storage for Subaru and Hertz on a paved parking area. The site is completely covered by ��23,012 square feet of impervious surfaces and does not contain any vegetation or landscaping. California Drive and Bayswater Avenue provide access to the site (Figure 1). The following text changes were made to the project description on pages 4-5 to correct and update project information. The project would construct a new 14,239-square-foot automobile service facility with a 1,627-square-foot parts storage mezzanine at the site (8,725 square feet of enclosed building area and 5,514 square feet of covered drive aisle area). This would include demolition of a 115-square-foot office at the rear of the existing showroom and the existing 2,620-square-foot service facility and Hertz rental office. The existing showroom on the northeast end of the site would remain. As part of the project, the new service facility would be constructed over four parcels and �portions of a fifth and sixth parcel, and the parcels would be combined into one, totaling ��23.012 square feet (9-�0.53 acres). The remaining a-portions of the fifth and sixth parcel, outside of the project site, would be combined into one 9.000-square-foot parcel and continue to be used for storing new vehicle inventory. The new service facility would be one story (25 feet and 1.5 inches in height), which conforms to the 55-foot height limit for the CAR zoning district. The service facility would consist of 16 service bays, parts and tool rooms, a service writer office and a customer lounge. The front of the lot would contain an outdoor vehicle display area and 15 parking spaces for customers and employees, as required under the City's parking ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.70, Off-Street Parking). C-4 The following text changes were made to Section 1, Aesthetics, on page 8 to update project information. The project site is currently covered by��23.012 square feet of impervious surfaces and contains no vegetation or landscaping. Other automobile dealerships surround the site to the north, east, and west, and a two-story multifamily residential building borders the site to the south. The following text changes were made to Section 3, Air Quality, on page 15 to correct a typographical error and correct and update project information. The project would not directly increase the City's population as it does not include residential units. Implementation of the project would construct a new �414.239- square-foot automobile service facility with a 1,627-square-foot aarts stora�e mezzanine at the site. This would include demolition of a 115-square-foot office at the rear of the existing showroom and the existing 2,620-square-foot service facility and Hertz rental office. The existing showroom on the northeast end of the site would remain. As part of the project, the new service facility would be constructed over the four parcels and a-portions of the fifth and sixth parcel, and the parcels would be combined into one, totaling ��23.012 square feet (9:-�0.53 acres). According to the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared for the project, no significant increase in traffic is anticipated with project implementation. The County of San Mateo's Traffic Impact Study Requirements establishes a significance threshold which considers a project's impact to traffic significant if its implementation increases daily trips by 500. The project is expected to generate 125 daily trips, on average, which is significantly lower than the 500 trips threshold. 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, Transportation and Traffic). The project would not obstruct implementation of these plans, and therefore no impact would occur. The following text changes were made to Section 3, Air Quality, on pages 17-18 to update project information. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that a significant air quality impact would result if the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant or a precursor to that pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. Given the nature of the proposed use, the operational criteria pollutant screening size for the project is 541,000 square feet for operational pollutants/precursors, and 121,000 square feet for greenhouse gas emissions. The project would operate at ��23.012 square feet, and would thus be below the screening criteria developed by BAAQMD for the "General Light Industrial" land use. Therefore, the project would not exceed the pollutant emissions thresholds and the project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts is not considered cumulatively considerable. G5 The following text changes were made to Section 6, Geology and Soils, on page 28 to update project information. The project site is developed with a single-story Subaru showroom building, a single- story Subaru automobile service facility and Hertz automobile rental office, and paved parking areas. The site is completely covered by �4,�J�523.012 square feet of impervious surfaces and does not contain vegetation or landscaping. The existing 115- square-foot office at the rear of the existing showroom, the existing 2,620-square-foot service facility, and Hertz rental office would be demolished and removed as part of the project and a new, larger service facility would be constructed. Construction activities would be required to comply with the provisions in Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) 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. The following text changes were made to Section 7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, on page 32 to update project information. Due to the project size, operational period GHG emissions would be less than significant. BAAQMD identified screening criteria for the sizes of land use projects that could result in significant GHG emissions in their May 2011 update to the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For operational impacts, the screening project size is identified at 121,000 square feet for general light industrial land uses. Since the project proposes to operate '^�23.012 square feet of facility services, 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, would be less than significant with project implementation. The following text changes were made to Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, on pages 34-35 to update project information. The project site is currently developed with a single-story Subaru showroom building, a single-story Subaru automobile service facility, a Hertz automobile rental office located in the service facility building and automobile storage for Subaru and Hertz on a paved parking area. The site is completely covered by �4�-523.012 square feet of impervious surfaces and does not contain any vegetation or landscaping. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted by AEI Consultants in August 2016 to identify and evaluate any potential hazards to human health in the vicinity of the project site (Appendix D). C-6 The following text changes were made to Section 18, Mandatory Findings of Significance, on page 72. Furthermore, the project site is governed by the City's General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and the Burlingame Municipal Code. The project would require a Lot Merger and Lot Line Adjustment to combine four parcels and a-portions of a fifth and sixth parcel into one, as well as a General Plan Amendment to change the portions of the fifth and sixth parcels from R-4 to CAR land use. The project would continue existing land uses on the site and would be consistent with CAR District regulations. CONCLUSION The text changes above reflect a reduction in the proposed size of the project site by 1,913 square feet, correction of erroneous parcel information, and correction of a typographical error. The proposed location and footprint of the automobile service facility building was not changed, nor were any other project components that were analyzed in the Initial Study. The adjustment to the proposed rear lot line of the project site would result in a reduction of the automobile service facility building setback from 20 feet to 1 foot, abutting a currently vacant lot that is and would continue to be used for vehicle storage. This would not result in any new impacts not previously identified in the Initial Study and would not change any of the impact conclusions or mitigation measures identified therein. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15073.5, recirculation of the IS/Proposed MND is not required. C-7 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research P.O Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 FROM: City of Burlingame Community Development Dept. Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 � County Clerk's Office County of San Mateo FILED �bm��So�n,� 555 County Center Road, First Floor S�NMA OECAUMYCA IF. Redwood City, California 94063-0977 JAN 2 3 2017 MARK HURCH Coun�y ��ei� By ��NN S. �HANGTIN Depury Clerk SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-595-P — 85 California Drive — New Automobile Service Facility Project Title William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 85 California Drive City of Burlingame San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing a small office at the rear of the existing showroom building, the existing automobile service facility, and the existing Hertz rental office on the site. The proposed 15,866 SF building consists of 10,352 SF of enclosed building area and 5,514 SF of covered drive aisle area. The existing Subaru showroom building would remain. The new service facility would consist of 16 service bays, parts and tool rooms, a service writer office and customer lounge. As part of the project, the new service facility would be constructed over four parcels and a portion of a fifth and sixth parcel, and the parcels would be combined into one, totaling 24,925 square feet (0.57 acres). The remaining portion of the fifth and sixth parcels, outside of the project site, would be combined into one parcel as a part of this process, and continue to be used for storing new vehicle inventory. The new service facility would be one story (25 feet and 1.5 inches in height), which conforms to the 55-foot height limit for the CAR zoning district. The front of the lot would contain an outdoor vehicle display area and 15 parking spaces for customers and employees, as required under the City's parking ordinance. This is to advise that the Cit�of Burlinqame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above-described project on January 17, 2017 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: City of Burlinqame, PlannincLDivision, 501 Primrose Road, Burlinqame CA 94010. 3. Mitigation measures [�were 0 were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [Owas �was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (� were � were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlinpame, Planninq Division. 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. William �e`f�cer, Community Development Director Date County of San Mateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Mark Church 555 County Center Redwood City, CA, 94063 Finalization 2017004805 1 /23/17 11:47 am 020 77 Item Title 1 EIRN Fish & Game: Neg Declaration Document ID Amount -------------------------------------------------- DOC# 2017-000017 2266.25 Time Recorded 11:47 am Total 2266.25 Payment Type Amount Check tendered 2266.25 # 154137 Amount Due 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS . ' �� ' State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife • �,� � 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT DFW 753.5a (Rev. 12/15/15) Previously DFG 753.5a ,� �„�„ � �.,; Prin#�` ;S�art� RECEIPT NUMBER: 41 — 01/23/201' — CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (Ifapplicab/e) SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY. LEAD AGENCY CITY OF BURLINGAME COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING San Mateo LEADAGENCY EMAIL PROJECT TITLE ND-595-P-85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE-NEW AUTOMOBILE SERVICE FACILITY PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL WILLIAM MEEKER PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box) ✓� Local Public Agency � School District CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ❑ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) � Mitigated/Negative Deciaration (MND)(ND) ❑ Certified Regulatory Program document (CRP) ❑ Exempt from fee ❑ Notice of Exemption (attach) ❑ CDFW No Effect Determination (attach) ❑ Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy) $3,070.00 $ 0.00 $2,210.25 $ �-�' � L'.�'.S " � � n zr� ��cs— $1,043.75 $ 0.00 ❑ Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ 0.00 � County documentary handling fee $ 50.00 ❑ Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: �-aG 6'a-$ � �an �� ❑ Cash ❑ Credit 0 Check ❑ Other TOTAL RECEIVED $ -=s�� SIGNATURE X �i CITY 01 /23/2017 DOCUMENT NUMBER PHONE NUMBER ( ) ZIP CODE � Other Special District � State Agency � Private Entity 4GENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE Glenn S. Changtin/ County Clerk ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/ASB COPY - LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK DFW 753.5a (Rev. 20151215) ' �� ' State of Califomia - Department of Fish and Wildlife ., ,� �, 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT �°" � DFW 753.5a (Rev. �1/01/17) Previously DFG 753.5a -- __- - --- . Print FinallzeBEmail �EGEIPT NUMBER: 41 — 01232017 — 375 SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY. LEAD AGENCY CITY OF BURLINGAME COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING San Mateo LEADAGENCY EMAIL �r� � c 01232017 )OCUMENT NUMBER A/l/� 1nA PROJECT TITLE ND-595-P-85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE-NEW AUTOMOBILE SERVICE FACILITY PROJECT APPLICANT NAME PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL PHONE NUMBER WILLIAM MEEKER ( ) PROJECTAPPLICANTADDRESS - — PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box) �✓ Local Public Agency � School District � Other Special District CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ❑ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) � Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND) ❑ Certified Regulatory Program document (CRP) ❑ Exempt from fee ❑ Notice of Exemption (attach) ❑ CDFW No Effect Determination (attach) ❑ Fee previousiy paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy) ❑ W cLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (!f applicab/e) � State Agency $3,078.25 $ $2,216.25 $ $1,046.50 ater Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ 0 County documentary handiing fee $ ❑ Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: ❑ Cash ❑ Credit 0 Check ❑ Other TOTAL RECEIVED 5 SIGNATURE AGENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE X , i�� C�DE � Private Entity 0.00 2,216.25 0.00 1 11 +1 11� 2,266.25 ����6������ MAR - 3 2Q17 C�TY OF BUi�Ll��lGAMC CDD-F�L.��1NlNG DlV. ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/ASB COPY - LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK DFW 753.5a (Rev. 20151215) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION , w TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Burlingame P.O Box 3044 Community Development Dept. Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 � County Clerk's Office County of San Mateo F I� E D 555 County Center Road, First Floor SA�! MATEO COUNTY Redwood City, California 94063-0977 JAN 2 3 �2017 B�RK.CHURCH,�oun Cerk � V � �'�1 �- . Oeputy Clerk SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ND-595-P — 85 California Drive — New Automobile Service Facility Project Title William Meeker (650) 558-7250 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Area Code/Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) 85 California Drive, City of Burlin4ame, San Mateo County Project Location (include County) Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing a small office at the rear of the existing showroom building, the existing automobile service facility, and the existing Hertz rental office on the site. The proposed 15,866 SF building consists of 10,352 SF of enclosed building area and 5,514 SF of covered drive aisle area. The existing Subaru showroom building would remain. The new service facility would consist of 16 service bays, parts and tool rooms, a service writer office and customer lounge. As part of the project, the new service facility would be constructed over four parcels and a portion of a fifth and sixth parcel, and the parcels would be combined into one, totaling 24,925 square feet (0.57 acres). The remaining portion of the fifth and sixth parcels, outside of the project site, would be combined into one parcel as a part of this process, and continue to be used for storing new vehicle inventory. The new service facility would be one story (25 feet and 1.5 inches in height), which conforms to the 55-foot height limit for the CAR zoning district. The front of the lot would contain an outdoor vehicle display area and 15 parking spaces for customers and employees, as required under the City's parking ordinance. This is to advise that the City of Burlinqame, the Lead Aqency, has approved the above-described project on January 17, 2017 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: Ci of Burlinqame, Planning Division, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame 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 Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Burlingame, Planninp Division, 501 Primrose Road. Burlingame. CA 94010. William �e%er, Community Development Director Date County of San ��lateo Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Mark Church 555 County Center Redwood City, CA, 94063 Finalization 2017004805 1 /23/17 11:47 am 020 77 Item Title 1 EIRN Fish & Game: Neg Declaration Document ID Amount -------------------------------------------------- DOC# 2017-000017 2266.25 Time Recorded 11:47 am Total 2266.25 Payment Type Amount Check tendered 2266.25 # 154137 Amount Due 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 �� BURLINCrAME �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH:(650)558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Interested Individuals From: Citv of Burlin�ame 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-595-P) 85 California Drive — New Automobile Service Facility Project Location: 85 California Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a new automobile service facility. The proposed building would contain a 14,239-square-foot automobile service facility with a 1,627-square-foot parts storage mezzanine at the site (8,725 square feet of enclosed building area and 5,514 square feet of covered drive aisle area). This would include demolition of a 115-squarefoot office at the rear of the existing showroom and the existing 2,620-square-foot service facility and Hertz rental office. The existing showroom on the northeast end of the site would remain. As part of the project, the new service facility would be constructed over four parcels and a portion of a fifth parcel, and the parcels would be combined into one, totaling 24,925 square feet (0.57 acres). The remaining portion of the fifth parcel, outside of the project site, would continue to be used for storing new vehicle inventory. The new service facility would be one story (25 feet and 1.5 inches in height), which conforms to the 55-foot height limit for the CAR zoning district. The front of the lot would contain an outdoor vehicle display area and 15 parking spaces for customers and employees, as required under the City's parking ordinance. 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 23, 2016 and ends on December 12, 2016. 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@burlingame.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, Rezoning, General Plan Amendment, Lot Merger, and Commercial Design Review, for this project has been tentatively scheduled for December 12, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted: November 23. 2016 85 CALI FORN IA DRIVE PROJ ECT PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ INITIAL STUDY • _r. � '' 1_.l Prepared for City of Burlingame November 2016 Prepared by Circlepoint 46 S 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113 408.715.1515 � www.circlepoint.com u�.: City of Burlingame 85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE PROjECT Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by: Circlepoint 46 S 1st Street San Jose, CA 95113 Prepared for: City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 November 2016 85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) November 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 proposed project site is located at the southwest corner of Bayswater Avenue and California Drive and encompasses four parcels and a portion of a fifth parcel (APN 029-242-020, -030, - 040, -050 and a portion of -230). The project site is bordered by California Drive to the north, Bayswater Avenue to the west, a Mazda dealership to the east, and a two-story multifamily residential building to the south. Automobile sales and service facilities are also located adjacent to the site across California Drive and Bayswater Avenue. The project site is located in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (Downtown Specific Plan) area. Within the Downtown Specific Plan, the majority of the site is located in the California Drive Mixed Use District; the remaining portion of the site is located in the R-4 Incentive District. The project site is located in the California Drive Auto Row (CAR) zoning district designated primarily for automobile-related uses. The remaining portion of the site is located in the R-4 District designated primarily for high-density multifamily residential land uses. The project would construct a new 14,239-square-foot automobile service facility with a 1,627- square-foot parts storage mezzanine at the site (8,725 square feet of enclosed building area and 5,514 square feet of covered drive aisle area). This would include demolition of a 115-square- foot office at the rear of the existing showroom and the existing 2,620-square-foot service facility and Hertz rental office. The existing showroom on the northeast end of the site would remain. As part of the project, the new service facility would be constructed over four parcels and a portion of a fifth parcel, and the parcels would be combined into one, totaling 24,925 square feet (0.57 acres). The remaining portion of the fifth parcel, outside of the project site, would continue to be used for storing new vehicle inventory. The service facility would consist of 16 service bays, parts and tool rooms, a service writer office and a customer lounge. The front of the lot would contain an outdoor vehicle display area and 15 parking spaces for customers and employees. The total construction duration is estimated to be eight months. Determination A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is proposed by the City of Burlingame for the project. The Initial Study 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, 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. 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 1a Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmentallmpact Aesthetics Mitieation Measure AES-1: The project developer Less than Significant shall install low-profile, low-intensity lighting with Mitigation directed downward to minimize light and glare. Incorporated 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 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. Air Quality Miti�ation Measure AQ-1: The contractor shall Less than Significant implement the following BMPs: with Mitigation 1 All ex osed surfaces e. Incorporated ) p ( g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3) All visible mud or dirt tracked onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. Table 1a Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Mitigation Measure Factor Environmental Impact The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • 6) Idling times shall be minimized either. by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR)). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 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 Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Air Quality Miti�ation Measure AQ-2: All diesel-powered off- Less than Significant road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and with Mitigation operating on the site for more than two continuous Incorporated days shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent Biological Miti�ation Measure BIO-1: If construdion activities Less than Significant Resources would commence anytime during the with Mitigation nesting/breeding season of native bird species Incorporated potentially nesting near the site (typically February through August in the project region), a pre- construction survey for nesting birds shall be Table 1a Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmental lmpact conducted by a qualified biologist within two weeks of the commencement of construction activities. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly affected or are within 150 feet of construction and would be subject to prolonged construction-related noise, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall 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 will be determined by taking into account factors such as 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. Biological Miti�ation Measure BIO-2: Prior to the removal of Less than Signi�cant Resources any trees, the project applicant shall evaluate if the with Mitigation on-site trees meet the requirement to be considered Incorporated a"protected" tree. A permit shall be obtained from the Parks and Recreation Department prior to the removal of a protected tree. Cultural Resources Miti�ation Measure CUL-1• In the event Less than Significant archaeological resources are encountered during with Mitigation construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of Incorporated the discovered materials and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. If an archaeological site is encountered in any stage of development, a qualified archeologist will be Table la Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmental Impact 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 of the finding, file it with the appropriate agency, and arrange for curation of recovered materials. Cultural Resources Mitieation Measure CUL-2: A discovery of a Less than Significant paleontological specimen during any phase of the with Mitigation project shall result in a work stoppage in the vicinity Incorporated 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. Cultural Resources Miti�ation Measure CUL-3: In the event that human Less than Significant remains are discovered during project tonstruction, with Mitigation there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of Incorporated 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. Geology and Soils Miti�ation Measure GEO-1: Project design and Less than Significant construction shall adhere to Title 18, Chapter 18.28 of with Mitigation the Burlingame Municipal Code, and demonstrate Incorporated compliance with all design standards applicable to the California Building Code Zone 4 would ensure maximum practicable protection available to users of the buildings and associated infrastructure. Table 1a Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitiqation Measure Environmental Impact Geology and Soils Miti�ation Measure GEO-2: Project design and Less than Significant construction, including excavation activities, shall with Mitigation comply with Chapter 33 of the CBC, which specifies Incorporated the safety requirement to be fulfilled for site work. This would include prevention of subsidence and pavement or foundations caused by dewatering. Geology and Soils Miti¢ation Measure GEO-3: The applicant shall Less than Significant prepare a monitoring program to determine the with Mitigation effects of construction on nearby improvements, Incorporated including the monitoring of cracking and vertical movement of adjacent structures, and nearby streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other improvements. As necessary, inclinometers or other instrumentation shall be installed as part of the shoring system to closely monitor lateral movement. The program shall include a pre-condition survey including photographs and installation of monitoring points for existing site improvements. Hazards and Miti�ation Measure HAZ-1: The contractor shall Less than Significant Hazardous comply with Title 8, California Code of with Mitigation Materials Regulations/Occupational Safety and Health Incorporated Administration (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. Hazards and Miti¢ation Measure HAZ-2: The applicant shall Less than Significant Hazardous contract a Certified Asbestos Consultant to conduct with Mitigation Materials an asbestos survey prior to disturbing potential Incorporated asbestos containing building materials and following the Consultant's recommendations for proper handling and disposal. Table 1a Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmental lmpact Hazards and Miti�ation Measure HAZ-3: Workers handling Less than Significant Hazardous demolition and renovation activities at the project with Mitigation Materials site will be trained in the safe handling and disposal Incorporated of any containments with which they are handling or disposing of on the project site. Noise Miti�ation Measure NOI-1: The following measures, Less than Significant in addition to the best practices specified in Impact 3, with Mitigation shall be implemented to reduce vibration impacts Incorporated from construction activities to a less-than-significant level: ■ For all construction proposed to be located within 20 feet of adjacent structures, a construction vibration-monitoring plan would need to be implemented to document conditions prior to, during and after vibration generating construction activities. All plan tasks shall be undertaken under the diredion of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented to include the following tasks: ■ Perform a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for each identified structure. Surveys shall be performed prior to any construction activity and after project completion and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in structures, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of foundations, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structures. ■ Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site. ■ Make appropriate repairs or compensation Table 1a Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmental Impact where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities. ■ The results of all vibration monitoring shall be summarized and submitted in a report shortly after substantial completion of each phase identified in the project schedule. The report will include a description of measurement methods, equipment used, calibration certificates, and graphics as required to clearly identify vibration- monitoring locations. An explanation of all events that exceeded vibration limits will be included together with proper documentation supporting any such claims. Transportation Miti�ation Measure TRA-1: Prior to issuance of Less than Significant and Traffic grading and building permits, the project applicant with Mitigation shall submit a Traffic Control Plan. The Traffic Control Incorporated Plan would indicate how parking for construction workers would be provided during construction and ensure a safe flow of traffic in the project area during construction. The requirements within the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: truck drivers would be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and U.S. 101, as determined by the City Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress would occur only at the main driveways to the project site; specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles would be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction vehicle ingress and egress; warning signs indicating frequent truck entry and exit would be posted on adjacent roadways if requested; and any debris and mud on nearby streets caused by trucks would be monitored daily and may require instituting a street cleaning program. Table 1a Summary of Mitigation Measures Environmental Level of Factor Mitigation Measure Environmental Impact Transportation Miti�ation Measure TRA-2: On-street parking to the Less than Significant and Traffic east and west of the outbound driveways on with Mitigation Bayswater Avenue shall be prohibited by painting red Incorporated curb for a distance of approximately 20 feet on either side. � � � �o,� Willi m Meeker, City of Burlingame �t z3 � (o Date Community Development Director EXHIBIT A City of Burlingame 85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE PROJECT Initial Study Prepared by: Circlepoint 46 S 1st Street San Jose, CA 95113 Prepared for: City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 November 2016 Initial Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 85 California Drive Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form ............................................................................. 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................... 2 Determination................................................................................................................................. 3 ProjectDescription .......................................................................................................................... 4 Environmental Impact Checklist ...................................................................................................... 8 1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 8 2 Agriculture .........................................................................................................................11 3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 13 4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................... 19 5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 23 6 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 26 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 31 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 34 9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 40 10 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................. 45 11 Mineral Resources ..............................................................................................:.......... 47 12 Noise ..............................................................................................................................48 13 Population and Housing ................................................................................................ 56 14 PublicServices ...............................................................................................................58 15 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 60 16 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................. 61 17 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 67 18 Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................. 71 i Initial Study LIST OF TABLES 85 California Drive Table 1 Comparison of BAAQMD's Land Use Screening Criteria and the Project Size .............. 16 Table 2 Summary of Noise Measurement Data ......................................................................... 49 Table 3 Typical Vibration Levels Expected from Construction Equipment ................................ 51 Table 4 Calculated Construction Noise Levels for Each Phase of Construction at a Distance of 50 Feet ....................................................................................................................................... 54 Table 5 Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................. 64 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Site and Surrounding Land Use Map Figure 2 Noise Monitoring Locations LIST OF APPENDICES A Project Plans B California Historical Resources Information System Records Search C Geotechnicallnvestigation D Phase I Environmental Site Assessment E Noise and Vibration Assessment F Transportation Impact Analysis m Initial Study 85 California Drive INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. Project Title 2. Lead Agency 85 California Drive City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number 4. Project Location 5. San Mateo County Parcel Number 6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address 7. General Plan Designation 8. Zoning 9. Description of Project 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Telephone: (650) 558-7256 E-Mail: rhurin@burlingame.org 85 California Drive Burlingame, CA APN 029-242-020 APN 029-242-030 APN 029-242-040 APN 029-242-050 APN 029-242-230 (portion) Alan Cross 566 Folsom Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Commercial Uses: Service & Special Sales California Drive Mixed Use District R-4 Incentive District California Drive Auto Row R-4 See project description below See project description below 1 Initial Study 85 California Drive ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. � Aesthetics � Air Quality � Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Population and Housing � Recreation ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources � Biological Resources � Geology and Soils � Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Land Use and Planning � Noise ❑ Public Services � Transportation and Traffic � Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 initial Study DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: 85 California Drive ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. � I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. . �., l 1 23 l Willi m Meeker Date Community Development Director 3 Initial Study PROjECT DESCRIPTION Existing Project Setting 85 California Drive The proposed project site is located at the southwest corner of Bayswater Avenue and California Drive and encompasses four parcels and a portion of a fifth parcel (APN 029-242-020, -030, - 040, -050 and a portion of -230). The project site is bordered by California Drive to the north, Bayswater Avenue to the west, a Mazda dealership to the east, and a two-story multifamily residential building to the south. Automobile sales and service facilities are also located adjacent to the site across California Drive and Bayswater Avenue. Existing Conditions and Land Use The project site is located in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (Downtown Specific Plan) area. Within the Downtown Specific Plan, the majority of the site is located in the California Drive Mixed Use District; the remaining portion of the site is located in the R-4 Incentive District. The project site is located in the California Drive Auto Row (CAR) zoning district designated primarily for automobile-related uses. The remaining portion of the site is located in the R-4 District designated primarily for high-density multifamily residential land uses. The project site occupies five separate parcels, is relatively level (with an average slope of 2 percent), and two parcels are developed with a single-story Subaru showroom building, a single- story Subaru automobile service facility, a Hertz automobile rental office located in the service facility building, and automobile storage for Subaru and Hertz on a paved parking area. The site is completely covered by 24,925 square feet of impervious surfaces and does not contain any vegetation or landscaping. California Drive and Bayswater Avenue provide access to the site (Figure 1). Automobile dealerships surround the project site to the north, east, and west, and residential land uses are located to the south. The Burlingame Caltrain Station is located 0.25 miles northwest of the project site. Washington Elementary School is located 0.2 miles north of the project site, St. Catherine of Siena School is located 0.2 miles southwest, and Burlingame High School is located 0.4 miles northwest. Washington Park is located 0.3 miles northwest of the project site and Pershing Park is within 0.5 miles southwest. Proposed Project Components The project would construct a new 14,239-square-foot automobile service facility with a 1,627- square-foot parts storage mezzanine at the site (8,725 square feet of enclosed building area and 5,514 square feet of covered drive aisle area). This would include demolition of a 115-square- foot office at the rear of the existing showroom and the existing 2,620-square-foot service facility and Hertz rental office. The existing showroom on the northeast end of the site would remain. As part of the project, the new service facility would be constructed over four parcels and a portion of a fifth parcel, and the parcels would be combined into one, totaling 24,925 square feet (0.57 acres). The remaining portion of the fifth parcel, outside of the project site, would continue to be used for storing new vehicle inventory. The new service facility would be 4 Initial Study 85 California Drive one story (25 feet and 1.5 inches in height), which conforms to the 55-foot height limit for the CAR zoning district. The service facility would consist of 16 service bays, parts and tool rooms, a service writer office and a customer lounge. The front of the lot would contain an outdoor vehicle display area and 15 parking spaces for customers and employees, as required under the City's parking ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.70, Off-Street Parking). The total site area disturbed for the project would be 21,426 square feet (0.49 acres). The project would provide 879 square feet of bioretention landscaping area and replace 96 percent of the existing impervious area on the site (replacing 9,957 square feet and adding new impervious areas of 10,590 square feet), for a total impervious area of 20,547 square feet. The project plans are included as Appendix A of this initial study. Design and Landscaping The proposed new automobile service facility requires an application for Commercial Design Review and is subject to Section 5.0 — Design & Character of the Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed building contains prefinished horizontal metal and aluminum composite panel siding, painted steel and aluminum trim, and an aluminum anodized storefront system. No landscaping or vegetation exists on the site. There are seven street trees—six evergreen peartrees (Pyrus kawakamii) and one maidenhairtree (Ginkgo biloba)—along Bayswater Avenue in front of the project property; no other street trees exist around the perimeter of the site. All seven street trees would be removed and replaced with four new street trees along Bayswater Avenue. Two evergreen pear trees and one maidenhair tree would be removed to accommodate new curb cuts for the new service facility. The remaining four evergreen pear trees would also be removed and replaced with four maidenhair trees. The applicant would obtain the required tree removal permits from the Parks and Recreation Director pursuant to the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.04, Street Trees. As part of the project, two new 24- inch box'Redspire' Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana'Redspire') street trees would be planted along California Drive to satisfy the Burlingame Parks Division. In addition, the project applicant would need to comply with the City's Tree Ordinance, which may require additional planting. Additionally, two new areas of landscaping, totaling 879 square feet, would be planted in the areas designated for bioretention. Utilities The project would require plumbing and electrical improvements to accommodate the new service facility. 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 which includes an existing 6-inch domestic water service line, 6-inch sanitary sewer line, and 6-inch fire service line. The new building would tie-in to these existing lines with a new 1-inch domestic water service line, new 4-inch sanitary sewer line, and new 4-inch fire service line. The project site is connected to an existing 15-inch stormwater line and the new building would tie-in to this existing line to convey stormwater infrastructure with a new 8-inch stormwater line. New electrical and gas lines would also be constructed. The project would comply with the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and Initial Study 85 California Drive 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889, as well as the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Access and Circulation The project site is located south of U.S. Highway 101(US 101) and north of EI Camino Real, both major traffic corridors providing access to Burlingame. The project location is also easily accessible from the Burlingame Caltrain station. The existing curb cut on California Drive would remain and continue to provide ingress to the site for visitors to the existing showroom; the existing curb cut on Bayswater Avenue near the corner of Bayswater Avenue and California Drive would be reduced in width and would continue to provide egress from the site. Two new curb cuts would be installed on Bayswater Avenue to provide a path for vehicles to circulate through the service facility. Construction The proposed construction methods are considered to be conceptual and are subject to review and approval by the City of Burlingame. For the purposes of this environmental document, the analysis considers the construction plan as described below. The existing buildings, concrete, and paving on the site would be demolished and removed as part of the project. Temporary construction fencing and run-off filter booms would be placed at the perimeter of the site to protect water quality from potential contaminants in stormwater runoff emanating from the construction site. Underground utilities that would be affected include water, sewer, fire sprinkler, and telecommunication lines. These systems would be upgraded to meet the needs of the proposed construction. The new construction would consist of a concrete pad on piers and a pre-fabricated metal building with added architectural siding. The project assumes approximately 300 cubic yards of soil export. All soil would be off-hauled to Ox Mountain (Half Moon Bay) or a similarly appropriate facility. The hauling trucks would access the site by heading south on California Drive from US 101(Broadway interchange), making a right turn onto Peninsula Avenue, a right turn onto Highland Avenue, a right turn onto Bayswater Avenue, and stopping in front of the site. Once full, the trucks would continue down Bayswater Avenue in order to turn back onto California Drive and proceed in either the north or south direction, depending on the final destination of the off-haul. Once excavation is complete, construction workers would fill it with rebar and concrete to install the piers and slab. The slab would be installed for the proposed building structure to resist potential underground vertical and horizontal uplift pressures. Once the slab is in place, the pre-fabricated metal building would be constructed. Upon completion of the building, the parking and driveway areas will be brought to grade with compacted base-rock and asphalt. C� Initial Study 85 California Drive The total construction duration is estimated to be eight months. Construction would occur during the construction hours allowed by the Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 18.07.110, specifically: Weekdays: 8:00 am — 7:00 pm Saturdays: 9:00 am — 6:00 pm No construction allowed on Sundays and Holidays ProjectApprovals The project requires the following approvals from the City: • Rezoning a portion of the site from R-4 (high-density multifamily residential) to CAR (California Drive Auto Row) • General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a portion of the site from R-4 Incentive District to California Drive Mixed Use District � Lot Merger to combine four existing parcels into one parcel and Lot Line Adjustment • Commercial Design Review for a new automobile service facility at an existing automobile dealership � Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) —California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance 7 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST 1 Aesthetics Issues Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Setting Less Than Signi�cant or Significant Potentially Impact with Signifitant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � 85 California Drive Less than Significant No Impad ❑ � ❑ � � ❑ ❑ ❑ The City of Burlingame is located within San Mateo County, east of the Santa Cruz Mountains and west of the San Francisco Bay (Bay). Burlingame is surrounded by the City of Millbrae 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 Santa Cruz Mountains, the Bay, and the East Bay Hills. The project site lies within the California Drive Auto Row (CAR) portion of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan area. This area is zoned as California Drive Mixed Use District and is primarily used for auto sales. While other uses are permitted in the Downtown Specific Plan, the document cautions that non-auto uses should be carefully considered to ensure compatibility with the area's traditional focus on automobile businesses. The project site is currently covered by 24,925 square feet of impervious surfaces and contains no vegetation or landscaping. Other automobile dealerships surround the site to the north, east, and west, and a two-story multifamily residential building borders the site to the south. 8 Initial Study Discussion a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact) 85 California Drive According to the City of Burlingame General Plan, important 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 new development would be one story (25 feet and 1.5 inches in height) and would be well under the 55-foot height limit for the CAR zoning district. Therefore, no impact to scenic vistas would occur. b) 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 the California Scenic Highway Program is to protect and enhance California's natural beauty and to protect the social and economic values provided by the state's scenic resources. State scenic highways are officially 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) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Less than Significant) Construction Construction of the project would involve demolition, earthmoving operations, and grading activities. Temporary fencing, construrtion equipment, construction vehicles, staging areas, and associated construction debris would be visible on the project site for the duration of construction (approximately eight months). The visual character and quality 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. Operation The project proposes to continue the existing use of the site for automobile service and sales. The project would replace an existing automobile service facility (14 feet and 6 inches in height) with a new automobile service facility (25 feet and 1.5 inches in height). While the height of the new service building would be approximately 10 feet taller than the existing building, it is within the 55-foot height limit for the CAR zoning district. The new automobile service facility would require an application for Commercial Design Review and would be subject to Section 5.0, Design & Character, of the Downtown Specific Plan. The project's appearance, which would include prefinished horizontal metal and aluminum composite panel siding, painted steel and aluminum trim, and an aluminum anodized storefront system, would be consistent with surrounding automobile dealerships. As such, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and the impact would be less than significant. � Initial Study 85 California Drive d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less than Significant 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 existing regulations to reduce light pollution. Glass surfaces on the proposed structure would also result in increased sunlight reflection, ambient light, and glare beyond existing conditions. This is considered a potentially significant impact. The following mitigation measure is anticipated to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 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 standard California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficienty 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. 10 Initial Study 2 Agriculture 85 California Drive In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Significant or Potentially Issues Significant Would the project: Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or � Farmland ofStatewide 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 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Setting Less Than Significant Impad with Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less than Significant ❑ No Impact � ❑ � ❑ � The project site is fully developed with a single-story Subaru showroom building, a single-story Subaru automobile service facility, a Hertz automobile rental office located inside the service facility building, and automobile storage for Subaru and Hertz on a paved parking area. The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service soil map delineates the project site as Urban Land. The California Department of Conservation, Natural Resources Agency 2010 map of Important Farmland identifies Burlingame as Urban and Built Up Land. There are no agricultural resources located on or near the project site. 11 Initial Study Discussion 85 California Drive a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No Impact) and b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) and c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (No Impact) There are no active agricultural lands or lands under a Williamson Act contract on or adjacent to the project site. The project site is not designated for agricultural uses in the General Plan Land Use Map; therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Furthermore, the proposed project site is located in an urban setting within the Downtown Specific Plan area, which contains land use policies intended to promote and expand development. Consequently, the project would not result in farmland conversion to non- agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur. 12 Initial Study 3 Air Quality Issues Would the projed: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantiai number of people? Setting Less Than Significant or Signifitant Potentially Impad with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 85 California Drive Less than Significant No Impact � ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ Federal, state, and regional agencies regulate air quality, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). EPA and CARB have adopted ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants, which include tropospheric ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOZ), sulfur dioxide (SOZ), particulate matter, and lead. Ambient air quality standards also regulate reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) because they are precursors to 03 formation. Particulate matter standards include regulations for particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PMIo) and particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PMZ.$). The San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) air basin, which includes the City of Burlingame, is designated as non-attainment for 03 and PMZ.S under both federal and state standards, and non- attainment for PMlo under the more stringent state standards, which means that the Bay Area does not meet the ambient air quality standards for these air pollutants. The highest 03 levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High 03 levels can aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Elevated concentrations of PMIo and PMZ.S are the result of both regional and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels can aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children. 13 Initial Study 85 California Drive 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 pollutant emissions that could cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. BAAQMD's adoption of significance thresholds contained in the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines was called into question by an order issued March 5, 2012, in California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. BAAQMD (Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG10548693). 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 environmental impacts of adopting the thresholds and how the thresholds would indirectly affect land use development 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). Given that the existing court ruling retains the use of the CEQA thresholds, the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are applied to this project. Sensitive Receptors There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The closest off-site sensitive receptors are residences located at an adjacent apartment building at 32 Highland Avenue as shown in Figure 2. There are other residences located across Highland Avenue, about 150 feet from the project site. Discussion a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than Significant) As noted above in the setting discussion, the Bay Area Air Basin is in non-attainment for state and federal standards for 03, PMZ.Sand PMIo. 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 55 control measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or indirectly. The control measures are divided into five categories that include: 14 Initial Study ■ Measures to reduce stationary area sources ■ Mobile source measures ■ Transportation control measures ■ Land Use and local impact measures ■ Energy and climate measures 85 California Drive A project would be determined to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan (CAP) 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 CAP were developed, in part, on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The project is consistent with the General Plan designation of California Drive Mixed Use District and California Drive Auto Row (CAR) zoning district for the site. As such, it can be assumed that the use of this site for commercial purposes is already included in the CAP. The project would not directly increase the City's population as it does not include residential units. Implementation of the project would construct a new 9,634-square-foot automobile service facility at the site. This would include demolition of a 115-square-foot office at the rear of the existing showroom and the existing 2,620-square-foot service facility and Hertz rental office. The existing showroom on the northeast end of the site would remain. As part of the project, the new service facility would be constructed over the four parcels and a portion of the fifth parcel, and the parcels would be combined into one, totaling 24,925 square feet (0.57 acres). According to the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared for the project, no significant increase in traffic is anticipated with project implementation. The County of San Mateo's Traffic Impact5tudy Requirements establishes a significance threshold which considers a project's impact to traffic significant if its implementation increases daily trips by 500. The project is expected to generate 125 daily trips, on average, which is significantly lower than the 500 trips threshold. 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, Transportation and Traffic). 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 Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for the non-attainment air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx), PM�o and PMz.s, and apply to construction and operational impacts. According to BAAQMD's Urban Land Use Emissions Model (UREBMIS), if a project's size is below the established screening level size, then the project would not result in the emission of significant levels of operation-related emissions, and/or their precursors.l Although there is no specific UREBMIS classification for a car dealership, the proposed project is closest, in size and 1 Note that CaIEEMod version 2013.2.2 has replaced URBEMIS and uses more recent vehicle emissions data that result in lower emissions than the URBEMIS model. 15 Initial Study 85 California Drive operations type, to the "General Light Industrial" (and use. The operational and construction- related emissions thresholds are shown below in Table 1. Table 1 Comparison of BAAQMD's Land Use Screening Criteria and the Project Size Operational pollutants Operational Greenhouse Construction (square feet) Gas Emissions (square Pollutants (square feet) feet) BAAQMD's Land Use 541,000 121,000 259,000 Screening Size Project Size 24,295 24,295 24,295 Source: Circlepoint, 2016. Under the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines; the screening criterion for this land use is 541,000 square feet for operational pollutants and their precursors, and 121,000 square feet for operational greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the screening criterion for construction criteria pollutants is 259,000 square feet for the "General Light Industrial" land use. Given that the total project footprint is 24, 925 square feet, the project size is well below the BAAQMD screening level for construction and operational criteria pollutants and GHG significant impacts. Carbon monoxide emissions from project-related traffic 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 federal and state standards) in the Bay Area since the early 1990s. As a result, the region has been designated as in attainment for the standard. There is an ambient air quality monitoring station in Redwood City that measures carbon monoxide concentrations. The highest measured level over any 8-hour averaging period during the last 3 years is less than 2 parts per million (ppm), compared to the ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. The project would generate traffic during construction and operation that would emit carbon monoxide. The project would increase traffic by an estimated 125 trips per day. BAAQMD screening guidance indicates that projects would have a less than significant impact to carbon monoxide levels if project traffic projections indicate traffic levels would not increase at any affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. That condition would not occur in the area affected by the project. Furthermore, according to BAAQMD, implementation of the BAAQMD's standard permit Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in Mitigation Measure AQ-1 below, would be reduce construction-related potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The contractor shall implement the following BMPs: 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. 16 Initial Study 85 California Drive 2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3) All visible mud or dirt tracked onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR)). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 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 Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Project operation would not cause a violation of any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the temporary effects of fugitive dust from grading and construction activities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less than Significant) 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 by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project's contribution to the cumulative impact 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 considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant or a precursor to that pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. Given the nature of the proposed use, the operational criteria pollutant screening size for the project is 541,000 square feet for 17 initial Study 85 California Drive operational pollutants/precursors, and 121,000 square feet for greenhouse gas emissions. The project would operate at 24,925 square feet, and would thus be below the screening criteria developed by BAAQMD for the "General Light Industrial" land use. Therefore, the project would not exceed the pollutant emissions thresholds and the project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts is not considered cumulatively considerable. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than Signi�cant with Mitigation Incorporated) Operation of the project would not be expected to cause any localized emissions that could expose sensitive receptors (including infants and children as most sensitive) to unhealthy air pollutant levels. The proposed car dealership and service center would undertake day-to-day operations (such as car sales/repair) by connecting to the statewide electrical grid. No stationary sources of TACs (typically factories, refineries, power plants, etc.), are proposed as part of the project. Construction adivity would generate dust and equipment exhaust 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 TAC. Diesel exhaust and PMZ.Scan pose both potential health and nuisance impacts to nearby receptors. Sensitive receptors within close proximity to construction activity are at a higher risk of being exposed to TACs, and the subsequent health impacts associated with exposure to high levels of DPM and PMZ.S. The closest off-site sensitive receptors are located in an apartment building on the southern border of the project site, approximately 20 feet away. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 represents the application of Best Available Control Technology to construction equipment in orderto minimize TAC emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two continuous days shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent.2 e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less than Significant) The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction; however, equipment operation and truck activity during construction hours would be a temporary condition. 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. No sources of significant objectionable odors are anticipated with the construction of the car dealership. Therefore potential impacts associated with the creation of frequently occurring objectionable odors would be less than significant. 2 Tier 4 standards require that vehicles with engines up to 560 kilowatts substantially reduce emissions of NOx and PM through the use on control technologies (e.g., advanced exhaust after treatment). 18 Initial Study 4 Biological Resources /ssues Would the projeci: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ � b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any � riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with estabiished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? fl Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑� � ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 85 California Drive Less than Significant ❑ � -I No Impact ❑ I// // � ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ // Setting The biological resources occurring on and near the project site were evaluated by Pacific Biology on September 11, 2016. The project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by dense commercial development. The project site, which is currently used as a car dealership, is completely developed and paved. Ivy (Hedera sp.), a non-native and invasive species, grows along the fence-line and several non-native trees are located on the adjacent sidewalk. 19 Initial Study Discussion 85 California Drive a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (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 on-site habitats to support special-status species was evaluated during the September 2016 site visit. Based on the CNDDB, no special-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 for the following reasons: (1) the site is in a densely developed urban area and is isolated from areas of natural habitat; (2) the site is developed/paved and is used as a car dealership; (3) there are no wetlands, creeks, woodlands, or other habitats present associated with locally occurring special-status species; and (4) vegetation on the site is limited to invasive ivy (along the fence-line) and to several non-native trees planted along the adjacent sidewalk. Therefore, no special-status plant or wildlife species are expected to occur or to be impacted by the project. However, the trees on the sidewalk bordering the project site and in other nearby locations provide potential nesting habitat for common, urban-adapted bird 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 3503). The proposed project would require the removal of several trees, which could result in the loss of an active bird nests. Additionally, construction noise has the potential to disturb nesting birds potentially occurring in nearby areas. Therefore, the loss of an active bird nest protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code would be a potentially significant impact. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 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 region), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within two weeks of the commencement of construction activities. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly affected or are within 150 feet of construction and would be subject to prolonged construction-related noise, a no- disturbance buffer zone shall 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 will be determined by taking into account factors such as 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; 20 Initial Study 85 California Drive ■ 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. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) During the September 2016 site visit, a search was conducted for riparian habitats and other sensitive plant communities. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive plant communities on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive plant communities would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact) During the September 2016 site visit, a search was conducted for creeks, wetlands, and other potentially jurisdictional resources. There are no creeks or wetlands present on or bordering the project site. Therefore, no impacts to federally protected wetlands and other waters would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less than Signi�cant) Wildlife corridors are described as pathways or habitat linkages that connect discrete areas of natural open space otherwise separated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation, and other natural or manmade obstacles such as urbanization. The project site is paved/developed and is surrounded by dense 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 with Mitigation Incorporated) The City of Burlingame defines a protected tree as any tree with a trunk circumference of 48 inches or more measured 54 inches above the ground; a permit from the Parks and Recreation Department is required to remove a protected tree. The proposed project would require the removal of seven non-native trees in the right-of-way along the sidewalk. The diameter at breast height (dbh) of the trees to be removed was not measured during the site visit, but it is possible that the dbh of one or more of the trees is greater than 48 inches. Therefore, in the absence of complying with the requirements of the local tree protection ordinance, related 21 Initial Study 85 California Drive impacts are potentially significant. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to the removal of any trees, the project applicant shall evaluate if the on-site trees meet the requirement to be considered a"protected" tree. A permit shall be obtained from the Parks and Recreation Department prior to the removal of a protected tree. f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (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 conservation plan. Therefore, no related impact would occur. 22 Initial Study 5 Cultural Resources Issues Would ihe projed: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeologicai resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formai cemeteries? Setting Less 7han Significant or Significant Potentially Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � 85 California Drive Less than Significant No Impact � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ A cultural records search for the project site was conducted through the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) in September 2016 (see Appendix B). The results of this records search are discussed below. Discussion a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Less than Significant) The existing structures on the project site proposed for demolition were developed between 1946 and 1956. The project site is not included in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND list of historic structures. There are 23 structures within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan area that were identified 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 history and heritage, but are not eligible for the CRHR and NRHP. However, none of these potentially historic resources are on the project site. According to the CHRIS records search, no recorded buildings or structures are located within the proposed project area. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) At the time of Euroamerican contact the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Ramaytush language, part of the Costanoan language family. According to the CHRIS search, the proposed project area contains no recorded archaeological resources. Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in areas marginal to the 23 Initial Study 85 California Drive San Francisco Bayshore, and inland near intermittent and perennial watercourses. The project site is located within alluvial valley lands approximately 0.5 miles from the San Francisco Bayshore. Given the similarity of these environmental factors, there is a moderate potential for unrecorded Native American resources in the proposed project area. Review of historical literature and maps gave no indication of the possibility of historic-period activity within the project area. As such, there is a low potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources in the project area. Given the moderate possibility for unknown Native American archaeological resources in the proposed project area, there is a potential to discover unidentified archaeological resources during construction activities. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure CUL-1 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 shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovered materials and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. If an archaeological 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 priorto or during site construdion. The archaeologist shall also prepare a written report of the finding, file it with the appropriate agency, and arrange for curation of recovered materials. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) No known paleontological resources have been recorded at the project site or within the vicinity. Further, the site is fully developed. A Subaru dealership and service facility currently occupy the site. Given this, the probability of encountering paleontological resources is low. However, construction activities could potentially destroy unknown paleontological resources. This would be 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 orfurther action (e.g., resource removal), as determined by a professional paleontologist, shall be implemented to mitigate the impact. 24 Initial Study 85 California Drive d) 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 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding human remains, and the California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 regarding the treatment of Native American human remains. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 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 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. 25 Initial Study 6 Geology and Soils Issues Would ihe project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault 2oning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fauit? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 85 California Drive Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially Impad with Significant Mitigation Less than Impact Incorporated Significant ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ■ ■ No Impact /1 ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � � ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ��'/1 Setting Burlingame is in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, in eastern San Mateo County, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. Qualified geotechnical engineers completed a geotechnical investigation for the project in February 2016 and determined that the project site is suitable to support commercial development with adherence to provided development recommendations. Appendix C includes this report. 3� Initial Study 85 California Drive According to the geotechnical investigation, soil conditions encountered beneath the pavement at the site consisted generally of 1- to 4-foot-thick surFace soil layer of artificial fill. The fill was generally underlain by native topsoil, which graded into stiff to very stiff alluvial deposits. The Bay Area is a seismically active area and is subject to the effects of future earthquakes. Most of Burlingame, including the Downtown Specific Plan area, is essentially flat (less than 1 percent slope) 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). The project site is located on the southwest corner of Bayswater Avenue and California Drive and is generally relatively level. In addition to the vehicle showroom, a service facility, and a car rental facility, there are various concrete and paved areas. A retaining wall is also present at the site. Discussion a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (No Impact) Four historically active faults are located within 15.5 miles of the project site: ■ San Andreas Fault (approximately 3.0 miles west) ■ San Gregorio Fault (approximately 9.9 miles northeast) ■ Monte Vista-Shannon Fault (approximately 10.9 miles southeast) ■ Hayward (Total Length) Fault (approximately 15.5 miles east) The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972) and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) 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 Conservation, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is Burlingame affected by Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Additionally, no known surface expression of fault traces cross the site. The geotechnical investigation further confirmed that there are no indications of active faults at the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) 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, 27 initial Study 85 California Drive earthquake duration, and site-specific geologic conditions. The San Andreas Fault is the closest active fault to the project site, and lies approximately 3.0 miles to the southwest. Numerous active and potentially active Bay Area faults are capable of producing moderate to major earthquakes that could cause severe ground shaking at the site in the future. As stated in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, Burlingame soils are reasonably stable under seismic conditions. Given this, implementation of the project would expose people and structures to strong seismic ground shaking if an earthquake were to occur in the area. Adherence to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce the potential impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Project design and construction shall adhere to Title 18, Chapter 18.28 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, and demonstrate compliance with all design standards applicable to the California Building Code Zone 4 would ensure maximum practicable protection available to users of the buildings and associated infrastructure. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than Significant) Because the project site is in a seismically active region, some potential for seismic-related ground failure exists. The project site is flat and is underlain predominately by stiff to very stiff alluvial deposits. Given this, the potential for significant seismic settlement is low. The Association of Bay Area Governments mapped the project site as having low potential for liquefaction. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. iv) Landslides? (No Impact) The downtown area of Burlingame experiences a grade change of approximately 15 feet (less than 1 percent slope). 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) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less than Significant) The project site is developed with a single-story Subaru showroom building, a single-story Subaru automobile service facility and Hertz automobile rental office, and paved parking areas. The site is completely covered by 24,925 square feet of impervious surfaces and does not contain vegetation or landscaping. The existing 115-square-foot office at the rear of the existing showroom, the existing 2,620-square-foot service facility, and Hertz rental office would be demolished and removed as part of the project and a new, larger service facility would be constructed. Construction activities would be required to comply with the provisions in Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) 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. After construction, the site would still be completely covered with impervious surfaces, with the exception of 805 square feet of bioretention landscaping. Therefore, there would be little exposed soil on that site that would contribute to soil erosion effects. Further, conformance to 28 Initial Study 85 California Drive 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) 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? (Less than Significant) 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. Groundwater depth is estimated to be 21 to 24 feet bgs and was not encountered during borings conducted during the geotechnical investigation. For these reasons, the geotechnical report also determined the potential for lateral spreading to be low. Furthermore, soils at the project site are predominantly stiff to very stiff clays and sands. Therefore, the potential for differential seismic settlement is low. Given the above, the impact would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 181 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The primary concern stated in the geotechnical is the presence of existing fill and weak soil. The project design and construction, including excavation activities, would be required to comply with Chapter 33 of the CBC, which specifies the safety requirements to be fulfilled for site work and protection of adjacent properties from damage during excavation (Mitigation Measure GEO-2). This would include the prevention of subsidence or pavement or foundations caused by dewatering. The project would also be required to adhere to Chapter 18 of the CBC as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which sets forth building construction standards including, but limited to, expansive soils. Additionally, the geotechnical report prepared for the project includes recommendations for site work, grading, building foundations (to the adjacent properties), flatwork, retaining walls, and pavements. Adherence to Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, and GEO-3 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Project design and construction, including excavation activities, shall comply with Chapter 33 of the CBC, which specifies the safety requirement to be fulfilled for site work. This would include prevention of subsidence and pavement or foundations caused by dewatering. Mitigation Measure GEO-3: The applicant shall prepare a monitoring program to determine the effects of construction on nearby improvements, including the monitoring of cracking and vertical movement of adjacent structures, and nearby streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other improvements. As necessary, inclinometers or other instrumentation shall be installed as part of the shoring system to closely monitor lateral movement. The program shall include a pre-condition survey including photographs and installation of monitoring points for existing site improvements. 29 Initial Study 85 California Drive e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) The project site would dispose of wastewater using existing wastewater infrastructure operated by the City of Burlingame. No aspect of the project would entail any new use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no related impact would occur. 30 Initial Study 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Signi�cant or Potentially Issues Significant Would the project: Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment7 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Setting 85 California Drive less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Less than Incorporated Significant ❑ � ❑ ❑ u �� No Impac[ ❑ ❑ Atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb and re-emit the majority of outgoing infrared radiation (i.e., heat energy) from the Earth's surface. This natural phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Carbon dioxide (COZ) and water vapor are the most abundant GHGs, but others also include methane (CH,), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These GHGs are released into the atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulate greenhouse gas emissions within the Bay Area Air Basin. According to the BAAQMD May 2011 CEQA Guidelines, GHG emissions-based significance thresholds for a land use development project is less than 1,100 metric tons per year and for stationary-source projects less than 10,000 metric tons per year. 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 metric tons per year per capita. Projects with emissions above the thresholds would be considered to have an impact, which, cumulatively, would be significant. According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, the City adopted the Burlingame Climate Action Plan in June 2009 with the goal of reducing the City's 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 GHG reduction target for 2050 (that GHG emissions would be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels) set forth in Executive Order (EO) S-03-05. Additionally, EO 8-30-15 establishes an interim statewide GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 GHG levels by 2030. 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. 3 Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan IS/MND, May 2010. 31 Initial Study 85 California Drive Discussion a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) GHG emissions associated with development of the proposed project would occur over the short-term during construction activities, consisting primarily of GHG emissions from equipment exhaust and construction worker and vendor trips. There would also be long-term operational GHG emissions associated with increased vehicular 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 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Construction Neither BAAQMD nor the City has an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. Nonetheless, BAAQMD encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable. Best management practices may include, but are not limited to: using alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment for at least 15 percent of the fleet; using at least 10 percent local building materials; and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. Since the sources of construction-related GHGs include exhaust, BAAQMD suggests following the same detailed guidance as for criteria air pollutants and precursors (see Mitigation Measure AQ-1). Implementing Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce the contribution to the existing air quality to a less than significant level. Selecting specific equipment that meet the U.S. EPA particulate matter standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent (see Mitigation Measure AQ-2) would reduce the emissions by construction to a less than significant level. Operation Due to the project size, operational period GHG emissions would be less than 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 operational impacts, the screening project size is identified at 121,000 square feet for general light industrial land uses. Since the project proposes to operate 24,925 square feet of facility services, 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, would 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. These include the BAAQMD May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions, the Burlingame Downtown Specific 32 Initial Study 85 California Drive Plan, and the Burlingame Climate Action Plan. These regulations identify emissions levels for which the project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. As established earlier, the project would implement best management practices and mitigation measures in compliance to all the above mentioned regulations. Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted forthe purpose of reducingthe emissions of GHGs, and any impacts would be less than significant. 33 Initial Study 85 California Drive 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially Impact with /ssues Significant Mitigation Less than Would the project: Impad Incorporated Significant No Impad a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the � � � � environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of ha2ardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? � For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area7 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � � ❑ ■ /1 Setting The project site is currently developed with a single-story Subaru showroom building, a single- story Subaru automobile service facility, a Hertz automobile rental office located in the service facility building and automobile storage for Subaru and Hertz on a paved parking area. The site 34 Initial Study 85 California Drive is completely covered by 24,925 square feet of impervious surfaces and does not contain any vegetation or landscaping. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted by AEI Consultants in August 2016 to identify and evaluate any potential hazards to human health in the vicinity of the project site (Appendix D). The existing structures on the project site proposed for demolition were developed between 1946 and 1956. The current tenant has been on the property since the early 2000s. The existing surFace parking lot was formerly developed with a gasoline station from approximately 1943 to 1959. This portion of the subject property was identified in an EDR search as a"case-closed" Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site. Files reviewed at the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) showed that a 550-gallon waste oil underground storage tank (UST) was removed from the site in 1990. Groundwater sampling at the time returned low levels of LUFT 5 metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc and nickel), and tested negative for detectable traces of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) derived from gasoline. Following the groundwater testing, the case was closed in 1995, thereby classifying the LUST case as a Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC). Additionally, historic property photographs indicate a potential tank pad located north of the existing parking lot and it is unclear from available information whether or not these gasoline USTs were located on or off site. Given this, the existing parking lot represents a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC). Furthermore, the existing buildings were constructed before the 1976 Toxic Substances and Control Act, and therefore have the potential 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, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and lead-based paint during construction and demolition activities could result 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 disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than Signi�cant) Implementation of the project would construct a new 14,239-square-foot automobile service facility with a 1,627-square-foot parts storage mezzanine at the site. This would include demolition of a 115-square-foot office at the rear of the existing showroom and the existing 2,620-square-foot service facility and Hertz rental office. Common chemicals used in commercial settings include cleaners, toners, correction fluid, paints, and maintenance materials. Use of these types of products would not involve substantial use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. During construction of the project, paint, building material finishing products, and automotive oil would be used as well. However, such materials would be used temporarily and typically do not generate hazardous air pollutant emissions or pose a long-term threat to human health or the environment. Improper disposal could increase risk of exposure for nearby residents 35 Initial Study 85 California Drive through direct contact or by adversely affecting soil, groundwater, or other surface waters. However, any hazardous materials transportation, use, and disposal as part of the project would be subject to federal and state hazardous materials laws and regulations. Primary federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials and wastes include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). RCRA includes procedures and requirements for managing hazardous materials and for cleanup of hazardous materials releases. CERCLA delineates the liability for contamination between current property owners and others. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act regulates the transport of hazardous materials. The federal government delegates enforcement authority to the states. With adherence to such regulations regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and any impacts would be less than significant. b) Create a signi�cant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) According to the Phase I prepared for the project site, the project site has documented hazardous material use and storage associated with the past property uses. The property is documented to have one removed UST; however, historic property photographs indicate a second potential gasoline tank pad located north of the existing parking lot. Given that it is unclear from available information whether or not this gasoline UST was located on or off site, the project site remains a REC. Groundwater testing at the time of closure returned low levels of LUFT 5 metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc and nickel), and tested negative for detectable traces of VOCs derived from gasoline. Construction The former gasoline tank pad described above was located in what is currently an existing parking lot on site that would not be disturbed during project construction; as such, construction workers would be unlikely to encounter potential residual contamination resulting from the gasoline UST. As stated above, no significant hazardous chemicals were found to be in the groundwater at the initial time of testing. Additionally, groundwater is presumed to be present at an estimated depth of 21 to 24 feet below ground surface (bgs), while excavation would only extend to a depth of 4 feet. Given the above, construction workers would be unlikely to come into contact with groundwater or residual soil contamination, and there would be no significant risk of exposure to contaminants during construction. The project would require demolition of structures that could potentially expose construction workers, or others, to asbestos and lead-based paint products, if present. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ 1 through HAZ-3 would reduce impacts associated with demolition and construction to a less-than-significant level. 36 Initial Study 85 California Drive Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The contractor shall comply with Title 8, California Code of Regulations/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (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 building materials and following the Consultant's recommendations for proper handling and disposal. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Workers handling demolition and renovation activities at the project site will be trained in the safe handling and disposal of any containments with which they are handling or disposing of on the project site. Operation The project would connect to the existing municipal services, which would not use the extraction of groundwater for supply. Given that the entire project site would be covered with impervious surfaces; employees and visitors to the building would not come into contact with potentially contaminated soil or groundwater from the unresolved UST. Given this, no special protective elements would need to be incorporated with the building design, because potential exposure would be negligible. With implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 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 is the nearest school to the project site, approximately 0.17 miles north. Saint Catherine of Siena School is also located in close proximity to the project site, approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the project site. Bridge Point Academy is located approximately 0.25 miles northeast. Demolition of the existing building would potentially involve the handling and disposal of hazardous waste products, including asbestos, lead, motor and transmission oils, etc. Most of these substances are typically found within commercial sites. Additionally, the excavation and grading associated with construction activities at the project site could result in encountering potentially contaminated soils, soil vapors, and groundwater. Handling of such substances would be regulated by federal and state hazardous materials laws that would minimize the risk of exposure to nearby land uses, including schools. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would further reduce potential risk of exposure to nearby land uses. As described above, the project would continue existing automotive land uses on the project site. Common chemicals used in automotive facilities include oils, solvents, acids, paints, etc. 37 Initial Study 85 California Drive The project would not involve the use of new hazardous products and chemicals that are not currently in use on the site.. As such, the project would have a less-than-significant impact to schools within 0.25 miles of the project site. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) According to the Phase I ESA, the property at 85 California Drive was not identified on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) or on the DTSC Envirostor Database. However, the project site was identified in the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST), San Mateo Co. BI, and CORTESE databases. As stated above, the project site contained one known UST, which was removed in the early 1990s, and for which a"closed-case" ruling was issued based on groundwater testing results. The second potential UST site remains an REC because there is no available historic information confirming or denying its existence. Given this, a potential hazard exists on the project site; however, with incorporation of the precautionary measures outlined in Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, any potential risk to the public or the environment as a result of this UST would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is approximately 3 miles northwest of the project site; however, the project site does not fall within any of the airport's "safety compatibility zones" and is, therefore, not considered as being within an area of potential danger involving the operation of SFO'. Therefore, no impact would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) There are no private airstrips within the project vicinity. Therefore, there would be no safety hazard impacts to people residing or working in the project area due to operations at private airstrips. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than Significant) The project would build the new structure on previously developed commercial land. Access points to the site would be constructed to ensure proper access for emergency vehicles. The ° The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility P/an for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November 2012. Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-conte nt/u p I oa ds/2014/10/Co nso I i d ated_CCAG_ALUCP_N ove mber-20121. pdf. 38 Initial Study 85 California Drive City does not have an established evacuation plan. However, the proposed project would adhere to the guidelines established within the Safety Element of the General Plan. Additionally, the Safety Operations Plan between the Cities of Burlingame and Hillsborough would be implemented in the case of an emergency, and the project would comply with procedures determined by the Safety Operations Plan, if such an event aroses. Furthermore, the project plans would be subject to review and approval by the City and the Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Therefore, the project would not conflict with and adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and the impact would be less than significant. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland �res, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact) The project site and surrounding vicinity are entirely developed. The area does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, wildlands. Accordingly, implementation of the project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires and no impact would occur. 5 City of Hillsborough, 2007. Emergency Operations Plan. Available at: http://www.hillsborough.net/DocumentCenter/View/591. 39 Initial Study 9 Hydrology and Water Quality Issues Wou/d the projed: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)7 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 resuit in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 85 California Drive Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially Impad with Significant Mitigation Less than Impact Incorporated Signiflcant ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ U 0 Nolmpad ❑ � ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 40 � ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ � � ❑ � ❑ Initial Study Setting 85 California Drive San Mateo County is within the San Francisco Bay portion of the Coast Range Geologic Province. Annual average precipitation in San Mateo County is reported at approximately 19.6 inches. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) monitor water quality in the Bay Area. These agencies oversee the implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge permits. The SWRCB has implemented a NPDES Construction General Permit for the State of California for projects disturbing 1 or more of acres of soil, requiring dischargers to obtain coverage under the General Permit, file a Notice of Intent (NOI), and prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) prior to commencement of construction. As project construction would disturb 0.46 acres, it is exempt from these Construction General Permit requirements. The City participates in the San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), and is required to implement Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs under Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) (Provision C.3.b.). LID practices include source control BMPs, site design BMPs, and stormwater treatment BMPs onsite or at a joint stormwater treatment facility. Burlingame 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 Sierra 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 Terrace Creek for drainage purposes. The project site does not include any surFace waters; the nearest body of surface water to the subject property is the San Francisco Bay, located approximately 1 mile east of the project site. Groundwater is estimated to be at a depth of 21 to 34 feet bgs. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located within Zone B, 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 could be approximately 4 feet below ground surface. As groundwater depth is estimated at 21 to 34 feet bgs, groundwater would not be expected to be encountered during construction activities. Construction activities also have the potential to result in runoff that contains sediment and other pollutants that could degrade water quality if not properly controlled. Sources of pollution associated with construction include chemical substances from construction materials and hazardous or toxic materials, such as fuels. During the construction of this project, less than 41 Initial Study 85 California Drive 1 acre of soil would be disturbed. Therefore, as stated above, the project would not be subject to a State NPDES General Construction Permit and SWRCB requirements would not apply. Project operation would continue the existing automobile sales and service land uses on the site. The expanded service facility would generate wastewater and pollutants associated with automobile sales and service land uses, as the existing facility does currently. The project would add required bioretention areas per C.3 requirements on site to capture and filter pollutants and would not be expected to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with water quality standards and wastewater discharge requirements would be less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (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 site would continue to receive municipal 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-site? (Less than Significant) and d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Less than Significant) There are no natural drainage features within downtown Burlingame. The existing drainage pattern entails the use of lined channels, culverts, and underground pipes, all of which eventually drain into the San Francisco Bay. Project construction would involve ground- disturbing activities. As noted, the project size is below the 1-acre threshold, so project construction would not be subject to the NPDES General Construction Permit that imposes strict requirements and control on construction and post-construction activities. Once operational, the amount of surface runoff generated by the project is not expected to increase compared to existing conditions. Under existing conditions, the impervious surFace area is 21,426 square feet; with project implementation, the impervious surface area would total 20,547 square feet. Thus, the area of impervious surface would represent a net decrease of 897 square feet with project implementation. 42 Initial Study 85 California Drive Therefore, surface runoff would not increase and the new building would not significantly alter the existing drainage patterns. No new water-intensive activities are proposed that would contribute substantial additional runoff that could exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems in the area. 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. 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- or off-site. The impact would be less than significant. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Less than Significant) and f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Less than Significant) As stated above in 9c and 9d, 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. Since the project does not disturb more than 1 acre of soil, it would not be subject to NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. However, the project would be subject to the requirements of Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. No new significant sources of polluted runoff would be created. With compliance to state and local regulations and the implementation of BMPs, potential impacts would be less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact) and h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact) According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, 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 annual chance flood event. Therefore, no impact would occur. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Less 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 43 Initial Study 85 California Drive 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 renovations to enhance the safety of the structure in the event of a major earthquake.6 Implementation of the project would not significantly change the existing conditions or expose people or structures to significant risk due to failure of a levee or a dam. Therefore, the impacts due to development in Flood Hazard Areas would be less than significant. j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Less than Significant) Tsunamis are large ocean waves generated by earthquakes and can be damaging to lowland coastal 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 also 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 the Crystal Springs Reservoir. 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 having enough momentum to affect the property site is low. Furthermore, as no steep slopes are located in close proximity to the project site, the possibility of inundation by landslides or mudflows would be remote. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 6 County of San Mateo Public Works. 2015. Crystal Springs Dam Bridge Replacement Project. Available: http://publicworks.smcgov.org/crystal-springs-dam-bridge-replacement-project. Accessed September 22, 2016. 44 Initial Study 10 Land Use and Planning Issues Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community7 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, polity, or regulation of an agency with jurisdidion over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Significant or Potentially Significant Impact ❑ ❑ � Less Than Significant Impatt with Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ■❑ 85 California Drive Less than Significant ❑ � u No Impad � ❑ Setting /1 The project site is located within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Within the Downtown Specific Plan, the majority of the site is located in the California Drive Mixed Use District; the remaining portion of the site is located in the R-4 Incentive District. The project site is predominantly located in the CAR zoning district designated primarily for automobile-related uses, with the remaining portion of the site located in the R-4 District designated primarily for high-density multifamily residential land uses. Discussion a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) As previously discussed, the project would replace an existing automobile service facility with a new automobile service facility. Though a portion of the site is currently zoned R-4 and would require rezoning to CAR, this portion is currently paved and being used for parking and vehicle storage. The project proposes to continue the existing land use on the site. Given this, the project would not result in physical division of an established community; 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, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less than Significant) Within the Downtown Specific Plan, the majority of the project site is located in the California Drive Mixed Use District; the remaining portion of the site is located in the R-4 Incentive District. The project site is located in the CAR zoning district designated primarily for automobile-related 45 Initial Study 85 California Drive uses. The remaining portion of the site is located in the R-4 District designated primarily for high-density multifamily residential land uses. As part of the project, the latter portion of the site would be rezoned from R-4 to CAR. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans or policies, and no impact would occur. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) According to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, the site is not part of or near an existing Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As such, 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 conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur. 46 Initial Study 11 Mineral Resources Issues Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Setting 85 California Drive Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially Impact with Signi�cant Mitigation Less than Impact Incorporated Significant ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impad � // The California Geological Survey (CGS) is responsible under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMARA) for classifying land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) 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 geologic information indicates no significant mineral deposits are present."� This finding is reflected in the San Mateo County General Plan Mineral Resources map. Discussion a) and b) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (No Impact) The project site is currently developed and not used for mineral recovery activities. Moreover, no known mineral resources exist within the project site or surrounding area, as indicated by The Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sectors 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 of value to the region and residents of the state, nor of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impact would occur. ' California Department of Conservation. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/guidelines/documents/classdesig.pdf. Accessed: July 2016. $ California Geological Survey. 1983. Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sectors, Special Report 146, Plates 2.3 and 2.43, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. 47 Initial Study 12 Noise Issues Would the project: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less 7han Significant or Significant Potentially Impact with Signifiwnt Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use � plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private � airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Setting � u 85 California Drive Less than Significant No Impact � ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � /1 � Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc., prepared a Noise and Vibration Assessment for the project in August 2016 (Appendix E). This assessment includes details of the analysis and provides background information on noise and vibration. I►� Noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include residential land uses located to the south along Highland Avenue. The site is primarily surrounded by other car dealerships and service facilities. The nearest noise sensitive receptors are an apartment building that adjoins the site to the southeast and single family residences located across Highland Avenue, about 150 feet from the site. Based on the results of the noise monitoring survey, existing daytime traffic noise levels at the single and multi-family residences were measured to be in the range of 53 to 57 dBA LeQ with maximum ambient levels in the range of 67 to 76 dBA Lmax• Additionally, commercial businesses located adjacent to the project site are considered as well. SFO is approximately 3 miles northwest of the site. The noise environment at the site is dominated by traffic along California Drive, with intermittent high noise levels generated by 48 Initial Study 85 California Drive Caltrain passenger trains traveling on tracks about 265 feet east of the site. Local traffic and existing site activities also contribute to the ambient noise environment. A noise monitoring survey was performed on Thursday, August 4, 2016 to quantify ambient noise levels in the project area. The noise monitoring survey included four short-term (ST) noise measurements in the vicinity of the site. Additional spot measurements were made on site to identify and quantify noise levels generated by existing on-site noise generating activities. Noise monitoring locations are shown in Figure 2. Data collected during the short-term (10-minute) measurements are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Summary of Noise Measurement Data Noise Measurement Location (time) 4�ax 4�� 4�0� 4so� 4�0► 4q Primary Noise Source(s) ST-1: 40 feet from center of California Drive 80 75 71 65 58 68 raffic on California Dr., Caltrain (11:00-11:10 am) ST-2: 40 feet from center of Bayswater Ave, center of block 74 65 60 55 51 57 raffic on California Dr., Local Traffic (11:30-11:40 am) on Bayswater Ave. ST-3: 32 Highland Ave, 50 feet from center of road 67 61 56 51 48 53 raffic on California Dr., Local Traffic (11:50 am -12:00 pm) on Highland Ave. ST-4: 32 Highland Ave., northern fa4ade 76 62 57 53 50 56 raffic on California Dr., Jet (12:10-12:20 pm) Overflight, Local Traffic 5ource: Illingworth & Rodkin, Z016. Notes: Lmax = maximum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period; L�,�. L�lo�. 4so�. 490� = A-Weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period; l.eQ = average A- weighted noise level during the measurement period. The Noise Element of the General Plan sets forth noise and land use compatibility standards to guide development, and noise goals and policies to protect citizens from the harmful and annoying effects of excessive noise. Suggested outdoor noise levels suitable for single- and multi-family residential land uses would range up to 60 dBA CNEL, according to the General Plan. The General Plan also establishes 45 dBA CNEL as the indoor noise level planning criterion. The City of Burlingame General Plan establishes recommended noise emission standards for construction equipment operating within the City in Table 4-6 of the General Plan. The General Plan also states that no construction noise shall be emitted past the property line so as to create a noise level increase of more than 5 dBA LmaX above ambient LmaX noise levels. 49 Initial Study 85 California Drive Allowable hours of construction within the City are between 8:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 6:00 pm on Saturdays, pursuant to the City of Burlingame Municipai Code Chapter 18.07.110. Construction is not allowed on Sundays and holidays. DISCUSSIOri 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) Implementation of the project would increase noise on and off site from existing conditions during the eight-month construction period. The noise generated by construction activities would temporarily elevate noise levels at the adjacent residences and would exceed the Burlingame General Plan Standard (5 dBA Lmax above ambient LmaX levels) within 50 feet of the shared property line with the multi-family residences. However, exposure to construction noise above the threshold would occur for a period of less than twelve months, and would therefore not exceed the Burlingame General Plan standard at the multi-family residence's courtyard. The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in traffic volumes in the project vicinity (see Section 16, Transportation and Traffic, and Appendix F). Project-generated traffic would increase traffic noise levels by less than 1 dBA, and as a result, the traffic noise increase associated with the project would not be detectable. Once operational, service activities would generate CNEL levels of 44 to 47 dBA at the north facing fa�ade of the apartment building, about 35 dBA in the apartment courtyard area, and 37 to 44 dBA at the closest residences across Highland Avenue. These levels would be well below the 60 dBA CNEL criteria. Given the above, the project would not conflict with any local plans and ordinances, and any noise-related impacts would be less than significant. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) A significant impact would be identified if the construction of the project would generate groundborne vibration levels at adjacent structures exceeding 0.3 inches per second peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV) because these levels would have the potential to result in "architectural" damage to normal buildings. Construction activities are anticipated to include demolition of existing structures, site preparation work, grading and excavation, trenching, new building framing and finishing, and paving. It is assumed that pile driving would not be needed for project construction. Project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity of the work area. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 3 50 Initial Study 85 California Drive presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Table 3 Typical Vibration Levels Expected from Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) Approximate L„ at 25 feet(VdB) upperrange 1.158 112 Pile Driver (Impact) typical 0.644 104 upper range 0.734 105 Pile Driver (Sonic) typical 0.170 93 Clam shovel drop 0.202 94 in soil 0.008 66 Hydromill (slurrywall) in rock 0.017 75 Vibratory Roller 0.210 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 bulldozer 0.003 58 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation, Ottice ot Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. Project construction would be located up to approximately 5 feet from the multi-family residential structure located at 32 Highland Avenue, just east of the site property line. Structures located across California Drive and Bayswater Avenue are about 70 to 90 feet from the site. Additionally, the existing portion of the Subaru showroom, which would remain, is located directly adjacent to the site. Construction would be located as close as about 180 feet from residences located across Highland Avenue. Impact or vibratory pile driving is not anticipated as part of project construction activities. Based on the levels shown in Table 3, vibration could exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV when located within 51 Initial Study 85 California Drive about 20 feet of existing structures.9 Vibration levels produced by heavy equipment (vibratory rollers, clam shovel drops) during construction are calculated to be 0.045 in/sec PPV or less at a distance of 70 feet, 0.03 in/sec PPV or less at a distance of 90 feet, and 0.01 in/sec PPV or less at a distance of 180 feet. Vibration levels would be lower at structures located further from the construction and as construction moves away from the outer property lines of the site. Vibration levels during heavy construction may occasionally be perceptible at the surrounding car dealerships and service areas, but would typically be below ambient vibration levels generated during on-site operations and would not approach the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for architectural damage. Vibration levels at the residences located south of Highland Avenue are not anticipated to be perceptible above ambient vibration and, again, would not approach the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold. However, vibration levels at the multi-family building located adjacent to the shared property line adjoining the site to the southeast could exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold when construction activities are located within 20 feet. Vibration levels could also exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold at the existing Subaru facilities when construction activities are located within 20 feet. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The following measures, in addition to the best practices specified in Impact 3, shall be implemented to reduce vibration impacts from construction activities to a less-than-significant level: ■ For all construction proposed to be located within 20 feet of adjacent structures, a construction vibration-monitoring plan would need to be implemented to document conditions prior to, during and after vibration generating construction activities. All plan tasks shall be undertaken under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented to include the following tasks: ■ Perform a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for each identified structure. Surveys shall be performed prior to any construction activity and after project completion and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in structures, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of foundations, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structures. ■ Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site. ■ Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities. 9 These levels are based on calculations assuming normal propagation conditions, using a standard equation of PPVeqmt - PPVref *(25/DJ l�s, from FTA, May 2006. 52 Initial Study 85 California Drive ■ The results of all vibration monitoring shall be summarized and submitted in a report shortly after substantial completion of each phase identified in the project schedule. The report will include a description of ineasurement methods, equipment used, calibration certificates, and graphics as required to clearly identify vibration-monitoring locations. An explanation of all events that exceeded vibration limits will be included together with proper documentation supporting any such claims. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less than Significant) Typically, project-generated noise increases would result from large increases in ancillary traffic or the addition of loud machinery during project operation (e.g., generators). A significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels would occur if the noise level increase due to project-generated noise was 3 dBA CNEL or greater for existing levels exceeding 60 dBA CNEL or was 5 dBA CNEL or greater for where noise levels would remain at or below 60 dBA CNEL. Existing ambient noise levels at the nearest receptors were measured to be in the range of 53 to 57 dBA LeQ, while maximum existing levels were above 60 dBA CNEL. The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in traffic volumes in the project vicinity (see Section 16, Transportation and Traffic, and Appendix F). Project-generated traffic would increase traffic noise levels by less than 1 dBA, and as a result, the traffic noise increase associated with the project would not be detectable. The primary sources of noise anticipated at the existing residences are service center activities, oil deliveries, and vehicle circulation. According to the project plans, both the service center entrance and exit would face away from noise sensitive areas. The service center entrance would be located approximately 25 feet and facing away from the adjoining apartment building; therefore, partial acoustical shielding would be provided from the service building itself. The residences across Highland Avenue would have partial line-of-sight to the service center exit and are located about 190 to 250 feet from the proposed roll-up door location. Assuming a worst-case scenario noise level of 65 dBA LeQduring full service operations at a distance of 50 feet from, and in direct line-of-sight of an open bay, operational noise levels are calculated to be 47 to 50 dBA LeQ at the north-facing fa�ade of the apartment building, about 38 dBA Leq in the apartment courtyard area, and 40 to 47 dBA LeQ at the closest residences across Highland Avenue. These levels would be well below the 60 dBA CNEL threshold. Given this, any permanent increases in noise levels would not be perceptible, and this impact would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less than Significant) Project construction is anticipated to last approximately eight months, of which only six months would involve exterior construction. As described in the Project Description above, all construction would occur between the hours designated by the Burlingame Municipal Code. Project construction activities that are expected to impact noise levels within the project vicinity 53 Initial Study 85 California Drive include demolition, site preparation, grading/excavation, trenching, exterior/interior building, and paving, all of which would utilize heavy construction equipment. In general, the loudest phases of construction would be during demolition and excavation of the project site. During construction, maximum noise levels would vary depending on the equipment used and the distance of the construction activities from nearby sensitive receptors. Table 4 below shows the calculated construction noise levels for each phase of construction at a distance of 50 feet. Table 4 Calculated Construction Noise Levels for Each Phase of Construction at a Distance of 50 Feet Construction Phase 'Typical' Construction Burlingame GP Construction Equipment Emission Levels �q �max �eq 4nax Demolition (14 Days) 78 81 78 80 Site Preparation (60 Days) 82 85 74 75 Grading and Excavation (40 Days) 74 78 71 75 Trenching (10 Days) 74 78 71 75 Building— Exterior (61 Days) 75 81 73 75 Building— Interior (66 Days) Minimal Off-Site Paving (10 Days) 78 80 78 80 Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2016. The nearest sensitive receptors would be at the apartment buildings adjacent to the project site. The maximum construction noise levels would be anticipated to be in the range of 84 to 91 LmaX at a distance of 25 feet and 67 to 74 dBA Lm,x at a distance of 180 feet based on typical construction equipment noise levels. According to the Burlingame standards, outdoor noise levels for residential areas should not exceed 60 dBA CNEL. Hourly average noise levels in the multi-family courtyard area, assuming a credible "worst-case" distance of 50 feet from construction and about 10 dBA of shielding from the building, would be anticipated to be 64 to 72 dBA LeQ based on typical construction equipment, and 61 to 68 dBA LeQ based on the Burlingame noise emission standards. Maximum noise levels in the multi-family courtyard area would be anticipated to be 68 to 75 dBA LmaX based on typical construction equipment, and 65 to 70 dBA LmaX based on the Burlingame noise emission standards. Noise generated by construction activities would, thus, temporarily elevate noise levels at the adjacent residences and would exceed the Burlingame General Plan Standard (5 dBA Lmax above ambient LmaX levels) within 50 feet of the shared property line with the multi-family residences. 54 Initial Study 85 California Drive However, exposure to construction noise above the threshold would occur for a period of less than twelve months, and thus would not exceed the Burlingame General Plan standard. Occupants of the multi-family homes would have the option of closing their windows, which would be anticipated to provide about 20 to 25 dBA of noise attenuation from exterior noise. Construction would not occur during nighttime hours, when residents would be expected to be most sensitive to noise. This analysis assumes that construction activities will be conducted in accordance with the General Plan and Municipal Code guidelines and standards, as described below: ■ Pursuant to the Municipal Code, noise-generating construction activities are limited to the hours of 8:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 6:00 pm on Saturdays. Construction is not allowed on Sundays and holidays. ■ Construction equipment noise emissions will be in compliance with the recommended noise emission standards for construction equipment operating within the City. With adherence to the above-mentioned guidelines and standards, the noise impacts resulting from project construction would be considered less than significant. 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? (No Impact) and � 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 closest airport to the project site is SFO, which lies approximately 3 miles to the northwest. There are no private airstrips near the project site. The project site is not within the SFO's Noise Compatibility Zone. Given this, there would be no impact to people within the project vicinity as a result of excessive noise from aircraft and airport operations. 55 Initial Study 13 Population and Housing Significant or Potentially Issues Significant Would the projeci: Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an � area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Setting J 85 California Drive Less Than Significant Impad with Mitigation Less than Incorporated Significant No Impact ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ � According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 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. As described in the Plan Bay Area Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing, jobs in the City are expected to increase by 33,290 between 2010 and 204010. Overall, the community is becoming 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 (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No Impact) The project proposes to replace an existing automobile service facility with a new automobile service facility at an existing Subaru dealership. The project does not propose any new residential land uses. The Subaru dealership currently has 10 employees and has no immediate plans to hire more employees. The project does not propose the extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth and no impact would occur. lo ABAG, 2013. Plan BayArea: Final Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing. Available at: http://planbayarea.org/pdf/fi nal_supplemental_reports/FI NAL_PBA_Forecast_of_Jobs_Population_and_ Housing.pdf. 56 Initial Study 85 California Drive 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 Impact) The project would replace an existing automobile service facility with a new automobile service facility at an existing Subaru dealership. While the project would require rezoning of a portion of the site from R-4 to CAR, no existing residences are located within the project site. Therefore, neither housing nor people would be displaced by the project and no impact would occur. 57 Initial Study 14 Public Services Issues Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 85 California Drive Less than Signi�cant No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? ■ � � ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ � � ■ � // ►� �� ►/ /1 Setting The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) provides fire protection services within Burlingame, Millbrae, and Hillsborough. Currently, the department operates six Engine Companies and one Truck Company out of six fire stations, with two stations in each city. CCFD's daily staffing consists of seven captains, seven firefighter/paramedics, eight firefighters, and one battalion chief on duty to provide fire, emergency medical services (EMS), and rescue services to approximately 70,000 residents and visitors. The closest fire station is located 0.8 miles northwest of the project site at 799 California Drive. The current average response time across all CCFD stations is 5 minutes and 16 seconds; however, response times to the project site would likely be faster due to the proximity of the California Drive fire station.11 The Burlingame Police Department (BPD) provides emergency services to the City of Burlingame. BPD has one police station located at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The BPD employs 67 total employees, including 39 sworn officers. The average emergency response time between lanuary 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016 was 5 minutes and 41 seconds.lZ Burlingame contains five neighborhood schools that serve Kindergarten through grade 5(K-5), one middle school for grades 6 through 8, and one high school. 11 Rubina Ellam, Administrative Assistant; Central County Fire Department; Personal Communication;luly 27, 2016. lZ Melissa Mortz, Administrative Secretary to the Chief of Police; Personal Communication; July 29, 2016. 58 Initial Study DISCUSSIOri 85 California Drive a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? (No Impact) The project would demolish an existing automobile service facility and construct a new automobile service facility at an existing Subaru dealership. No new residences or businesses are proposed; therefore, the project would not result in an increase in population or employees on site. The CCFD would continue to serve the project site, and no additional staff, facilities, or equipment would be needed as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no impact to fire protection services would occur. ii) Police protection? (No Impact) The project would demolish an existing automobile service facility and construct a new automobile seroice facility at an existing Subaru dealership. No new residences or businesses are proposed; therefore, the project would not result in an increase in population or employees on site. The BPD would continue to serve the project site, and no additional staff, facilities, or equipment would be needed as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no impact to police protection services would occur. iii) Schools? (No Impact) As no new residences or businesses are proposed, the project would not result in an increase in population or employees. As the project would not result in a population increase, or a corresponding increase in school-aged children, no impact to schools would occur. iv) Parks? (No Impact) and v) Other public facilities? (No Impact) Washington Park, located about 0.3 miles northwest of the project site, is the closest public park to the project site. As discussed above, the project does not propose residential land uses and would not increase the population in Burlingame. Thus, the project would not increase in the use of public parks, recreational facilities, or other public facilities, and would not require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities. Implementation of the project would not alter access to parks or public facilities during construction or operation. Therefore, no impact would occur. 59 Initial Study 15 Recreation Issues Would the projecf: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Setting Less Than Signiflcant or Significant Potentially Impad with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 85 California Drive Less than Significant No Impact ❑ � ❑ � Burlingame has approximately 22 recreation sites that consist of 13 parks, 4 playgrounds, a community garden, bocce ball courts, a recreation center, and an aquatic center.13 The 18.9- acre Washington Park is located approximately 0.3 miles northwest of the project site. The 1.1- acre Pershing Park is located approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the project site. Discussion a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Impact) and b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact) As discussed above, the project does not propose residential land uses and would not increase the population in Burlingame. Thus, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities, nor would it require the expansion of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. 13 Ciry of Burlingame Parks and Recreation. Burlingame Parks and Recreation Facilities Guide. Available at: http://www.burlingame.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=10656. Accessed: August 2, 2016 .1 Initial Study 16 Transportation and Traffic Issues Wou/d the project: Significant or Potentially Signi�cant Impact ❑ Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated � 85 California Drive Less than Significant ❑ No Impad ❑ a) Cause an increase in treffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capaciry ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Setting ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ � W-Trans prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project in September 2016 (see Appendix F). The TIA estimates the expected trip generation potential for the proposed project and analyzes the project's potential impacts at proposed access points and on alternative modes of transportation. The study area for transportation/traffic includes California Drive and Bayswater Avenue, which run along the frontage of the project site. California Drive generally runs in the north-south direction and is an undivided, four-lane roadway with two travel lanes in each direction and on- street parallel parking provided along both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour (mph). Bayswater Avenue runs in the east-west direction and has two travel lanes (one in each direction) with on-street parallel parking provided along both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. The project site is located west of US 101 and east of EI Camino Real; both are major traffic . corridors providing access to Burlingame. Transit facilities serving the project site include public 61 Initial Study 85 California Drive transit and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Two major public mass transit operators, the San Mateo Transit District (SamTrans) and Caltrain, provide service adjacent to Burlingame. SamTrans Routes 46 and 292 provide access to the project site. The project site is also approximately 0.25 miles from the Burlingame Caltrain station. The project site is in the vicinity of two major Congestion Management Program (CMP) corridors: along Highway 82 (EI Camino Real) from Trousdale Drive to East Third Avenue, and on Highway 101 spanning from Broadway Avenue to Peninsula Avenue. Both corridors are located less than one mile from the project site. The project site currently occupies two separate parcels that are fully developed with a showroom building, an automobile service facility, an automobile rental office, and automobile storage on a paved parking area. The existing service facility generates an estimated 75 daily vehicle trips-6 during the AM peak hour and 8 during the PM peak hour.14 Currently, the project site is accessed by two full-access driveways along California Drive approximately 70 feet and 150 feet south of the California Drive/Bayswater Avenue intersection, respectively, and two full access driveways along Bayswater Avenue approximately 15 feet and 110 feet west of the intersection, respectively. Discussion a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Less than Signi�cant with Mitigation Incorporated) and b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction The project assumes approximately 300 cubic yards of soil export. All soil would be off-hauled to Ox Mountain (Half Moon Bay) or a similarly appropriate facility. The hauling trucks would access the site by heading south on California Drive from US 101(Broadway interchange), making a right turn onto Peninsula Avenue, a right turn onto Highland Avenue, a right turn onto Bayswater Avenue, and stopping in front of the site. Once full, the trucks would continue down la Estimated trip generation uses standard rates published by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9`h edition, 2012. 62 Initial Study 85 California Drive Bayswater Avenue in order to turn back onto California Drive and proceed in either the north or south direction, depending on the final destination of the off-haul. Soil transport from the site could cause traffic impacts in the vicinity of the project site during construction which would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of a Traffic Control Plan (Mitigation Measure TRA-1) would reduce the impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the project applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan. The Traffic Control Plan would indicate how parking for construction workers would be provided during construction and ensure a safe flow of traffic in the project area during construction. The requirements within the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: truck drivers would be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and U.S. 101, as determined by the City Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress would occur only at the main driveways to the project site; specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles would be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction vehicle ingress and egress; warning signs indicating frequent truck entry and exit would be posted on adjacent roadways if requested; and any debris and mud on nearby streets caused by trucks would be monitored daily and may require instituting a street cleaning program. Operation The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 9tn Edition, 2012 for "Automobile Care Center" (942). Expected trip generation potential for the proposed project is indicated in Table 5 with deductions taken for trips made to and from the portion of "Automobile Sales" to be demolished at the site. The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 125 daily trips, with 26 trips during the AM peak hour and 36 during the PM peak hour. San Mateo County generally requires a traffic report if a project generates over 500 trips per day or 100 trips during the peak hour or where other possible adverse effects are identified.ls Because the project's expected trip generation would be below these thresholds, operational impacts to traffic and level-of-service (LOS) standards would be less than significant. ls County of San Mateo, Department of Public Works — Roadway Services. Tra�c Impad Study Requirements. September 1, 2013. 63 Initial Study Table 5 Trip Generation Summary 85 California Drive Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out Existing Automobile 6 service 12.48 75 -- — -- -- -- -- -- — Care Centera stalls Automobile 2,62 ksf -- 2•25 6 4 2 3.11 8 4 4 Care Center Proposed Automobile 16 service 12.48 200 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Care Center stalls Automobile 14.239 ksf -" 2•25 32 21 11 3.11 44 21 23 Care Center Total Net 125 26 17 9 36 17 19 New Trips a.._.� . _-' `- - - �_�. � - - -'-"---`-- --- ----'�_� r—��'-'--' --- „a��y �a.�� ��� a .,a�,.�..ar .,,��� ,.��,. ����..� ��.,..a��y �u.�� o�� r�...�.."....� .����...��....�... b ksf =1,000 square feet Source: W-Trans, 2016. 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) As discussed in 8e above, SFO is approximately 3 miles northwest of the project site; however, the project site does not fall within any of the airport's "safety compatibility zones" and is, therefore, not considered as being within an area of potential danger involving the operation of SF0.16 No aircraft use would be required for construction or operation of the project. As such, the project would not lead to an increase in air traffic, and no impact would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) With the project, access to the site would change. California Drive would continue to have an existing driveway provide access to the site. The existing driveway located immediately adjacent to the California Drive/Bayswater Avenue intersection would be modified to serve 16 The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 2012. ComprehensiveAirport Land Use Compatibility P/an for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport November 2012. Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploa ds/2014/SO/Consol idated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121. pdf. 64 Initial Study 85 California Drive inbound vehicles only. Bayswater Avenue would have three driveways located west of the intersection of California Drive/Bayswater Avenue: the first driveway would serve outbound vehicles only, located approximately 35 feet to the west; the second driveway would serve inbound vehicles only, located 100 feet to the west; and the third driveway would serve outbound vehicles only, located 175 feet to the west. The changes in access would result in two one-way circulation patterns for the site. Patrons would access the existing car sales use via the inbound driveway on California Drive, just south of the intersection of California Drive/Bayswater Avenue, and outbound vehicles would use the driveway on Bayswater Avenue just west of the intersection. The Auto Service Center would be accessed via the inbound and outbound driveways located 100 and 175 feet west of the intersection, respectively. Sight distance along Bayswater Avenue at the project driveways was evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. Both California Drive and Bayswater Avenue within the project vicinity are relatively flat and straight, and sight lines for the proposed driveways would be satisfactory, so long as parked vehicles along the project frontages do not obstruct sight lines. Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would avoid potential safety impacts at these access points. Mitigation Measure TRA-2: On-street parking to the east and west of the outbound driveways on Bayswater Avenue shall be prohibited by painting red curb for a distance of approximately 20 feet on either side. The project site design has been required to conform to the City of Burlingame and the San Mateo County design standards and the site design is not expected to create any impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists, or traffic operations. The TIA determined that no internal site circulation or access issues have been identified that would cause a traffic safety problem or any unusual traffic congestion or delay. Therefore, impacts associated with potential increases in hazards due to project design features would be less than significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact) The project would be easily accessible to emergency vehicles. All lane widths within the project would meet the minimum width that can accommodate emergency vehicles 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 or access issues have been identified that would cause a traffic safety problem or any unusual traffic congestion or delay. Therefore, impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (No Impact) The project site is located approximately 0.25 miles southeast of the Burlingame Caltrain Station. SamTrans also operates two routes in the vicinity of the project site: Route 292 and Route 46. Transit facilities serving the project site would be expected to adequately serve the proposed project. The project would not interfere with any existing bus routes and would not 65 Initial Study 85 California Drive remove or relocate any existing bus stops. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities serving the project site would be expected to be adequate. The project proposes to reduce the width of some of the existing driveways, which would improve pedestrian comfort on these facilities. Given the above, there would be no impact to plans, policies, or programs supporting alternative modes of transportation. ,. . Initial Study 17 Utilities and Service Systems Issues Would the projecf: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ 85 California Drive Less than Significant No Impad ❑ � b) Require or result in the construction of new � water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects7 c) J1 Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater � treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted � capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs7 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes � and regulations related to solid waste? � � ❑ � ❑ �� ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑� �❑ �/ Setting The Burlingame Public Works Department administers the City's water system. According to the Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND, the City receives its water supply from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) which obtains 85 percent of its water supply from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and 15 percent from local watersheds. The City also uses well water and recycled water for supplying non-potable water used for irrigation. According to the City of eurlingame 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City's average water demand is 3.99 million gallons per day (mgd), or 76 percent of the City's 5.23 mgd allotted supply. Generally, 41 percent of water consumption is from single-family residential uses, 17 percent by multi-family residential uses, 12 percent by industrial uses, 13 percent from commercial uses, 5 percent from irrigation uses, and 5 percent from institutional uses. 67 Initial Study 85 California Drive The City's Public Works Department services the project site's water and 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 Downtown Specific 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 residential 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 infrastructure within the City. The aging downtown system is exceeding design capacity, which makes the downtown area prone to flooding during large storm events. 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 along Myrtle Road. Recology San Mateo (Recology) provides solid waste, recycling, and organic materials collection, transportation, and disposal services to the City of Burlingame. Recology hauls recyclables and organic solid waste to the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos, CA for sorting. The solid waste and recyclables are processed and sent to the appropriate facility. Solid waste is sent to the Ox Mountain Landfill in Half Moon Bay, CA. This facility has a maximum throughput of 3,598 tons per day and had a remaining capacity of 21,180,000 cubic yards (as of December 31, 2015). When the 2001 permit was issued, Ox Mountain Landfill's estimated closure date was 2023.17 The project would require plumbing and electrical improvements to accommodate the new service facility. 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 which includes an existing 6-inch domestic water service line, 6-inch sanitary sewer line, and 6-inch fire service line. The new building would tie-in to these existing lines with a new 1-inch domestic water service line, new 4-inch sanitary sewer line, and new 4-inch fire service line. The project site is connected to an existing 15-inch stormwater line and the new building would tie-in to this existing line to convey stormwater infrastructure with a new 8-inch stormwater (ine. New electrical and gas lines would also be constructed. The project would comply with the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889, as well as the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. DISCUSSIOil a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (No Impact) The project site is fully developed with automobile-related land uses and the project does not propose a change in land use. As a result, no specific changes to the wastewater treatment plan 17 CalRetycle. 2015. Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (OX Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41-AA-0002/Detail. Accessed September 22, 2016. ;�3 Initial Study 85 California Drive would be required to treat these flows. Therefore, no impacts related to the RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements would be expected. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less than Significant) The project site is fully developed with automobile-related land uses and the lot is paved. As discussed above, the new building would tie-in to the City's existing water and wastewater infrastructure. The project would increase water demand and wastewater generation because the square footage of the building would increase from the existing site. Given the proposed improvements for the project, water and wastewater infrastructure serving the project site is anticipated to continue to have capacity to handle the project and would not require construction of additional facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less than Significant) Given that the project would result in a negligible net increase of 397 square feet in impervious surface area on site, existing facilities would be capable of handling stormwater runoff. Additional BMPs per C.3 stormwater requirements, such as bioretention (andscaping areas, would assist in conveying additional stormwater runoff and no expansion of stormwater facilities would be required. The impact would be less than significant. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less than Signi�cant) The project site is currently developed for automobile-related land uses, and has an estimated existing water demand of 13 gallons per day (gpd). From 2011-2015, Burlingame consumed an average of 3.99 million gallons per day (mgd)18. The project is estimated to require an additional 5 gpd (for a total of 18 gpd). According to the Burlingame 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 forthe downtown area are not expected to exceed its total 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. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 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? (Less than Significant) The project does not propose a change in land use. The WWTP located at 1103 Airport Boulevard has an average yearly flow is 3.2 mgd (3,200,000 gpd), and a tota) plant capacity of 18 Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., June 2016. City of Burlingame 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. .� Initial Study 85 California Drive 5.5 mgd (5,500,000 gpd). The project would replace an existing automobile service facility with a larger service facility (increasing the size by over 11,600 square feet), slightly increasing the intensification of the existing use on site. No high wastewater generators would be part of the expanded service facility (see the Project Description). The number of employees at the site would not be expected to increase as a result of the project. Therefore, the generation of wastewater would not significantly increase with project implementation, and this impact would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projecYs solid waste disposal 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, which 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 the existing 15-year agreement at current disposal rates. The proposed project would continue the existing automobile-related land uses. The proposed project would likely increase the overall solid waste generation for the site because the project would increase in size. However, such an increase would be negligible and the City's landfill would continue to have ample capacity for such an increase. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste disposal would be less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact) The project does not propose to change the existing land use, and therefore 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 Burlingame's solid waste disposal requirements, including recycling programs established under Assembly Bill (AB) 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. 70 Initial Study 18 Mandatory Findings of Significance Less Than Significant or Significant Potentially Impact with Issues Significant Mitigation Would the project: Impact Incorporated 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 prehistory7 C ►_� b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a projed are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly7 Discussion C � ❑� � 85 California Drive Less than Significant ❑ ►� /1 No Impact ❑ � � 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 Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The project site is located in a densely developed area and contains no valuable or sensitive habitats. While trees located on and near the site may provide habitat for nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 described above would ensure that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. There is a possibility of encountering buried cultural resources during construction; however, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would ensure that any impacts would be less than significant. 71 Initial Study 85 California Drive b) Does the project have impacts that are individuaily limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less than Significant) The existing project site is currently developed for automobile-related uses, which would continue under the proposed project. The project would have potential impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, and transportation and traffic. Incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Although the proposed project would construct a new automobile service facility that would increase the square footage from existing conditions, such an increase would not be substantial enough to make a cumulatively considerable contribution. Furthermore, the project site is governed by the City's General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and the Burlingame Municipal Code. The project would require a Lot Merger and Lot Line Adjustment to combine four parcels and a portion of a fifth parcel into one, as well as a General Plan Amendment to change the portion of the fifth parcel from R-4 to CAR land use. The project would continue existing land uses on the site and would be consistent with CAR District regulations. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less than Significant) The implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein would reduce all potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the project would thus not result in impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 72 85 California Drive IS/MND � �, �� � � �� �� .��l�^.�� �,�-��'h�.r,- '^�' y'1 � ..��,. .� �, . . �.. �t S �.. •� � ` � ;�. � '�,� ;. , r .� • �, � � �'• ��� T� y-v Fje > +�' •a Y3, /`� . „�� �+y�,, �►. �� ��� . � � .rs��I14SL�;�� � r { ^` �_ � .� „ .'�'.,�r ti ' •.. � .. - ��� < �,' � ` � 3 r � b�''t.� . � A �' � - � ..� , .__ . ! �� � , ' y , �'�� ��� � D '~ ' •T��� _ � ,/ _ ,r�, ., w w, - �- ' n T �� �'� r �' r { �^I ��� ��� �. �F�� , �; �� � ' y �t � r � �, � �' r., .� ► µ � ' c �L' %� w �s. �r j - :� ;� �26.�(<y'�A _ t1 � . �. I' � � � : �. A _ .:9_�� . �c-: � �'' �� �` r . r ' ��.'r4� �. L i � ��� �� , °� � Legend _ Project Site 0� � 660 22� FEET Project Site and Surrounding Land Use Map a . t; _ i�r `. . ._r.,� � � �� � ��' �'r�'� �j � 1 `�" . � . �+.. \ ' .F>,,R,, � • �-.�,. i.r. ; �� �. .�+ ; ��� Source: Google Earth, 2016; Circlepoint, 2016 85 Califomia Drive IS/�4ND � _��. � � � q"� • iE : /�,� : ' � 4� �K���� F� a , , +� ,� ■ .?�w.wr ^ +.�f - . . '� ' � �F �� ��� .� f • R� *1 e�'$ � w �, ' �*M �.�.._ � � - � ^� � , , _ �,��` * ; • �` '�, . ; '' , =°�"�'� �A � .. � � �.�. �� . A�'_����.~�Sf�i � �- Source: Google Earth, 2016; Cirdepoint 2016 . . � �,a 1 � a' -�'�',rx � "���� � � �► � ���, : �_ . t �''' �r�' .�,,;� � � •� ''�� �'`�,-� `� ��. �j1 �'� � 'r ''�"� "' � p ��� T � �� � �� � ,`�. f�� �/' �� � ti� !� ���� / � � ♦ y�}-�' � �, �r� I � •. . ~ ./ ��.� T Legend _ Project Site Short-term Noise Measurement ♦ � , . �'o� .���•i��47 't. ' - `�`r�l� '` ' ! � Jar �, �. . ' .! �`�:�.t. 0� � 660 220� FEET Noise Monitoring Locations � � � �Y.� �I � �� a �''' �� ` !� � �. � � �N ��